Emergence of Latin America, Essay Example

The nineteenth century is characterized as the period of Latin America’s “emergence.” What does it mean to say that Latin America “emerged?” How did this process evolve over the century? What were the most significant factors that helped the region “emerge?” What factors restrained it? Respond in an outline form. Begin with a brief paragraph in which you give a brief explanation of what it means to say that Latin America emerged in this period. Next, identify what you believe are the most important large-scale factors in the century. For each of these factors, identify some of the specific points that illustrate the factor, drawing directly on sources read for the class. All parts of the outline should be complete sentences. Be sure to make direct, specific reference to some of sources read for the class. Integrate quotations from the sources within your own sentences.

In the Nineteenth Century, the nations of Latin America emerged and evolved from often overlooked and unnoticed colonies into independent, industrialized, educated nations with a nationalistic Latin American identity. After struggles with imperialism, socialism and failed attempts at liberalization, much of Latin America has finally come to embrace true liberalism, democracy and economic competitiveness. Yet the road to independence and democracy has been a difficult one.

1. One of the largest factors in Latin America’s evolution was its experience with Industrialization.
2. Historically, Latin America industrialized much more slowly than the United States.
3. A model of capitalism that suggested that trade was most efficient when one country produced raw materials and the other purchased these materials to fuel its industries left many US Americans satisfied with the slow pace of Latin American industrialization. Yet it left many Latin Americans unhappy with the United States.
4. World War II pushed Latin Americans toward industrialization as the wartime demand for production increased.
5. Latin American industrialization finally began to pick up and where it did, it boosted Latin American economies, though sometimes industrialization left rural workers and other poor people behind.
6. Nevertheless, industrialization along with trade agreements with foreign nations helped many Latin American countries to pay off their debts.
7. A desire for increased access to education has also changed the face of Latin America.
8. Increasing education was seen as a means to improve equality. Indeed, many leaders made such equality the focus of their campaigns. The Mexican Constitution of 1917, for instance, called for education to be provided for all Latin Americans. Such education, it said, should, “develop harmoniously all the faculties of the human being and shall foster in him at the same time a love of country and a consciousness of international solidarity, in independence and justice.”
9. Women also fought for equal access to education. While traditionally, women were expected to take on only the role of a homemaker, women writers of the time argued that women would be of more use to their husbands and families if they were well educated.
10. One of the reasons many opposed the reign of Porfiro Diaz was that although Diaz spent “more than 2 billion pesos” on government expenditures, he did not use much of it to help the Indians of Latin America. Indeed, according to Keen, no part of the money was used to finance “education that would enable them to take a step toward civilization.”
11. Feminist writers like Amanda Labarca wrote that while feminism had benefitted women to some extent, it had also hurt them. While women, she said, liked to show off their newfound knowledge, men often preferred “the old-fashioned girl.”
12. Nationalism sprang up largely as a reaction to Neocolonialism. It helped bring Latin Americans together, but it also put them at odds with foreign countries, particularly the United States.
13. Nationalism helped unify the people of Latin America. Indeed, Chapter 7 of Chasteen describes how Nationalism helped bring people together with ideas such as that that “everybody belonged,” “the benefits of progress should be shared by everyone” and that everyone ought to help Latin America industrialize.
14. According to Chasteen, “Nationalism was born where Neocolonialism was the worst.” The oppression of long-time dictator Porfirio Diaz led to the rise of Nationalist leader Francisco Madero, who pushed for reforms that included returning native lands to native peoples.
15. Nationalism increased industrialization, but, according to Chasteen, it also increased racism. “Which race?” Chasteen asks, out of all the races present, ought to be considered the race of Latin America?
16. Perhaps, more than anything else, revolution has shaped the new face of Latin America.
17. Latin Americans rebelled first against neocolonial oppression. The Neocolonialists often exploited Latin American lands in exchange for money and better relationships with foreign countries or Rich Latin Americans. Porfiro Diaz, for instance, according to Chasteen, “oversaw a massive sale of public lands.” Most of these went to wealthy land owners or speculators.
18. Nationalists sprang up to challenge neocolonial rulers.
19. After nationalists and liberal governments let the people of Latin America down, revolution replaced liberal leaders with socialists.
20. Emilio Zapata, for instance, in, “Plan of Ayala”, declared the reign of Francisco Madero to be more “hateful and terrible” than the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz.
21. Populists and communists, meanwhile, fought against the oppression of fascist socialists. The enmity between the communists and the fascists was so great that it lead to the murder of beloved communist singer Victor Jara. After a 1973 coup removed the Salvador Allende whom Jara had supported from power, fascists tortured and brutally killed Jara. Indeed, the author of “The Death of Victor Jara,” mention that the fascists “kicked him in the face and an eye filled with blood.”
22. Fiery speakers like Fidel Castro helped mobilize revolutionaries as well as tension between Latin Americans and foreign powers. Fidel Castro, for instance, made the following statement:

The duty of every revolutionary is to make revolution. We know that in America and throughout the world the revolution will be victorious. But revolutionaries cannot sit in the doorways of their homes to watch the corpse of imperialism pass by.

