Why a Social Revolution?

Summarizing a historical analysis of Latin America's first steps toward Insurgency

Thomas O’Brien’s Making the Americas is a great comprehensive historical analysis of the relationship between Latin America and the United States and how this relationship both transformed Latin America and positioned the U.S. as a global power. The book is an amazing read and takes us from the beginning stages of empire building in Latin America to the upheaval that started cutting those colonial strings. In this blog post I want to focus on a couple of interesting points in the book, specifically chapters 1-3 and 6 (Respectively entitled: Encounters to Expansion, Civilizing Empire, Defending Empire, and Nationalism, Communism and Modernization). Also, chapters 8-9 (Dictators & Revolution, and Insurgency and Insolvency) speak to the consequences of the U.S. trying to overpower a region of the world where they are not always welcome.

The first topic I found interesting throughout the book is the definition of “reform.” In starting this course I defined reform in comparison to revolution. Reform does not necessitate revolution, but revolution necessitates reform. Either way both require a sort of amelioration of sorts, or a reconstruction of existing structures. This book speaks to the United States’ “global mission of reform.” The way in which the United States defined reform included a desire to “fix” the deficiencies they saw in Latin America. Why did the United States want to expand into Latin American territory? The argument is that Latin America not only had something to offer (resources), but could benefit from the teachings of the United States. This argument of superiority persevered through the entirety of Latin American-U.S. relations and it is what led to a lot of the disagreements in the Americas and the eventual upheaval of many Latin American countries.

The deficiencies the United States saw in Latin America can take a gendered, political, racial, economic or cultural lens. Every aspect of living in Latin America was scrutinized by the United States. Big American companies coming in affected the economy. The United States sprung into action by militarizing numerous countries as the fear of communism spread. In these areas, along many others, the United States made its mark. The need to “Americanize” other countries sets the stage for much of the resistance that arose outside of the United States.

As the U.S. declared a War on Drugs that spread to Latin America, and as ties to dictatorial regimes grew stronger, the United States became a nuisance to the public it occupied. It seems that setting up military occupations in places like Nicaragua and El Salvador, the pervasive infiltration of Protestantism, the active aversion to and opposition of Communism and a strong tourist market shook up Latin America and incited social revolution. The attempts to “civilize” Latin America’s religious beliefs, political beliefs, cultural ideologies and economic structure lasted long enough to incite movement. This was the beginning of the end to U.S. dictation of Latin American politics.

In all, I think O’Brien brings up a great argument about reform (which is important to understand before arriving at the issues of revolution). One of his points is that America’s initial need to help Latin America was not in itself an evil plan, though it is just a form of benevolent colonialism in my perspective. In fact, the danger lies in attempting to reform but being unwilling to listen to the needs of Latin Americans. The complex of superiority did not allow the United States to hear what Latin Americans wanted or their own ideas of reform. Ultimately, this leads to a power dynamic that will leave one group inevitably discontent. Discontent, furthermore, is the beginning of suspending complacency and joining movements of social revolution.