Read the indented paragraph on page 265 of MLAH. It is a quotation from a 1954 report on the CIA. Then review and reflect on the six pages you have already read from Lars Schoultz about the 200-year set of prejudices US policy-makers have held toward Latin America (these are pages 274-280 in MLAH).
Post a comment on the blog describing an episode from the article you read in the Unit 1 Readings that illustrates the consequence to Latin America of US policy and prejudice during the Cold War (1945-1990).
Be sure to put your class list number in brackets at the start of your comment. Due by 5 PM, January 15.
[15] From my Unit 1 Reading of Alliance for Progress: Guatemala, the placement of a democratically elected nationalist leader and pro-American dictator in Guatemala represents both the prejudice to Latin Americans during the Cold War and the consequences of US policy implementation. By putting two ‘democratic’ leaders in charge and promising to transform Guatemala into a showcase of capitalist development in Latin America, the U.S. is undermining the previously held government of the country. Obviously, U.S. policymakers saw previous Guatemalan government and lifestyle as inferior.
ReplyDeleteBy implementing the two new leaders, the U.S. created a sequence that led to internal ruin. The Alliance for Progress aid coincided with the rebirth of grassroots organizations in the 60’s, which created competition leading to anger, revolt, and violence within the population. While fighting communist threat, the U.S. created a counter-terror movement that halted modernization and ignited warfare.
[14] I read the Alliance for Progress article about Guatemala and an episode that illustrates the consequence to Latin America of US policy and prejudice during the Cold War are the modernization projects carried out by Catholic Action and USAID. After seizing power in Guatemala, Castillo Armas brought in Foreign priests who worked with Catholic Action, an organization of lay Catholics, to begin developmental projects in Guatemala that would weaken traditional Mayan practices and cause them to convert to Christianity. USAID (US Agency for International Development) cooperated with Catholic Action and the foreign priests and supported the Mayan conversion missions and other community and developmental projects. USAID provided resources that Catholic Action did not have so their projects could be completed.
ReplyDeleteThe United States supported the rather forced conversion of the pagan Mayans to Christianity, a more acceptable religion and lifestyle. They attempted to steer Mayans away from their "barbaric" lives, a clear example of prejudice, and they used their policies and organizations such as USAID to do so. These forced community developmental projects strained Guatemalan social structure and disrupted the balance of power by helping to increase the influence of certain political parties and organizations.
[23] I read the article entitled, "The United States Intervention in Guatemala" by Laura Moye. I was greatly surprised by the lengths the United States has gone throughout history to combat Communism. I knew from previous classes that the United States had combated Communism, but had no idea the work and resources that were used in just one country. The United States was successful in overthrowing the government in Guatemala, but I agree with Laura that it stemmed from a paranoid fear of Communism. I think Eisenhower and his administration during this time did not have an adequate understanding of what was really going on in Guatemala and "jumped the gun". A lack of understanding generally stems to prejudice. Based on the United States prejudice and lack of understanding, they felt they needed to take a stand against Communism in Guatemala quickly. The Communists were certainly influential in Guatemala, but were not in a position of power. I think the United States intervened too early. The United States intervention raised several questions about their involvement under international laws.
ReplyDelete[18] I read the article on the Alliance for Progress: Guatemala. Although, the US had done many interventions to prevent Communism in Latin America, what caught me most off guard was the Loyola Program. The US Foreign Assistance Act required US officials to choose the people to be a part of the program to lead to political development. The prejudice was selecting the Guatemalan participants who would be able to organize their community development projects. Teachers, Union organizers, university students, radio broadcasters, government officials, and potential politicians were chosen mostly from the Christian Democratic Party. Other occupations could not participate in the program due to the possibility of it “being the road to communism.” For example, some people believed that it was better off for peasants to not learn how to read and write. The prejudice of the certain occupations and whether you were rich or poor lead to the paranoia of communism. Although, the US made used many different interventions to avoid Guatemala and the rest of Latin America to become a country of communism, I agree with Samantha and thought that the US intervened early and had caused controversy with their involvement
ReplyDelete[12] I read the article, Alliance for Progress: Guatemala. After reading the article I learned that the US really tried helping Latin America for example they came up with the Alliance for Progress. However it failed and it exacerbated class, ethnic and religious. In return it caused nothing but grief and conflict. Also I feel that it caused some prejudice feelings between the US and Latin America. Also while reading some other comments posted I agree with [23]. I also think that maybe the US did respond to quickly to communism. They tried to help but I don't know if they did it the right way. They maybe didn't have a full understanding of what was going on. Also we know that not having a full understanding of something or someone can tend to lead to being prejudice. Also another thing that I learned while reading was that the Eisenhower administration replaced elected leader, Jacobo Arebenz with a dictator in Carlos Castillo Armas. That right there shows a tremendous amount of prejudice towards Latin America. Another form of prejudice was most of the land that had been expropriated by the Arbez administration was returned to wealthy farmers. In the article there were many forms of consequences to Latin America and forms of prejudice.
