WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED ABOUT THE ECONOMIC REALM OF LIFE IN LATIN AMERICA?
Post your response in two well-developed paragraphs. Include at least two quotes from class sources and one quote from an out-of-class source in your response. Please include your name(s) in the body of the post and be sure to comment on other posts as required by your teacher. In-text citations (internal references) and a works cited (same page and post) should also be included. Mr. Macy’s students should identify one writing standard of focus associated with each posting.
STUDENTS IN CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA: Thanks for joining our conversation! Please feel free to provide any thoughts you have about this theme. We would love to hear about your real-life experiences. Please also feel free to comment on our postings. Postings in any language are welcome!
ANNA B. PER. 1
ReplyDeleteMost of Latin America’s revenue came from agriculture. Crops like potatoes, sugar cane, and coffee were best sellers. Haciendas were the main structure of agriculture, based upon laborers that worked day in and day out to produce high-demand crops. These laborers are “are of Indian blood or are mestizos in whom the Indian element predominates” and “many of them are held upon the estate in bondage” because they simply can’t afford another lifestyle due to discrimination and economic realities (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1923hacienda.html). This document is from an outside source so it isn’t very biased and shows all aspects of life in the haciendas, including harsh realities that even though the dominate mexico, they really don’t produce that much revenue.
It is evident that Europe had much influence over the economy of Latin America. The prime example is the panama canal. Even though it was inside the territory of Latin America, they needed to “grant to the United States in perpetuity, the use, occupation and control of a zone of land…of said Canal.”(http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1903panama.html) . They are also completely on their exports to Europe. Even though they won their independence, the economy is completely dependent on Europe’s economy. This document
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAP world Per 1: Laura Galloway
ReplyDeleteDuring the early modern era countries around the world were trying to boost themselves up the in world economy and make themselves known. In order to do so many countries entered new lands for new resources "Interventions have become more frequent with the expansion of frontiers." (Francisco Garcia Calderón:"Imperialism of Decadence"). This document says how Imperialism was inevitable and its point of view is in favor of the explorers.
Spain and Portugal went to Latin America and quickly took over. Once in Latin America the Europeans used all its resources to their advantage. The Europeans made the natives their slaves so that they had cheap labor to produce crops and other resources for themselves. "Only runts whose growth was stunted will lack the necessary valor, for those who have no faith in their land are like men born prematurely. Having no valor themselves, they deny that other men do" (Our America Published in El Partido Liberal (Mexico City), March 5, 1892) This document talks about the influence of Europe in the Americas and how if you fall behind you will be taken over. The point of view is in favor of the natives.
The Europeans also found silver when they conquered Latin America, which they were then able to trade with other countries and become deeply involved with the world trade systems.
Through Europe's conquering of Latin America they were able to boost themselves up in the world economy, at the expense of the natives, and become predominant in the world.
Megan V
ReplyDeleteBloom
pr.1
"Latin America was rich in minerals, oil, and other important resources." (http://historyworld.org/latin_America_Europe_transplante.htm) (Allen Pikermen) Latin America experienced "The Great Boom" In which their economy "boomed." Trading lots of goods such as bananas, coffee, wood and wheat. Due to The Great Boom Latin America was able to make them selves expand in world trade and become very successful. "Industrializing Europe stimulates Latin American economic growth," (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3873460/The-Consolidation-of-Latin-America-1830---1920) The only problem with them becoming more dominate in trade they became dependent on Europe again is some way. Our text book says "these economics were particular vulnerable and in some ways dependent." The upper statement is supported in our book as well.
Both these documents reveal that Latin America was rich in raw materials and such which attracted Europeans. The second document states that even though Latin America was becoming more independent they could not escape Europeans controlling their trade in a way. The Point of View with both docs is simply historical and not biased. I've learned that even though a country becomes independent we are always dependent on other countries for goods. And sometimes those other countries can take over our trade and use it to their advantage more then ours.
Taylor R.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Bloom - Period 6
Someone could say Latin America was off to a rough start when formed. As the years went on, the amount of revolutions continued to increase due to the fact that the government was so corrupt. Foreign leaders from the west were attempting to rule, and unify the colonies. Once South America had gained their independence from Spain and Portugal, by the mid 1820’s many revolts became a trend in these newly independent nations. Simon Bolivar had high hopes and dreams to unify South America but many independent colonies struggled with civil wars, which depressed their economies. He states in his Jamaican Letter, “Because of our physical geography, the vicissitudes of war, and the unpredictable effects of politics, we are susceptible to the same uncertainties marking the history of the other nations,” (Bolivar). Wars were continuously being fought which disturbed their trade with Europe. The Americas also contributed lots of raw materials to the market of trade. And by the 1830’s, Geographical factors such as the Andes Mountains and The Amazon, as well as cultural differences defeated any attempts at unification, which ultimately lead to strife of their new economy.
