The Idea of Latin American Independence is a Joke - Essay Example

Question 2: “The Idea of Latin American Independence is a Joke” Introduction While Latin America stands as an entity unto itself its continued interdependence with outside regions is undeniable. It’s been noted that while not as South Americans own their own television, most at least have access to one; as they view the middle class American commercial programming the very idea of the Western lifestyle becomes embedded in their conscious so that many attempt to immigrate to the United States. Even as Latin America is not a single entity as is the United States, the relative economic disparity between the United States and Latin America naturally lends itself to binary comparisons. It’s this very fundamental connection between the two countries that not only speaks to their immigration patterns, but also extends to the relationships between the governments, societies, and cultures. With reference to both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries this essay explores the extent to which “the idea of Latin American independence is a joke.” 19th Century Beginning in the early nineteenth century European hegemonic rule has been a pervading force in Latin America. Chasteen writes, “One aspect of colonial hegemony has been the gradual acceptance of the Spanish and Portuguese Monarchs as rightful rulers by almost everyone in the colonies” (pg. 97). Indeed, it was in this early period wherein the Portuguese crown was more closely aligned that Brazil than the Spanish crowned, which had been usurped by a foreigner, which contributed to the very language that is spoken today in Brazil, the largest Latin American country. Chasteen goes on to described the complicated relationship between Latin American revolutionary movements and the colonial powers that continued to have a significant hand in their functioning. It’s a telling portrait of a region that despite its claims to independence and liberty has been continually intertwined with its European and North American counterparts, unto the present day. Even when Latin American countries were able to achieve independence from their European colonizers the results were often disastrous. Many liberal governments were established that simply fell or were overturned by forceful measures only a few years after their inception. One of the underlining concerns of this nineteenth century post-colonial period was that between the separation of church and state. This issue has pertinence for the thesis, as the revolutionaries believed that embedded in the church were the values of their former colonizers. Chasteen writes, “the Church represented reverence for colonial traditions in general” (pg. 121). While many regions sought to unshackle themselves from this value system the continued relevance of the Catholic Church is a testament to the continued influence European powers hold over this region. Nationalist Movements While a considerable degree of European influence outlined the nineteenth-century political and social movements within Latin America, the early years of the 20th Century demonstrated a renewed vigor towards independence and a marked shift towards nationalist movements. Chasteen writes, “the nationalists would shatter the neo-colonial bubbles, breath Latin American air, and feel pride when factories made it smoky, because industrialization was the practical goal they all desired” (pg. 214). Previously Latin America had been a divided region. Without adequate transportation between cities and sufficient means of communication, the areas cultural identity was highly splintered. The nationalists movements sought means of uniting Latin America both physically and ideologically against foreign influence. While these nationalist movements didn’t entirely abandon European and American influences – they continued to watch Hollywood films, etc – but through increased acceptance of their culture and self-identity they established a unique means by which Latin American culture, embodied in such things as the Samba and Tango would become an essential export. Mexico: 20th Century Even as the contiguity of the two countries has indelibly linked them physically and economically, the past fifty years have witnessed a relatively fair amount of unstable relations between the regions. Nearly 2/3rds of United States exports into Latin America are received by Mexico (Hakim 2006), and U.S. – Mexico economic relations have always been a substantial element of Mexican sustenance, with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) being an essential factor of late. While the countries have remained economically close, socially and politically they have oftentimes diverged. For instance, Mexico was chastised by the United States for continuing to retain economic relations with Cuba following the United States embargo. Also, when the United States proposed intervention in Haiti at a 1994 United Nations assembly, Mexican President Salinas responded derisively, “Having suffered an external intervention by the United States, in which we lost more than half of our territory, Mexico cannot accept any proposal for intervention by any nation of the region (Merril & Miro 1996)." One of the major questions concerning relations between the United States and Latin America -- particularly Mexico – is whether the U.S. has been beneficial to Mexican economic stability. While Fidel Castro remains fond of laying his nation’s woes at the doorstep of Cuba’s northern neighbor, the extent to which the United States has either helped or hindered Mexican prosperity is a contested issue. While some argue that the United States has had a directly deleterious effect on Mexico’s economy, another explanation holds that it is the increasing levels of foreign debts, unemployment and drug trafficking that are the true causes. The United States has benefitted Mexico by offering essential economic aid. In fact, in 1995 the United States directly aided Mexico to prevent an economic collapse (Hakim 2006). Mexico is also the recipient of nearly $150 billion dollars in U.S. exports, level said to equal American exports to the European Union (Hakim 2006). Conclusion While it’s clear that Latin America exhibits dependence on foreign powers, the question remains to what extent can this be said to be due to the relative instability of many parts of the region, the conscious exploitation of Latin America by the United States and European powers, or merely a fundamental aspect of any nation state(s). Few individuals would deny that the United States has demonstrated considerable reliance on foreign oil, and foreign Chinese investments, yet the United States’ relative sovereignty is rarely challenged. While it’s clear that through much of the nineteenth-century colonial powers and European influences continued to have an impact, even in face of constant revolution, the early 20th century saw the rise of a number of nationalist movements that contributed greatly in establishing Latin America’s unique culture. Today, the complex relationship between the United States and Mexico, as well as other Latin American regions is a subject of constant debate and re-inspection. While Latin America has made tremendous progress there is clearly more that can be done in establishing its true individuality and economic independence. References Chasteen, John. (2005) Born in Blood: A Concise History of Latin America. W.W. Norton and Company. Hakim, Peter. “Is Washington Losing Latin America?” Foreign Affairs, 2006. Merrill Tim L. and Miró Ramón. Mexico: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1996. Read More