ReplyDelete[9] After reading the article "Alliance for Progress:Guatemala", I believe that were some very blatant acts of prejudice on behalf of the United States. First of all, by placing democratic leaders that would follow the United State's advice, is a prejudice in itself. This shows the Latin Americans that the people who were previously leading their government were inadequates and that the United State's ideas were "better." Furthermore, like Katie described, I also noticed a prejudice in the selection of committees. For example, it was Catholic priests that organized village improvement committees. Peasants were also looked down upon. Overall, it is apparent that the United States involvement in Latin America during this time began several controversies.
ReplyDelete(17) I read the article titled “The United Stated Intervention in Guatemala” by Lauren Moye. After reading this article I both agree and disagree with Moye when she says how the U.S intervened in Guatemala from fear of communism and that they shouldn’t have reacted so quickly. The U.S may have intervened out of fear but had they not intervened at that time and had they waited longer things could have gotten worse and it may have been to late then. Lars Schoultz mentioned in the reading on prejudices that the U.S felt Latin America was inferior and that they were discriminated against and in a way I can believe that one reason the U.S intervened in Guatemala was because they wanted to show how powerful they were and maybe in a way say to the Guatemalan Government that they were better than them and that their beliefs were right. But I don’t feel that the U.S did anything wrong.
ReplyDelete-Tina
[11] I read the Alliance for Progress: Brazil article. At the end of the article, it talks about how during the 1960s, the United States did not want to appear soft on communism. Peter Wydon, coined the term "Gook Syndrome", after the Bay of Pigs Invasion failure. Wydon says of the prejudices of United States that " they tend to underestimate grossly the capabilities and determination of people who committed the sin of have not been born Americans, especially "gooks" whose skins are less than white." This prejudice and anti-communistic fervor led to the Alliance for Progress, which was created for democracy and development, however, turned into economic warfare, in such places as Brazil.
ReplyDelete[16] I chose to read the article Alliance for Progress: Guatemala. At the time I believe that the US thought they were doing the right thing and never meant to be prejudice towards Latin America, but in the end Latin America didn’t see it that way. Some of the programs that were setup were intended to help the Guatemalans get ahead and steer them away from communism. Unfortunately the programs failed and it caused a lot of tension. I think that the US needed to go slower. They came in with some really great ideas, but they went about it all wrong. This wasn’t something that was going to change over night and I think that’s what some of the US officials thought, which ultimately caused the programs to fail. Instead of trying to change the people’s way of thinking and living all at once they needed to take it one step at a time and try and fix some of the smaller issues first in order to get everyone on the same page. The US basically told Latin America that what they were doing was wrong and their way was better. I think the US should have taken smaller steps instead of invading Latin America all at once. I related what the US did to an everyday situation. Someone may think they have a really great idea and they go ahead and share that idea with someone else, but the other person immediately says that the idea isn’t that great and points out all the reasons why and tells them what they should do instead. This is what I felt the US unintentionally did to Latin America. I understand why there would be tension and why Latin America would feel that the US was being prejudice.