As time went on the Latin Americas independence from Europe lead to an increase in poverty. Wars continued to devastate the cities and countryside. Eventually, the U.S. became heavily involved by implementing their ways of life into those of Latin America. They had wanted to continue to depend on foreign nations for capital and economic investments as referred to in “The Colossus of the North”. By this time the U.S. had dominated the affairs in the Americas. We took away about half of the Mexican Territory and this lead to the infrastructure of the Panama Canal. The Panama Canal increased trade tremendously, and made it easier for everyone to access new markets. That wasn’t enough and soon after in 1823 The Monroe Doctrine was administered. This document enforced the separation of Europe and America, stressing the independence that America wanted from Europe. It states that "the American continents ... are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers" (Monroe).
The writings of Simon Bolivar: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103542492
Monroe Doctrine: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?page=transcript&doc=23&title=Transcript+of+Monroe+Doctrine+%281823%29
Taylor Rauch
ReplyDeleteMrs. Bloom - Period 5
Anna, I completely agree when you state that it is evident that Europe had much influence over the economy of Latin America. And that one major example would be the Panama Canal, as I referred to in my blog. The Panama Canal was in Latin Americas’ territory but it was run and funded by the Europeans. Even though the Europeans ran it, it allowed everyone in this region to access new markets which overall lead to an increase in trade of their raw materials. These colonies were completely dependent on their exports to Europe. It seemed as if it was the only stable income. Creating this canal linked the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, which ultimately lead to international maritime trade.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJessie W.
ReplyDeletePeriod 6/ Bloom
Economy
Although during the 18th century the European traders relied on Latin America for raw materials (Example: triangular trade), but during this new era of imperialism and revolution, Latin America and other countries from the America’s such as Brazil became dependent on Europeans to purchase their goods. Most of Brazil’s export economy was controlled by European merchants and they became a major consumer and provided many manufactured goods. People during this era believed Brazilians to be very wealthy. The fazendas, or the coffee estates in Brazil (interior), were a major export for Brazilian trade. Dependency on foreign markets became an issue in the future for Brazil, being that they will lose chances of developing an internal economy. Although certain countries in Latin America declared independence, they were still thought of as a source of wealth to European countries and were struggling to benefit. United States took over parts of Latin America, just proving that the America’s were controlled by a rapidly growing global economy, “If it should become necessary at any time to employ armed forces for the safety or protection of the Canal, or of the ships that make use of the same, or the railways and auxiliary works, the United States shall have the right, at all times and in its discretion, to use its police and its land and naval forces or to establish fortifications for these purposes” (Panama Canal). This exemplifies that no matter how hard these indigenous peoples attempted to pull away and declare independence, Latin America and South America still relied on European and outside nations to develop and sustain their economy.
During the “amazing race” to grab land and become wealthy, the America’s were a big destination. European powers such as Spain and Portugal relied on the Americas for raw materials and other sources for themselves to gain power. But revolution rose due to the undeniable social unrest. Now that European’s did not rely on the America’s for their wealth and materials for they had developed much more of an industrial economy, Latin America and South America grew a dependency on Europeans that became an only choice to provide what was needed. Economic exploitation was the main reason for the foreign control of the economy. “The British executive power possesses all the authority properly appertaining to a sovereign” (Boliviar). Therefore the European control felt inevitable for the government to succeed in the economy without the Europeans because they were not ready to face the globalized trade market.
Panama Canal, “Convention Between the US And Panama”. Web. 16 Mar. 2011.
Boliviar, Simon. “Message to Congress”Web. 16. Mar. 2011.
Jake Hutcherson
ReplyDeleteBloom 6th
Although in the past European nations relied on raw materials from the Americas, Latin American countries became increasingly dependent on goods ship over from Europe. Their economy began to be based around these European goods. They relied heavily on outside involvement for the development of railroads and similar projects. The Latin American countries had very little internal improvements, they were always controlled by outside sources, mainly European.
This proved to be a major problem for the Latin American countries goal of complete independence. While they were technically independent, they relied almost completely on the European Economy. They had no choice but to participate in trade with Europe. The Panama Canal also was a problem because European trade was focused around this region. Clearly, dependence on the European trade network prevented the Latin American countries from developing their own economy.