Part of Castro’s success, then, was his ability to paint outsiders as the enemy.

By the early nineteenth century, a “cleavage” was beginning to appear between Spaniards and Creoles in the colonies. The division in colonial society was perceived differently among Latin Americans and by outside observers. How would you characterize the way the divisions in colonial society was perceived, based on the writings of Lucas Alamán and Manuel Belgrano (Keen’s, Docs, 1 and 2, Ch. 11) and the German scientist Alexander von Humboldt (“Problems and Progress in Mexico”). Write an essay of about 500 words, drawing directly on these sources. Integrate quotations from the sources within your own sentences.

By the early nineteenth century, a strong division began to grow between the Spaniards and Creoles in Latin America. The writings of Lucas Alaman, Manuel Belgrano and Alexander von Humboldt show how society viewed this division.  Von Humboldt describes the conflict from the point of view of Mexico. Mexico, he says¸”Is the country of inequality.” Indeed, says Von Humboldt, “Nowhere, does there exist such a fearful difference in the distribution of fortune, civilization, cultivation of the soil, and population.” Those who suffer the most from this division in his view are the Indians who are “banished into the most barren districts, indolent from nature, and more still from their political situation.” The same conditions exist throughout much of Latin America.

Alaman believes that the division was largely the fault of the Creoles.  The Spanish, in his view, were successful; because they knew they had to work for their wealth and did so. They often came to live with relatives and were, according to Alaman, “ready to gain fortune by every kind of productive labor.” No peril, distance or climate put them off.  Therefore, he says, they were able to occupy, “Nearly all the principle posts in the administration, the Church, the Judiciary, and the army. They also controlled commerce, and they able to “secure fortunes” with which they could invest in businesses, farms, or other ventures. Their success in business also made them more appealing to women or the fathers who gave them away, and thus the Spaniards were able to make better matches than their Creole counterparts. These things, say Alaman, lead the Creoles to resent the Spanish among them.

The Creoles, meanwhile, according to Alaman, came from families that already had modest fortunes, because they had been very economical. Because these fortunes were already earned, the Creoles became both lazier and prouder than they ought to have been. They scorned jobs that were from a lower class than they required and at the same time, they squandered their fortunes. They were, therefore, according to Alaman, “in a few years ruined. They would then look for desk jobs that paid just enough to let them live. Therefore, says Alaman, “Although the laws did not establish any difference between these classes of Spaniards, or indeed with respect to the mezitos born to either class by Indian mothers, a distinction came to exist between them in fact.”

Belgrano, meanwhile, buts more blame on the Spanish. He recounts his disgust at the realization the heads of agriculture, industry and commerce were all Spanish merchants with little knowledge of anything but monopolies and profit. “My spirits fell,” he says, “and I began to understand that the colonies could expect nothing from men who placed their private interests above those of the community.” The government, he says, stamped out schools that they believed might make colonies more difficult to manage – even when they realized that individuals could benefit from them. In fact, the government cared so little for the citizens of Latin America that it failed to train armies and the colonies eventually became easily dominated by foreign invaders.

Here, Belgrano paints the Spanish elite as the problem, rather than Creole citizens.

Imagine you have been asked to write an essay for the opinion page of a newspaper on the role of the United States in Latin America from the 1840s through the first decade of the twentieth century. In particular, the newspaper wants a strong, clear, insightful assessment of the United States’ role in this period. You are asked to make a judgment of U.S. actions. The editor would like to see your first paragraph that summarizes your interpretation.

From the 1840s to the first decade of the twentieth century, the United States brought great help and great harm to the people of Latin America. It was an enemy during times of war, and a great trading partner during times of peace. The desire of the United States to compete with European Powers as a colonial empire and the idea of Manifest Destiny lead to United States Annexation of Latin American lands. Furthermore, while the United States did provide Latin America with a market for its exports, trade between the two entities was tainted by intentional exploitation of Latin American resources and sometimes its workers. Finally, US anti-communist sentiment may have helped prevent communism from spreading throughout Latin America, but at the same time it gave rise to strong fascist governance and oppression.