Time and rules have been transforming countries in many ways; especially, in the 1850’s and the 1920’s, when liberals were firmly in control across Latin American region. Liberalism can be defined as a dominant political philosophy in which almost every Latin American country was affected. A sense of progress over tradition, reason over faith, and free market over government control. Although each country was different, all liberals pursued similar policies. They emphasize on legal equality for all citizens, progress, free trade, anti-slavery, and removing power from church. Liberals declared promising changes for Latin American’s future. But Latin America had a stronger hierarchical society with more labor systems, nothing compare to the United States societies. Liberals weren’t good for Latin America. What I mean by “good” is the creation of a turning point or some type of contribution towards success. I define “good” as beneficial or helpful. The Latin American economy was stagnant between 1820 and 1850 because of independence wars, transportation and the recreation of facilities. I describe this era as, “the era when Latin America when off road”. The era of liberal rule was bad because Latin America seem to go nowhere during this time. The economy devastated during the 1800’s after the war of independence. Liberals wanted to create a healthy economy in Latin American regions. Instead, they cause economic decline. For example, the silver mines in Peru. The mines were suffering all kinds of problem; the most important was the high cost of machinery. They weren’t able to produce benefits because they had more expenses than profits. They needed capital to invest money from, but the region was full of land labor. There was no one ... ... middle of paper ... ...on because most of Latin America states depended on import and export tariffs. They needed import and export tariffs to charge high taxes in order to create a healthy economy. But there were no import or exports trades to tax from. These factors weaken the economy, there was no other solution but to borrow money. In most cases borrowing money was fatal because there was no money to pay back. Most liberal governments often defaulted by borrowing money. In conclusion, the liberal era wasn’t good for Latin America because it created economic devastation in most regions. Liberal leaders had promising changes, but they failed because they didn’t had the resources or allies. They fail to create political communities and equal citizens. Liberals attempt to break the colonial patterns and follow European trends, but Latin America societies were not ready for these reforms.
Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated racism and economic exploitation, and paved the way for all-consuming, cultural wars in the centuries to come.
Around the year 1850 conservatives ruled the roost for most Latin American nations. However there was a dividing force that drove a wedge between the people of Latin America. International trade on a regular and large scale had become the focus of national markets. This pushed many liberal ideals to the forefront of business and in turn politics. The main idea behind this is the simple fact that money talks and at the time liberal leaning policies were more business and trade friendly.
...icies from past Presidents. Furthermore, it was strongly detrimental to Latin America, for the reason that it eliminated the possibility of increasing Latin American exports to the United States, thereby destroying the hopes of Latin American countries focused upon President Nixon’s policy of “trade rather than aid.” During this time, the government justified itself by proclaiming that the United States needed to focus on avoiding involvement and learning from the mistakes made in Vietnam. All in all, over the course of the presidencies of Monroe, Roosevelt, FDR, and Nixon, the U.S. intervened in Latin America numerous times. Now, was it the right thing to do? At those specific points in time, the government thought so. Various arguments can be forged over the suitability of the actions of the U.S. during these times; however that is a discussion for another time.
The Allies’ victory in WWII marked democracy’s triumph over dictatorship, and the consequences shook Latin America. Questioning why they should support the struggle for democracy in Europe and yet suffer the constraints of dictatorship at home, many Latin Americans rallied to democratize their own political structures. A group of prominent middle–class Brazilians opposed to the continuation of the Vargas dictatorship mused publicly, “If we fight against fascism at the side of the United Nations so that liberty and democracy may be restored to all people, certainly we are not asking too much in demanding for ourselves such rights and guarantees.” The times favored the democratic concepts professed by the middle class. A wave of freedom of speech, press, and assembly engulfed much of Latin America and bathed the middle class with satisfaction. New political parties emerged to represent broader segments of the population. Democracy, always a fragile plant anywhere, seemed ready to blossom throughout Latin America. Nowhere was this change more amply illustrated than in Guatemala, where Jorge Ubico ruled as dictator from 1931 until 1944. Ubico, a former minister of war, carried out unprecedented centralization of the state and repression of his opponents. Although he technically ended debt peonage, the 1934 vagrancy law required the carrying of identification cards and improved ...
...s a conflict between the two during the story. During the time the book was written there was a large conflict between two opposing parties in real life. “The liberals were fighting for fair treatment of all classes and equality among the people. It was a time in which the rich got richer at the expense of the poor and the poor and working class were unwilling to take it any longer. It was a time of revolution. The conservatives saw the revolutionaries as tyrants and fought them at every turn” (Allende). Latin American culture is also shown with many political references. Also, at the beginning of the book the scene is taken place in a catholic church. The catholic religion was a large part of the Chilean culture and all people had some sort of belief. The Chilean culture also believed that there was a belief that goes past the belief of visible existence (Allende).
Harry E. Canden. , & Gary Prevost, (2012). Politics Latin America. (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
... a great contrast to the most apparent feature of the Western Society. The Westerners created new political ideologies never seen before, resulting in neither an absolute or dictatorial structure. The Catholic Church still remained an intricate part of the Latin American life and continued to provide a key cultural adhesive throughout the Latin civilization, as the Western Societies role of religion lost popularity. The loss of interest in the church was partly because of the rising popularity nationalism and socialism provided as competition for the church. Lastly, The Latin American economy depended mainly on their agriculture and consisted of each country developing a cash crop or mineral specialty, while industrialization left an immense imprint on the shape of society in Western nations, by creating new specialty professions which required extensive training.