Amanda D.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Bloom
Period 1
During the 19th century in Latin America, a mass production of crops began; bananas and coffee in Central America, tobacco and sugar in Cuba, coffee from Brazil and wool and wheat from Argentina. This may have been due to the use of haciendas which were “the most conspicuous feature of the land system of the country” (Fordham.edu: The land systems of Mexico). The downside was that these structures required mass labor, which were usually the Indians and mestizos and were treated poorly. The workers are “usually allowed a milpa, a piece of land for his own use, and this may provide at least a part of his living” (Fordham.edu). The article suggests that 10,320 laborers left Latin America in search for a better life. This information is supported with our textbook but the textbook does not provide as much detailed information as the article. Also, this article was written by George McBride and doesn’t have a biased point of view. He shows both the good and bad aspects of the haciendas.
After the Spanish-American War, Latin America was left in horrible condition. This was when “ the respective rights and interests” (ourdocuments) of the United States in Latin America started to get involved. Because of this intervention, the Panama Canal was constructed. President Theodore Roosevelt was a major force behind the canal. It increased trade and made it easier to exchange goods. This canal was a major engineering accomplishment. It showed the United States advancement in technology. Our textbook also says that the “the United States were proud of these achievements and hoped to demonstrate the superiority of America” (World Civilizations). The information from the article described America’s “isolation” from Europe. It states: “In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so” (ourdocuments). Therefore, this document shows a strong point of view. The author of this article wants nothing to do with the European powers and he makes it clear in this article.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1923hacienda.html
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?flash=true&page=transcript&doc=23&title=Transcript+of+Monroe+Doctrine+%281823%29
World Civilizations: The Global Experience, 6th Edition.
Katie L
ReplyDeleteBloom P.6
Once the new nations of Latin America had gained their independence, they were almost immediately flung into the world economy. After their independence had been granted, the allied powers knew they couldn’t touch Latin America politically, as stated in the Monroe doctrine, “It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness” (Monroe Doctrine), but this didn’t mean that they couldn’t interfere with the new nations economically through the global trade system. Brittan was one of the first European nations to become involved in Latin America’s new trade system.
It wasn’t long before Latin America became very dependent on the manufactured imports from Brittan. These manufactured goods were traded to the Latin Americans for raw materials such as sugar cane. Brittan was only the first of many nations to become involved in trade with Latin America. France and the United states were quick to follow Brittan. It wasn’t long before it was noticed that “Essential points of difference separate the two Americas” (Calderon). The Latin Americans often found the North Americans interfering with their business of economics. The involvement of the United States in their economy such as “The United States [recent] [intervention] in the territory of Acre, to found a republic of rubber gatherers” (Calderon) was often criticized. These dependences of European imports and the interventions of the United States hindered Latin America from becoming the truly independent nation they intended to be.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?flash=true&page=transcript&doc=23&title=Transcript+of+Monroe+Doctrine+%281823%29
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1913calderon.html
Konnor Propst
ReplyDeleteAP World
Period 1
Economy
As is shown for the past couple of months we have learned on how Latin America at this time was a hot spot for economic purposes. When Spain and Portugal first settled there and Cortez tried to conquer the vast empires in the area, they were there for one thing, economic purposes such as gold and spices. Then, Europe became heavily reliant on Latin America in the triangular trade, in which raw materials such as spices and tobacco were sent to Europe. Now, in this time period, Spain and Portugal seized lands in the Americas in order to gain from this economy. As time went on however, the Americas began to heavily rely on European powers for their economies to keep going well. This quote shows it well, "Industrializing Europe stimulates Latin American economic growth," (The Consolidation of Latin America, slide 14). This shows how the Americas started to become dependent off of the European economy.
At this point in time, Latin America was not in a good spot, they were dependent on the European powers for their economy but at the same time wanted independence from them and then the Monroe Doctrine further confused the situation. It seems as if this was a reoccurring theme in history, lower countries would become dependent on their rulers but at the same time want to be free. Bolivar states here, “we are susceptible to the same uncertainties marking the history of the other nations,” (Bolivar). He shows how their fate maybe the same of that of other countries in the past. By this point, the Monroe Doctrine restricted trade with that of Europe, which hurt the Latin American economy massively, and, the lower classes of Latin America rebelled and wanted independence although they relied on them. Economically, Latin America was not in a good situation at this time.
Sources:
The Consolidation of Latin America
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3873460/The-Consolidation-of-Latin-America-1830---1920
Bolivar
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103542492
Konnor Propst
ReplyDeleteResponse to Amanda D.
I agree with your first paragraph in which you show how Latin America at this time had many raw materials that the world wanted. In my post I talk about how these materials made Latin America an economic hot spot for the world. And that is why so much confusion was created in control of it. I also agree with your second paragraph, and I like how you integrated that of the Spanish-American War. You also stated how Latin America was "left in horrible condition." They were being restricted by the US and now their economy was in trouble because of the Monroe Doctrine. I also liked how you brought Teddy Roosevelt into it and used a source from him. Good Work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWill Stinson
ReplyDeleteMs Bloom – 3rd Period
Latin America was perhaps most independent from the Western world economically. Even though they relied heavily on European resources and trade, they had a very different economy than the Western economy. Because Latin America had numerous resources not accessible in Europe, they became a necessity to Europe. This interdependence allowed Latin America to almost become a profitable region.
