American Empire

I found this weeks readings quite interesting as I have always been interested in the idea of "American Imperialism". In the text Dawson remarks how The United States claims to be at its core an anti-imperialist nation, however in action it seems to be anything but. Over the course of US history it has been largely expansive and the idea of manifest destiny has been quite prevalent. However military conquest and colonialism have not been the method of choice for US expansion/domination in Latin America. While military intervention has been used multiple times, economic and cultural domination seems to be the norm, whether intentional or not who knows. I would say that the economic domination is an intentional aspect of many American policies. Creating markets for US products and finding secure stable sources of resources is paramount during this period to American interests. This policy of economic domination obviously leads to discontent within the nations of Latin America and aids in stirring up discontent. Though supported by local oligarchies and business interests who stand to gain from such policies, many of the lower levels of society may not be as content or willing to toe the line. Augusto Sandino in the Political Manifesto makes it abundantly clear where he stands on the idea of US involvement in Nicaraguan affairs. He remarks on how he is born from the "bosom of the oppressed". He is a patriot and loyal citizen of his beloved homeland Nicaragua and pledges to fight against those who he believes have sold the soul of the nation away. He calls those in power snakes, and lambastes them for going over to the enemy as he puts it. The enemy in this case being the United States. He describes the flag of Nicaragua hanging limply and needing to be torn from "the claws of the monstrous eagle with the curved beak" This period of history marks the beginning of US hegemony as far as economics are concerned. The US decided that they would not allow other major powers a hold in the "backyard" so to speak and took steps to ensure this. Despite what the nations of the area desired. As I mentioned the cultural domination seems to have come with the economic part and parcel. As the economies of Latin America became more intertwined with the US so to did their cultures. This also angered many who saw this as weakening and sometimes destroying the cultures of these nations. Even to this day the spread of US culture seems to be unstoppable. Globalization has led to an ever closer link between the nations of the world and those with the most abundant production of culture seem to over power all else. This leads to resentment and discontent by many and may have caused many of the conflicts of today.

To Roosevelt

Of this weeks readings the one I found most interesting was the poem "To Roosevelt". This piece is quite interesting because it is a departure from the letters and manifestos that we usually read. However that being said To Roosevelt is still a manifesto of sorts. A dare to the North. Ruben Dario specifically addresses his poem to Roosevelt, one of the most iconic US presidents and almost an avatar of the United States. By doing this Dario creates a target for his complaints and is able to direct it at the people of the United States as represented by Roosevelt. The United States at this time seems to have become the new boogie man. They have replaced Spain in the eyes of Latin Americans as an imperial power, threatening their liberties. The language used throughout this poem reflect that sentiment. Dario calls Roosevelt "Alexander-Nubuchadnezzer" men who have conquered, calls him Hunter. The prose used throughout the poem bring to mind a great man striding across the Americas making the ground quake and the peoples tremble. However Dario states that Latin America, Spanish America, will not be so easily cowed. They are a thousand cubs of the Spanish Lion roaming free. I find this comparison quite telling because now decades after independence this Latin American poet is using the fact that they as a people are descended from Spain as a qualifier which distinguishes them from the United States. Where once they fought to be free of Spanish tyranny they now call upon their Spanish heritage as a sort of defense of the tyranny of the United States.

Chapter 4

The most interesting part of this weeks reading for me is the idea of the ends justify the means. This quote sums up the idea prevalent in the text quite well.
       “It was better that a little blood should be shed that much blood should be saved. The blood that was shed was bad blood; the blood that was saved was good blood. “Peace was necessary, even an enforced peace, that the nation might have time to think and work. Education and industry have carried on the task begun by the army.”  These are the words of the Mexican president Porfirio Diaz as he conducts this interview. He speaks of the times before he is made president and the actions he and many others took to restore order in the "lawless" Mexico in the early 20th century. These tyrannical actions were conducted in order to establish a properly democratic order. Or so it is stated by President Diaz. Later in the text the interviewer states the various wonders of the Mexican Republic. Her industry, mines, railways, banks, harbours, drainage systems, electricity, trolleys. All these modern innovations brought to Mexico. The end that has resulted from the means. All this growth and wonder fueled by an export based economy.  These exports were used to pay for manufacturing and other products desired by the latin american nations. Well Mexico may have had an export balance in its favor this came at what cost? According to the text many parts of the country were in abject poverty and close to rebellion. Political opposition in exile, a strange contradiction to the statement in the interview where Diaz states he would welcome a political opposition happily. This text is very important because it shows a very skewed and biased view of the events of the time. Only by reading both in concert do we get a sense of what is going on behind the scenes and propaganda.

Citizenship and Rights in the New Republics

This weeks readings focus on the different groups that made up the new republics of Latin America and the struggles they undertook for citizenship and rights. The last two readings I will focus on because one is a direct rebuttal to the other and I believe they show very well a distinct battle of sorts being fought in Latin America.
             The first written by Maria Eugenia Echenique is a manifesto of sorts directed at the women of Latin America. I would say that this work is directed in particular at middle class women. I say this because she speaks of women who need philosophy and education of a practical and sensible time. Education was at this time reserved for the upper and the newer middle classes. Maria likens women to slaves, slaves to the tyranny of men. I bring this up because it is a description in direct contrast to the description in the rebuttal. Maria believes that women are needed to help smooth the path of civilization and are necessary for civilization to advance in general. I find this statement remarkable in comparison to the thought of the period. The building of civilization was a male dominated act. Science, engineering, math, religion, these and many other "civilized" acts were lead and driven by men as was "right" as was set out by god. SO for someone, especially a woman, to declare that women were vital to the advancement of civilization must have been quite a shock and seen as absurd to many.
              The rebuttal written by Josefi na Pelliza de Sagasta illustrates how absurd this idea was considered by many. Here is a woman who many would argue has the most to benefit from emancipation writing why woman should not be emancipated. Where Maria says women are slaves to mans tyranny, Josefi claims they are masters of their domain. However a domain defined and ruled in turn by men. She claims that the beauty and greatness of women comes from and is accentuated by the dominion of man above them. They have been placed in these positions by God and that to change so presumes too much. I believe that the rebuttal highlights the difficulty of the battle that many who desired the emancipation of women had to fight. It is not as simple a battle of women versus men, but also of women versus men and women who were quite content in their societal positions. Once again these documents show that history is not a direct linear progression with clear "lines of battle" between opposing forces. But much more blurry and difficult to define.