...l power in Latin American. The United States didn’t engage in classic direct imperialism which is colonialism, but engage in indirect imperialism which focused on controlling and intervening in the economic and social institutions of Latin America. The United States only cared for their economic well-being. They didn’t care the suffering the people of Latin America were going through. The United States only cared that their economic interests were thriving in Latin America. The policies the United States government undertook clearly show this. The policies of Roosevelt’s corollary and Taft’s dollar diplomacy only mention the United States’ interests. There is nothing about the Latin American’s interests and well-being. Many people suffered because of the United States’ policy that only supported and protected the rich and powerful corporations.
Neoliberalism is a form of economic liberalism that emphasizes the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalized trade, and relatively open markets. Neoliberals seek to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the political/economic priorities of the world and are generally supporters of economic globalization. During the 1930s and the late 1970s most Latin American countries used the import substitution industrialization model to build industry and reduce dependency on imports from foreign countries. The result of the model in these c...
There are many legacies of colonialism that impacted the development of Latin American republics. As well, many of these legacies still thrive throughout modern Latin America. A legacy that impacted Latin America and still continues to affect it, is the change that colonialism caused with ancestral knowledge. Before colonialism, many parts of Latin America were inhibited by many tribes such as the Mayans. As colonialism swept through these parts of Latin America, these tribes started to diminish because of the “growing and ecological strains”, when this occurred, tribes disbanded and ceased to continued. Now these societies which once flourished, has not gone back to the way that it once was. One of the most profound legacies is religion in Latin America. The Catholic church had a part in the development of the continent. Missionaries helped build premises such as schools, hospitals and other buildings which benefited the communities. Even with the help they provided, missionaries also did harm. They caused people to change the way the practiced their religion. The aspects of the way religion was practiced before changed for the worst. The people had to entirely alter how they practiced religion and by doing so, many parts of their true identity needed to be forgotten. Lastly, colonialism
Latin American Independence was the drive for independence from Spain and France by the Latin American people. There were many contributing factors that ultimately led to the uprising of Latin American colonies. Europe's strong hold on the economic and political life of Latin America, was creating friction between the Latin Colonies and the European nations. Eventually, this would become enough for the Latin American people and the drive for independence from France and Spain would begin.
Latin America’s independence kicked of with the independence of Haiti. Before the the independence movement that overtook Latin America, Haiti had gained independence twenty years before the movement. The Spanish Empire had been in decline for a period of time after the rise of the English empire and many failed battles on the Spanish (class notes). The French Revolution and the American Revolution had inspired many of the Latin American countries to fight for independence (Chapter 3). They were inspired by the Enlightenment that washed over Europe. Of the inspired, one man stood out and took the movement by heart.
While laissez-faire policies are considered liberal in the Roaring 20's, the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 quickly changed America's view of liberalism. Suddenly, the small government politics of Hoover were conservative and the progressive politics of Roosevelt were considered liberal. Thus, because the Great Depression quickly changed America's view of liberalism, Roosevelt can be considered a liberal and Hoover a conservative, despite occasionally supporting similar policies. Because the Great Depression occurred during Hoover's term as president, in the public's mind, Hoover started his presidency as a liberal and ended it as a conservative. With the end of the Progressive Age in 1910, big business flourished because Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover kept government from intervening in the economy.
In the wake of WWII, the western world was in a state of perpetual fear. After seeing Marxist influence make a shocking impact wherever it landed, the rise of the Soviet Union, the 26rd of July movement in Cuba, and numerous other revolutions with the goal of radical social and political reforms, the world was divided by two mutually exclusive and hostile ideologies: capitalism and Marxism. The two major superpowers of the time, the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union were at opposite ends of the spectrum. The Marxist revolutions of Europe and Russia gave inspiration to many Latin American revolutionaries. The U.S. wanted to ensure that communism and leftist regimes did not spread, particularly in Latin America, where leftist regimes would especially threaten U.S. business interest. The U.S. for over a century had been imperializing Latin America under a series of façades and in the mid-20th century, McCarthyism became the new catch-all excuse to interfere with the affairs of a sovereign nation. Under the guise of containing the spread of communism, many Latin American governments that tried to deviate from the practice of serving U.S. interest were overthrown with the funding and instruction of the U.S. It was with the watchful and accusing eye of Uncle Sam looming over Latin America that in 1970, that Unidad Popular candidate, Salvador Allende, was democratically elected President of Chile. Even before Allende assumed the presidency, oppositional forces were conspiring to destroy him, everything he was to accomplish, and the pro-working class ideology that he represented. The events that occurred in the three years that his presidency endured and which lead to the coup d’état of Pinochet were the product of U.S. hostility towards any t...
Populism refers to the political philosophy that pits the downtrodden masses against the apathetic ruling elite. La Moral refers to the conformity to the code of conduct set by employers. Modernization is the transformation from a traditional, rural society that primarily relies on agriculture to an urban, industrialized society. The emergence and flourishing of modern society has been inextricably linked with the development of industries, infrastructure and cities. Sociologists and political analysts agree that “urbanization and industrialization were the main causes of populism in Latin America.” (Conniff and Roberts 6)