However, this interdependence was not evenly distributed, because Latin America was only producing products that were needed in Europe, they weren’t producing food for their own population. This created a heavier reliance on Europe for essential resources. This imbalance is what prevented Latin America from becoming an economic superpower. The lack of unity between nations also prevented that. The Monroe Doctrine also severed Latin Americas trade, causing their economy to decline.
Hanna S.
ReplyDeleteBloom Period 1
Theme: Economic
Latin America was a relatively weak group of nations with a predominately agrarian dominated economy and underdeveloped communication and transport. There was an obvious absence of technological innovation and invention in Latin America that contributed to its substandard economic status. Throughout the nineteenth century, there remained patterns of economic dependence on foreign nations for capital investments. European industrial capitalism ultimately crippled the colonial world as uneven wealth distribution increased and class divisions grew more pronounced. Colonial patterns left the Latin American economy in a “Mid-century stagnation” until more European ideals were adopted and western Europe began to demonstrate economic imperialism with a “drive for markets, raw materials, and outlets for surplus
capital.”
Fortunately, the new “neoliberal economic reforms” inspired by the enlightenment endorsed open markets and individual freedoms that helped increase the export of goods. Even though there was room for economic expansion with the introduction of open markets and port cities began to develop slightly, there was adverse reaction to the economic growth. The economic boom damaged regional industries and internal markets, ultimately widening the gap between economic classes at the expense of the working class and peasantry, worsening conditions.
http://history-world.org/latin_america_europe_transplante.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199711--.htm
John Remington's response to Taylor R. is presented in this blog post:
ReplyDeleteTaylor, I like how you structured your paragraphs. You start off very broad, but factual and get more and more precise as the paragraph continues. Your expertly placed quotes from Simon Bolivar's writings make me swoon with the utmost sincerity. Your use of the ASKDJFLKADGHASLKJ. Sorry. My cat sat on my keyboard. Your use of the Monroe Doctrine sent me into a state of rapture. I agree that even though the US built the Panama Canal, our patriotic tendencies demanded more. Thus giving Europe the Monroe Doctrine.
Hailey N
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
In the 19th century, Latin America produced many crops. Some of these crops were bananas, coffee, tobacco, and sugar. These many crops were born in different parts of Latin America like, Cuba, Brazil and Argentina. The economies of Latin America were unstable to say the least. This could be due to many reasons, including “physical geography, vicissitudes of war, and unpredictable effects of politics” (Bolivar). The constant outbreak of wars disrupted the trade Latin America had with Europe. Many geographical features such as the Andes Mountains and The Amazon defeated all unity they had attempted to achieve. This led to a complete devastation to the economy.
As wars depleted the countryside and cities and poverty rose to a high, the Americans became thoroughly involved in the Latin Americans everyday life. “The Colossus of the North” demonstrates that the Latin Americans had wanted to depend on foreign nations for capital and economic investments. The United States took control of Latin America, by taking most of Mexico and control of the Panama Canal. The Canal made trade much more accessible to other countries and new markets. An account regarding to the Panama Canal states that “the united States [had] the right … to use police and its land” for protection of the canal (Panama Canal). This proves that Latin America always had dependence on Europe and other foreign nations.
During the era from 1830-1920, Latin America was largely abandoned as the western world reaped the enormous benefits of the second wave of the Industrial Revolution. Although politically independent, the economies of Latin American nations still reflected their colonial structures as vessels intended for nothing more than raw material extraction and sale. There was no manufacture. There were no favorable trade terms. There was no opportunity for Latin America to endorse manufacturing due to European monopolies. In supplying raw materials and fueling the Industrial Revolution, Latin America sealed its fate and ensured economic subservience for centuries to come.
ReplyDeleteIn BolÃvar's "Jamaica Letter," which highlights the lack of opportunity afforded to Latin Americans and adopts a negative opinion of European intervention, Americans are subject to a status no greater "than that of mere consumers," and destined to an occupation no greater than "digging in the earth to mine its gold." Similarly, "Domingo Sarmiento highlights the hopeless inability of the Americans to resist the European economic influence in "Life in the Argentine." Seen as nothing more than "the other barbarous, American" people incapable of industrial prowess, these American barbarians were delegated to the job of agricultural production and mineral extraction.