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest prejudices that I found was allowing Catholic priests to organize village improvements. Half of Guatemala was made up of Mayan Indians. I think religion is always a touchy subject because no one wants other people to think they are saying someone else’s religion is inferior. By allowing Catholic priests to come into these villages we were saying that we thought Catholicism was better. I think the USAID knew exactly what they were doing by allowing the priests to come in; they knew that the priests would try and convert the Mayans. I think the US had good intentions and didn’t mean to come off as being prejudice, but that is what happened; they needed a better way to go about stopping communism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[22]I read the article Alliance for Progress: Guatemala. During the time of Catholic Action, the priests that were hired realized that the USAID was trying to keep information from the people of Guatemala. They formed their own committees to teach the people about poverty as well as how to read and write. Before the priests spread the word about teaching others to read and write, labor contractors found it very easy to trick Indians into working on their cotton and coffee plantations. The Indians hated coming back every year to work in the fields in the extreme heat and terrible living conditions. But because they were illiterate, the labor contractors had them sign their life away, which demanded they came back each year. As literacy spread, it became harder and harder to contract the Indians to do the work. Eventually, labor contractors had to raise wages to get workers. This shows a large prejudice against the Indian people. The labor contractors knew they could not read and did not understand the terms of their working conditions, so they took advantage of their skills and hard work to take care of their plantations.
ReplyDelete[5] Having read the Alliance for Progress: Guatemala article, it is even more clear that prejudices towards Latin America have greatly influenced U.S. policy. Guatemala was viewed as a backward country, which is a highly prejudiced viewpoint that ignores the need for understanding of its social and political systems. The U.S. took upon itself to bring what they considered "primitive" people into the modern way of thinking by creating the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). It is clear that policy makers believed that these people were so naive that they would follow any political movement, and if the ideas of democratic powers did not reach them first, they would easily fall to the Soviets. The United States, especially the Kennedy administration, viewed these people as extremely volatile and prone to revolution, and this sort of distrust directly reflects the ages old racist points of view towards Latin Americans. Surely if these events would have happened to developing countries full of white Caucasian people, U.S. policy would have been much different and would have taken on a more humanistic approach.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[2] The communist scare led to the Alliance for Progress, which was created under the need for democracy and development in Brazil, but eventually it turned into what the article referred to as 'economic warfare'. The article The Alliance For Progress: Economic Warfare in brazil(1962-1964)potrayed American law-makers as a paranoid people. Their main concern about Latin America was to get enough white people into the Brazilian goverment so they can further avoid the communist threat. US Policy-makers assumed that because Brazil spoke a language other than English, they could easily be swayed and the US better step in and change their government for them.
ReplyDelete[21] I read "nation-building in the land of eternal counter-insurgency: Guatemala and the contradictions of the alliance for progress." I can't say I was completely surprised by what I read, it seems that once again the U.S. Government took a potentially good idea and ruined it with hasty implementation. It seems that the U.S. government was more concerned with getting the programs started before communist ideals took a foot hold, that they did not think about the effects the implementation would have on the region and it's people. Teaching the laborers to read, a potentially good idea lead to labor shortages due to the unfair contracts that had previously not been understood. Also the U.S. Government allowed a take over of an elected official, backing instead a puppet dictator. The article says "U.S. officials were not prepared to let the peaceful revolution run it's course in Guatemala...the Kennedy administration could have signaled to the gautemalan military that it would not support a military coup designed to prevent the holding of the next presidential election...but because the candidate most likely to win ...was...a leftist nationalist...Washington gave Colonel pedaled Szurdia permission to seize power." (pg. 64). This proves that the hastiness of U.S. Officials counteracted the potential good that the Alliance for Progess aid was producing.
ReplyDelete[10] I read the article Alliance for Progress: Guatemala. After reading this article it is more apparent that prejudices dictate U.S. Policy in Latin American countries. The U.S. wanted to get the Guatemalan people away from communism. To do this they replaced the elected nationalist leader with a dictator that was pro-American. The U.S. wanted to use Guatemala as an example of capitalist development. With this action the U.S. sent the message that the Guatemalan people did not know what they were doing. The U.S. policies failed and actually caused the revolutions that they were trying to prevent. Prejudices that Guatemala was a "backward" country arose because diplomats constantly referred to it this way. USAID wanted the "primitive" Mayan Indians to integrate into the national fabric or the country would fall to communism. These types of prejudices lead to failed policies and prejudices against the people of Latin America.
