Anti-imperialist graffiti in Venezuela. https://popularresistance.org/latin-american-resistance-and-us-imperialism/
The anti-imperialist and anti-Americanist sentiments in question for much of Latin America have been considered as being related to the criticism of hard power and imperial power in general, as well as being from the anger as to the disregard of the imperial superpower nations for the cultural, environmental and political interests of the colonised Latin American population. While this has not been completely rejected and the legacy of Western intervention for these nations can be reflected through the adoption of more western ideals, culture, values and lifestyle, it could be argued that the use of soft power by Europe and the US has been the primary reason for this. This is likely due to its improved accessibility and reduced likelihood of rejection of this. Changes in patterns of migration to "el norte" and the conformity to US media and popular culture are two very clear examples of this. Moreover, this also appears to effectively reflect the position of the US as an "industrial juggernaut, military overlord and cultural omnivore", thus presenting its means of gaining international influence as being highly diverse, yet non-imperial forms of exercising power may perhaps have had greater success in their achievement of this.
Furthermore, another important factor to take note of its the clear contrasts in levels of development across the continent, as well as the political and economic consequences that some nations would experience based on competitivity of markets, contesting of borders, and geographical situation. For instance, the Southern Cone nations of Chile and Argentina are put at greater advantage due to their coastal situations and proximity to various overseas trade routes. This would make them more favourable trading partners internationally as a result. The opposite is true for other Latin American nations that are landlocked, have comparatively smaller populations (much of which being concentrated around urban areas so a lack of appeal for employment in the primary sector-which appeals to investors in the developed world- would be observed) such as Bolivia and Paraguay. This can prove to increase tensions and cause conflicts regarding ownership of resources and the competition with other trading partners within the continent. This would, therefore, prove to explain the uneven development of these nations, as well as the reasons why some of them remain comparatively more underdeveloped than others.
However, once the politics behind this was greater understood by the Latin American population, this foreshadowed the rise in the anti-Americanist movement, and its beginnings by targeting US media. This can be observed with the response to corruption and abuse of power by the US media through Latin American journalists, writers and artists creating a variety of images depicting the US as nationalist, racist and exploitative. This, as is to be expected, is considered as untrue and dissociated from the reality of imperialism in Latin America by the US and Europe. This sentiment has even gone so far to be dismissed by the US as "just an emotion" or a relatively insignificant movement that primarily consisted of misinformed students and revolutionaries. As might be expected, greater coverage on the attacks to specific innocent US citizens or even Latin American establishments that looked similar to those in the US (i.e. the Panamanian owned bar "The Good Neighbour") was evident in US media.
As has proven to be highlighted through Frank's Dependency theory in which many of the Latin American nations are observed as being somewhat underdeveloped and positioned as making up the global periphery, the interactions of these nations with the global north through the development of industry, mercantilism and the establishment of partnerships in international trade after the colonial era, it appears that the only real gains from this imperialism have been for the already globally powerful capitalist superpower nations that have exerted colonial influence across the Latin American continent. This can also be reflected in present day conflict of interests and corruption of spending of development aid provided by the ex-coloniser donor nations in the western world. These have largely been dictated by the vested interests of these nations and as a means of supporting their own capitalist intentions, these perhaps relating more to the establishment of increased international relations that are of direct benefit to them, the provision of military assistance, or through the further expansion of the specific sectors of these nations' economies that provide the products and services which are of the greatest economic interest to these donor nations specifically. This can, therefore, prove to further increase anti-colonial and anti-western sentiments amongst these nations, and, ultimately, prove to exacerbate the current state of underdevelopment which they are in. While this relative underdevelopment, lack of competitivity and increased ease of exploitation of land, resources and workforce for these Latin American nations, would appear to be somewhat economically and politically appealing for the post-colonial western superpower nations, it is a problematic and unnatural position for the nations that had been colonised to have to succumb to.
From a more westernised and capitalist perspective, underdevelopment, as it has been described by Hansen and Schulz, refers to the "stagnation, poverty, unemployment" that has influenced the economic situation of affected nations, and that this was the state that many global south nations were in prior to the colonisation and imperial rule by the western world which could be effectively rectified through their transition to a capitalist society. This, however is a very narrow minded view on the matter, and one which, when being applied to the the development (or lack thereof) for Latin America, has proven to have had very limited success. An alternative and more socialist perspective on the what constitutes underdevelopment, as pioneered by Frank, would be that underdevelopment is not a static process, but one which is ongoing and that had taken place over centuries evidenced through the experienced unexpected and inconsistent peaks and troughs in the global economy over this long period. Equally, another significant flaw posed by the former more capitalist representation of underdevelopment is that an assumption has been made that developing nations have always had the same status and role in the global economy as developed nations, as opposed to them having their own individual part in this as has been made sure of through the prevalence of capitalism globally. It could be argued Frank's dependency may perhaps appear to be somewhat limited in that purely presents for the core and periphery to be two distinct unchanging components to the global economy. This can be observed through this theory perhaps not focussing in depth on the capitalist values which have influenced the way some of the patterns in global economic. These are reasons why Wallerstein's World Systems theory may appear to be a more accurate model in explaining Latin America's development after the colonial era. However, it is clear to see that this theory has proven to have had a significant role in developing perspectives on the exploitation of colonised land by the western world as a result of a variety of social, economic, environmental and geopolitical factors.
Overall, it appears that there is clear conflict of interest and direction of economic intervention in regard to relations between Latin America and the Western World both in the past and present, as well as clear evidence that the historic imperialism in this continent has, to a large extent, been only truly a success for the already wealthy capitalist developed world. The clear rejection of this western intervention and anger at the lack of regard for the interests, culture and environment of the native population has thus proven to explain the clear anti-imperialist and anti-American sentiments having experienced an increase in prevalence during this era and in the present day. These are not purely about fear and anger at changes in culture and dislike for the US, but as a movement against capitalist greed and exploitation of their population, as well as being indicative of the view that soft power (which was much better accepted in Latin American society, hence development through westernisation) is a preferable method of exercising global superpower influences.
References:
Child, J (1979). Geopolitical Thinking in Latin America. Published in Latin American Research Review. 14(2). pp. 89-111. The Latin American Studies Association. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2502880
Hansen, W and Schulz, B (1981). Imperialism, Dependency and Social Class. Published in Africa Today 3rd Qtr. 28(3). pp. 5-36. Indiana University Press. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4186016
Portes, A (1985). Latin American Class Structures: Their Composition and Change During the Last Decades. Published in Latin American Research Review. 20(3). pp. 7-39. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2503468
Pregger-Roman, C.G (1983). Dependence, Underdevelopment, and Imperialism in Latin America: A Reappraisal. Published in Science & Society , Winter, 1983/1984. 47(4). pp. 406-426. Guilford Press. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40402520
Rippy, J.F (1948). British Investments in Latin America, 1939. Published in Journal of Political Economy, February 1948. 56(1). pp. 63-68. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1825031
No comments:
Post a Comment