World Civilizations: The Global Experience, 6th Edition World Civilizations: The Global Experience, 6th Edition.
James Maroney
ReplyDeleteBloom Period 5
One of the largest aspects of the Latin American economic system were haciendas. As stated by Modern History Sourcebook “haciendas are settlements complete in themselves. Few of these estates have less than a hundred, while many of them have as many as a thousand inhabitants.” Now to many this may seem the same as slavery plantations; however, this was not the case at all. All of the workers who were living on the estates were free people who could leave at any time but were bonded to the estate for other reasons. The haciendas are the source of a large majority of the food that was needed for cities in Latin America. Source is from the point of view of a research firm in New York so is most likely neutral in position.
Even though many of the Latin American countries have now gained their independence politically from Europe, their economies are still highly dependent of trade with Europe and other countries due to their lack of an industrialized economy. In addition to that, Panama and surrounding countries became dependent on the US due to the construction of the Panama canal. “The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity, the use, occupation and control of a zone of land” (Modern History Sourcebook: Convention Between the US And Panama (Panama Canal), 1903). The construction of this canal created many construction jobs for the surrounding communities. Panama’s government had made a deal with the United States which further increased their dependency on foreign markets. The document quoted is in the form of a contract and is also not biased one way or the other.
Arron Harms
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
Prior to the break-off of Latin America from the West, the economy was only designed to produce raw materials for the colonies' mother countries. When LA strived for independence their economy was not built to support the country on it's own - it had to be completely rebuilt. While reforms for industrialization were attempted, for the most part they failed. The social heirarchy did not change. According to Bolivar's "Jamaica Letter", the inhabitants of LA are still struggling with rights. The impact of the colonization of these nations is so lasting that it is still evident today in the social heirarchy, economy, and political structure of Latin America.
The reforms for industrialization in Latin America failed. To this day, Latin America has a largely agricultural-based economy. They have taken a place below the rest of the world in that instead of producing more manufactured products, They produce the raw materials for other nations to process. They produce things like cotton, sugar, and coffee, all of which are in great demand around the globe. In this way they support the world economy in ways which no other nations can. However, thier role in the world also puts them below industrialized nations.
World Civilizations: The Global Experience, 6th Edition
Simon Bolivar, "Jamaica Letter"
Michal T.
ReplyDeleteBloom
Period 1
During the colonial times, Portuguese Brazil had emerged as a stable agricultural economy based particularly on sugar exports, large landholdings, and slavery. The smooth transition to independent monarchy did not allow much room for change of these settled patterns. The very nature of the economy of Brazilian Empire, which depended on the exportation of a few major crops that were being cultivated on plantations of the large estates, required the use of slaves in order to maintain growth. Also, as tensions between Latin American countries and Europe became more evident, opposing one of Western ideas (in this case abolitionism) was a way to oppose Europe and thus deal with this conflict. As a Brazilian citizen points out, given the system of agriculture used at that time, “[s]top this commerce [slavery] and we will suddenly see everything reduced to the most deplorable state of misery”. For the most part of the 19th century, Brazil just wasn’t ready to abolish slavery because of the way their economy worked at that time. The writer of this article obviously has a strong point of view. Because he comes from Brazil and is possibly a member of the landowning elite, he is likely to defend the existing system and also oppose European ideas and feel superior to the lower classes of Brazilian society.
Source: Diario do Governo (Rio de Janeiro); April 22, 1823.
http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/documents/slavery/defense1823.htm
Brazil was the last country of the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery. Although some efforts had been made to improve the conditions of slaves in Brazil and give them some rights in 1870’s, it was not until 1888 that all the slaves were freed. High immigration rates over the past decades had allowed Brazil to replace African slaves with European immigrants. Also, as some Western nations penetrated the Brazilian markets, so did Enlightenment ideas permeate the Brazilian society; whether they liked it or not. Many Brazilians, including Joaquim Nabuco, realized that slavery is nothing but “the possession, domination, sequestration of a human being---his body, mind, physical forces, movements, all his activity-and it only ends with death”. The author’s point of view is influenced by the fact that he wrote this article in England, the hub of Enlightenment ideas. Therefore, his message might be more focused on individual rights and opposed to any kind of their restrictions.
Source: Joaquim Nabuco, Abolitionism: The Brazilian Anti-Slavey Struggle (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977), pp. 85-96, 164-173.
http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/documents/slavery/nabuco.htm
Response to Jessie W.,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that the newly freed Latin American nations had no feasible economic option but to remain economically subservient to the United States and Western Europe. Unfortunately, centuries of colonization had forced the economies of Latin America to develop a global trading niche for raw material extraction and export. After declaring independence, these newly liberated nations lacked the infrastructure, national cohesion, and capital required to be a competitor in the manufacturing sphere of the global economy. Without these elements, the rallying independence of the continent remained merely a symbolic gesture.