ReplyDelete[24] I read the Alliance for Progress article about Guatemala. Prejudice actions could be found all throughout the article, but I am going to concentrate on the Loyola Program. This program offered training to selected leaders from Latin America. The only problem was that the program was focused on democratic leadership. We were forcing upon the way we do things, not giving them the option to choose for themselves, fearing they might choose and option we did not like. This is why we attempted to control as many elements as we could. The selection process of these candidates probably involved the most prejudice. We chose the candidates that we knew we would still be able to control after they left the program. The candidates were selected from teachers, students, union organizes, radio broadcasters, government officials, and politicians. This shows prejudice against other fields of work saying that they are not good enough to be selected to take part in the Loyola Program. The majority of these selections were from the Christian Democratic Party, leaving the groups behind. This way we could train them and hopefully when they return, they would get into a position of power and implement our democratic system in their towns. A good number of them were able to do this, becoming mayors of their towns. Overall the Loyola Program showed prejudice against the status of the people and the beliefs of the people.
ReplyDelete[20] I read the Alliance for Progress: Brazil. The United States focused a plan around the poor in the Northeast territory of Brazil with the fear communism would spread from there. This prejudice not only of the poor but is one that is of people who are not white. This is from Peter Wyden. Alliance for Progress ended up having the United States work with conspirators leading to the fall of Brazilian democracy. Economic warfare was the reason for failure.
ReplyDelete[1] Most dealings with Latin America from the United States government can be associated with either a slight or major prejudice to the people of Latin America itself. For the most part the administrations are using Latin America for their own gain and safety not to protect the citizens of the country, or enable them for a better lifestyle. An example of this would be when the Eisenhower administration replaced a democratically elected nationalist, and replaced him with a Pro-American dictator. The land that was for the people was taken from then and given back to the wealthy farmers, and an Us-based multinational corporation. Despite these changes which the United States promised a “capitalist development” really only enabled a few to rule over millions of poor workers. The prejudice here is that no matter what Latin America, especially Guatemala at the time in 1950’s did they would still be unreliable and watched over from the United States to enforce their strategies that would benefit and protect our country. While they did this towards the early 60’s after stopping guerilla movements, the attitude towards the current government was leading towards the violent revolution that the United States feared for some time.
ReplyDelete[19] I chose to read Alliance for Progress: Guatemala. I found it very interesting that while the United States seemed to be only thinking of loosing control of Guatemala as it had wiht Cuba; the Catholic Church stepped in with missionaries to help the people try to gain some independance and take care of themselves in the mist of all the controversity of the arguing governments.
ReplyDeleteThis I feel is a better way of trying to rebuild a nation then what was purposed by the United States government. In my opinion our government was only interested in controlling and conquering the people of Guatemala not helping them to stay free and independent.
The United States has a long history of being extremely prejudice towards many other countries by exerting their power to maintain control. It is very strange how we welcome people from all areas into our country but feel they are not able to self govern themselves in their own countries.
[7] I have to try this again because I just realized that the comment I posted yesterday isn't here.... I read both Alliance for Progress: Guatemala and The United States Intervention in Guatemala. The intervention of the United States in Guatemala and the overthrow of Arbenz shows the United States prejudices toward Latin America. They felt the need to intervene showing they felt superior to Latin Americans. Prejudices after the overthrow of Arbenz also formed toward the United States. Some people of Guatemala saw the United States as power hungry and were angered by the United States decisions. This is a perfect example of how misunderstandings of situations or people form prejudices.
ReplyDelete[6] I read Alliance for Progress: Guatemala. Development Assistance Programs:
ReplyDeleteThe U.S used this to capture the attention of Guatemalan workers and peasants in order to try and get them away from the guerrillas. In 1961 all Latin American countries except Cuba signed a charter at Punta del Este to set specific goals to get rid of the social, economic, and political development of the region over the next decade. Latin America failed to meet any of the goals that were set for them in a year concerning development of their regions. The U.S was trying to help them with foreign-aid to achieve their goals, but this only put a bigger gap between the working peasants, and the upper class. Riots of the workers started breaking out on the streets, and people started a revolution between the peoples. It was stated that “Unless basic social and political reforms go hand in hand with economic growth, increased output may simply widen the gap between rich and poor, increase social tensions, and create the ingredients for a political explosion” (Alliance for Progress: Guatemala P 3). With this said Latin America was expecting a huge political outbreak if something was not solved.