Amanda D.
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
Konnor, I completely agree with your statement that Latin America was very dependent on the European economy. I liked how you related this reoccuring problem to other countries around the world, saying that the lower countries were dependent on their "rulers". I also like how your paragraphs are structured. Its like a timeline; starting with Latin America before European influence and then ends with the Monroe Doctrine.
Latin America has a growing economy in today's world. The countries were originally only thought of for their raw materials after colonial times. However this changed drastically as Latin America began shipping a large supply of goods around the 1800's like fruit, coffee, and sugar. Plantations and especially large plantations (called haciendas) acted as a catalyst for these goods. In addition, slaves would work on them until it became abolished.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. was, and still is one of the biggest importers of goods from Latin America. The goods are used in everyday life, and can easily be seen by looking at the tag on your blanket or simply walking into a grocery store. However, even though Latin America exports so many goods, it is still considered today to be a developing country and is dependent on other countries for income. In the future, the economy of Latin America will be interesting to follow.
Colton Heidenfelder
ReplyDeleteEconomically, Latin American countries are not doing so well. There are many high ranking officials who are corrupt and take money from the citizens for themselves. Many of the Latin American countries are still developing and need a lot of money to build up but they have none. As Fidel Castro once quoted, “We are a small country with great expectations.” This is important because small countries with a lesser population have harder time gaining money and if everyone has high expectations, it will put more pressure on the population.
Although there are many downs to the economic situation in Latin America, there are also upsides. As oecd.org quotes, “Latin America is growing trade with India and China.” This is extremely important because it shows that they are trying relentlessly to grow there economy and become much more stable. I believe that with time, Latin American countries can become an economic powerhouse.
Economic Theme by: David Vasheghani
ReplyDeleteBrazil and Mexico stand as some of the largest economies in the world today. Brazil being forth and Mexico being fifth. Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, and Colombia once combined have a larger GDP than China. However poverty continues to be the main challenge in Latin America. Inequality is damaging the region's economic potential and the well-being of people in Latin America. Inequality in Latin America has deep historical roots that have been difficult to overcome and to defeat. Latin America does hold the poorest social mobility; this makes poverty to be transmitted from generation to generation, becoming a vicious cycle, and ruining the reputation of many family names in Latin America.
The economic part of Latin America has become increasingly more dependent. There goods are dependent on European shipped goods which controls there economy heavily through out. This has became a big problem because its all about the economy of the imported goods. Some products from Latin America like bananas and coffee in Central America, tobacco and sugar in Cuba and coffee are things produced on their own which is good for there economy. Some products like cotton that have increased in price and sales in the last year have helped there economy and is needed badly. Some factors of the productivity of the workers such as health care and malnutrition isn’t there for people to have. Workers who get infections from work or other problems have a very small percentage of getting better any time soon. Every day the economy is getting stronger and weaker and will be that way for a very long time in the future.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Lownds
ReplyDeleteBloom
Period 3
Konnor, I agree with how to say that during the 19th century Latin America was dependant on the European powers for their economy, but I disagree with your statement that the Monroe Doctrine further confused the situation. President James Monroe wrote the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 to state his view and attempt to make things better for Europe, Latin America and the United States. And although it might of not helped as he hoped for, I am not sure it confused the situation.
In response to Hanna S...
ReplyDeleteHanna, I like that you point out that Latin America was in a rut until new European ideas were stressed within society. I agree that without this European system though there would not have been such a rigid class structure and without the reforms the Latin American economy would not have made it very far. But, on the other hand i think that this interference by the Europeans could be somewhat dangerous to the natives for example in Brazil. Brazil became a hotspot for trade and exports, but they came to rely so much on outside markets for their economy that it left their poor still in poverty and it did little to strengthen their internal economy.
Michal T.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Arron
I completely agree with what you said about Latin American countries' economies, they had to be completely rebuilt after their independence since they broke free from the countries that provided them with manufactured goods. That might be the reason why Brasil retained all the colonial patterns of its economy even after gaining independence, e.g. slavery, plantations and monarchy - the country just wasn't ready for radical changes at that time. It is also true that nowadays these countries still struggle with their colonial legacy, since they're not able to compete with earlier industrialized countries like all of Europe or Japan in many areas and in some ways social status is still determined by your race.
Katie L
ReplyDeleteHanna, I definitely agree with you that Latin America was weak economically. with them relying so much on foreign imports and technologies, it gave them little room to improve on their part, so they remained mainly agricultural nations. this then involved into a mostly stagnate economy, like you said. You did a good job in explaining how the new reforms effected the economy of Latin America, how they did stimulate the economy, but how they also contributed to the growing gaps in the social structure.
Hanna S.
ReplyDeleteBloom Period 1
Theme: Economic
Response to Taylor R.
Taylor, I completely agree that it was indeed the internal disputes over political power that fundamentally crippled the Latin American economy as the populace became increasingly preoccupied with the idea of independence instead of stability. It was that extensive tension and political fragmentation inspired by enlightenment ideology that subjected Latin America to disrupted trade and an inferior economic position. I also liked how you mentioned that imperialism (and open markets as well) lifted the Latin American economy slightly in terms of trade (port cities), but it was their dependency on foreign investment that also weakened the economy. Lastly, I also believe that the geographic barriers you referenced were a key factor as to why Latin America was unable to develop their infrastructure (transport and communication systems) to support anything more than an agrarian economy; the lack of innovative industrialization/modernization paralyzed the economic structure, widened the gap of economic classes, and left Latin America behind in the global economy.
Jesse
ReplyDeleteLatin America has a growing economy in today's world. These countries were first only used for there raw materials but are not now; when Latin America started shipping out lots of exports from there countries. The United States is one of the biggest importers of Latin Americas exports. Latin Americas economy has become more and more independent over the years. Exports like coffee and cotton from Latin America are used everyday lives here in the United States. Some of the exports like cotton have become increasingly more expensive and is altering the economy in many ways. Some products exporting Latin America like sugar and tobacco is good for there economy as long as they can keep exporting them to make money.
Over all economically, Latin American countries are not doing so well. There are many high ranking officials who are corrupt and take money from the citizens for themselves. This is ruining the economy for many countries and making millions of people live very hard and difficult lives. Many Latin American countries are still growing and need lots of money to grow but there government is taking all there money. As Fidel Castro once quoted, “We are a small country with great expectations.” This is important because small countries with a lesser population have harder time gaining money and if everyone has high expectations, it will put more pressure on the population.
Jay Henderson
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
In Response to Will S.’s Post
While Latin America was founded by Europeans and, to this day, is very dependent on the west, it is interesting to consider the effect Latin America had on Europe. While I don’t agree that they were or could be independent, you brought up some interesting ideas. Latin American economies were based mostly on resources grown or extracted from the Earth, while the upstart European nations were reaching the industrial revolutions. There are many factors for the decline of Latin Americas economy. America’s Monroe Document must have had massive economic implications.
Response to Jake H.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about how Latin America and how they were dependent on the European markets because they did not have their own internal markets. How you said after becoming independent they had to rely completely on the European economies just to have some what of their own is very true. What i would add to this would be the reasoning by why the U.S. set up the Panama Canal. I believe it was purposefully done at this time because the U.S. knew that Latin America was having a tough time with their economy and so they would be able to take over a part of it by building the Panama Canal.
James Maroney
ReplyDeleteResponse to Colton H.
I agree with you that Latin America is struggling economically because of corrupt leaders stealing money for their own personal use, but I would also like to add that Latin America was plentiful with resources. The problem with that is their economy was not industrialized at all so all they could do was trade cheap raw resources for manufactured goods, instead of using the raw materials themselves and creating goods that could be sold at a much higher price.
Anna B.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Arron.
For the most part i agree that Latin America has fallen behind many countries, like Western Europe and Asia, but who is to blame? Is it because the Latin Americans want to stick to their roots, they don't have enough resources, they aren't educated? While all of these are most likely true, in order to industrialize LA would have to incorporate European skills. Could it be that Europe didn't want them to industrialize so that they could still have control and get cheap natural resources? Once Europe lost the need for these natural resources was when LA was truly at a loss. Their dependency on Europe left them with nowhere to turn.
Laura Galloway
ReplyDeletePeriod 1: Bloom
Reply post to David V.
David i agree with most of what you stated in you post. I agree that Latin America has deep historical roots in the inequality they have their and that it has made it difficult for them to over come many other problems. i also agree that this causes poverty to be handed down from generation to generation, with no hope of getting out of it because of how long it has been accumulating. However, i don't believe that it continues to ruin families reputations because if the poverty is passed on then their reputations would have already been in ruins. over all David i thought you gave a very accurate posting that was very interesting :)
Response to James M.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thought that Latin America remains economically dependent on Europe; however, I think it is important to note that the European economy relied heavily on raw resources from Latin America. These raw resources were only necessary because of Europe's luxurious lifestyle; however, it still stands that Europe would not have developed the same if it did not trade with Latin America.