Part 1.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your blog comments. They were often dynamic.
I want us to remember the first weekly email in which I pointed out that we view others and history through the same lens as we view daily life, through a combination of experience, family, and education. Education is a wide-ranging term. It doesn’t mean just school. It means the absorption of information however it comes your way. In your world, TV, movies, video games, cell phones and iPads are primary sources of information and that is where you get perhaps most of your education. I raise this to ask you to think about what the United States means to you. When the national anthem plays, what’s in your mind? When America comes up in conversation how do you feel? Generally we are taught to feel proud. We’re taught that America is the best nation on earth, that it is the land of opportunity, freedom and equality. Importantly, we consider it the best democracy on earth. We receive that information from all the sources mentioned above, and we carry these notions around as basic understanding of ourselves and our place in the world.
For those of us who study U.S. history, or who want to become lawyers, it is required to learn the contents of what are called the founding documents: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These documents give America its legitimacy as a democracy and its special role in the world as a model to follow. You’ll remember the basics of the period in the 1770s and 1780s when these documents were written. There were 13 colonies under the control of England. England began squeezing the economy of the colonies with new taxes and military drafts that the colonists objected to. Perhaps the most famous phrase is “No taxation without representation.” Based on many other conflicts between England and the colonies, a group of men now called the Founding Fathers gathered in what they called a Continental Congress where they imagined the best possible form of government they could. By “best” they were thinking about justice, prosperity and happiness for all citizens. The Declaration of Independence was the first statement of their ideas and their intent. The most famous phrases are:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Interpreters of these words have long summed them up as expressing the right of self-determination for all people. Human beings are equal under God, and deserve happiness as they can acquire it. To do that they form governments and those governments are legitimate, which is to say legal, when “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This is the essence of democracy. Also, whenever any government becomes “destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”
Part 2.
ReplyDeleteThese are core ideas in our sense of the United States, in our pride and also our prejudice. Below are some quotes from the comments you made in the blog.
“…the US replaced the elected nationalist leader with a dictator that was pro-American.”
“..we were forcing upon them the way we do things, not giving them the option to choos for themselves.”
“…the US forced conversion of the pagan Mayans to Christianity.”
Clearly the US was not respecting the right of self-determination for Guatemalans. Because you and I are US citizens and we love our country, we don’t enjoy seeing it acting in a manner contrary to our ideas about it.
“I think the US had good intentions,” wrote one of you. But what seems to have been those intentions?
“The land that was for the people was taken from them and given back to the wealthy farmers, and a US-based multinational capitalist corporation.”
“During the time of Catholic Action, the priests that were hired realized that the USAID was trying to keep information from the people of Guatemala. They formed their own committees to teach the people about poverty as well as how to read and write. Before the priests spread the word about teaching others to read and write, labor contractors found it very easy to trick Indians into working on their cotton and coffee plantations.”
Imagine for a second how you would feel if this was a fact:
‘Guatemala replaced the elected nationalist US leader with a dictator that was pro-Guatemalan.’
How do you think Latin Americans view the United States? Most people respond that obviously they love it because they break in illegally to be here, and it seems that all who can get here legally do so. But that confuses the issue. The US economy is the biggest on earth and as you know illegal immigrants come here to make money to send back to their families. They know where they are and they mostly call it the empire. As it turns out, everybody knows the US is an empire. Google ‘US Empire’ or ‘American Empire’ and see how many tabs come up. The question is not whether the US is an empire or not, the question is whether there can be such a thing as a “good empire.” Think about Rome, what comes to mind?
Policy analysts, historians and other intellectuals debate that question endlessly. It’s an extremely important question, but as a student studying Latin America it’s crucial for you to imagine yourself on the short end of that stick, as a Mayan peasant for instance, because the purpose of requiring a non-Western history class is to present another lens in a way that stretches you to imagine seeing through it.