Brandon Johnson
ReplyDeleteP.6
Although, it may seem as though Latin America's Economy is relatively strong, there are several factors that make their economy somewhat weak. These factors include a highly dependent trade with Europe. With out the trade from Europe, Latin America's Economy would suffer. Latin America does export raw materials from their countries, but if their raw materials were the only good they could export, their economy would eventually deteriorate.
Latin America's economy in the early 20th century was extremely weak which led to major reforms. Between 1933 and 1958, Cuba extended economic regulations enormously, causing economic problems. Ever since, they have tried to stimulate their economy but none of the efforts have helped tremendulsy.
Response to brandon Johnson
ReplyDeleteI agree that the economy is strong and weak in different ways. I also agree that a major factor is that they export raw goods to the rest of the world and that if they don't continue it will deteriorate their economy. Another valid point when Cuba extended economic relations therefore creating more problems.
Josh Conroy
ReplyDeletePeriod 6 macy
Response to Taylor
I think this post was very well thought out. I think it is good how you explained how the internal revolts and wars taking place in Latin America really halted the trade between Europe and Latin America. I agree with you when you say that The largest reason for Europe to be in Latin America is because of economic gain.
Quinn O.
ReplyDeletePeriod 5 Bloom
Response to Eric
I like your paragraphs, they are very well supported with evidence from different sources. I think you explained very well why europe had dominance over Latin America economically.
Daniel Ullrich
ReplyDelete@Eric
I love how you used words in your post that are not commonly used, your post was extremely well developed while presenting the facts in a quick manner that was to the point with out losing the feel or important idea.
Megan Vail
ReplyDeleteBloom
pr. 1
Response to Arron Harms
Arron-Your blog was very well put together and addressed many of the things that was required. I agree with your statements that Latin America did not gain their economy independence back fully. Also you are right to say that once Latin America gained their independence their economy struggled because of the political struggle.
Tyler Woolsey Bloom Period 6
ReplyDeleteResponse to Taylor Rauch
Taylor, I agree with you that the revolutions had an overwhelmingly destructive effect on the Latin American countries. These newly freed nations had no chance of successfully reconstructing their land with such little money and leadership.
Tyler Woolsey Bloom 6
ReplyDeleteResponse to Konnor Propst
It's true that Latin American nations depended on European trade. Because they lacked industry and the necessary tools to become a manufacturing powerhouse, Latin American countries hurt themselves with revolutions. Not until more manufacturing and a solid trade network was established should they have revolted.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteArron Harms
ReplyDeletePeriod 5, Bloom
Response to Jesse
Jesse,
Good job writing your comment. However, when you say that it is not possible for a small country to uphold big expectations, I would have to disagree with you. You are right in saying this when the spectrum of smaller countries is restricted to just those within Latin America. However, it is important to recognize that size really doesn't affect how a country can function in the long run. Portugal is a small country, and yet they managed to initiate the historical phase of world conquest. This is a perfect example of a smaller country filling big shoes.
On another note, I completely agree with you in that modern Latin America is not doing well. Latin America's prolonged dependency on Europe has permanently crippled their economy. They have been bumped to the bottom of the food chain, where they are stuck producing raw materials for the rest of the world to manufacture. They have undoubtedly made some leaps in catching up to the rest of the world, but they are still far behind and will remain so for many years to come.
Coleton Joos
ReplyDeleteBloom
Per: 6
Economic
Becoming a big contributor in the world economy isn't easy, especially if you have a late start. For thousands of years the European powers have been trading and exploring to see whats there biggest export and targeting that specific trade good to “run” the country. In China it was silk, and rice. But now the young Latin American countries must find the products that will define the countries economic input on the worlds economy. In the 18th century Brazil was Portugal's most important colony. With all the wars in Europe the Portuguese royal family had to flee to Brazil making Rio de Janeiro the capital. This was a very important time for Brazil because it opened up all of their ports for the worlds commerce. After the war this led to the independence of Brazil from Spain and an important step in the economic out reach of the Latin American country. Because the newly free nations are so young they have many flaws in their government which ultimately leads to corruption, which is not good to have when trying to strengthen you country. The Caudillos have this “golden badge” that allows them to step in on the politics and alter any laws they want. With all the loose laws they have in the Americas it is easy to maneuver around certain laws and regulations to gain more profit. At the beginning it didn't look good for the economy of Latin America most of the population couldn't read and they all worked for a European land owner that took advantage of them. Because there was so little economic activity at the beginning Latin America had to borrow a lot of money from foreign banks to increase their amount of exports. Also Latin America didn't develop manufacturing so they had to get all its raw material from other countries, witch cost more than there exports were making. Other countries profited off this but didn't help the Latin American countrys.
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/?period=10®ion=sa
http://mclane.fresno.k12.ca.us/wilson98/mwh/c/mh12c049.pdf