WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED ABOUT Western Intervention 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!
Bonnie Mach
ReplyDeleteMrs. Bloom - 6th period
When colonization of America began, it set forth a great movement of Europeans traveling to start a new life, a greater freedom. European governments however saw it as a great source of raw materials and took over. Thus the American Revolution took place and America gained its freedom from Europe. The Monroe Doctrine 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). This simple, but powerful document provided a intuitive state of mind that caused the American public to stand up to Europe and gain full independence.
Yet gaining its independence from Europe, America did the same thing to Latin America. America intervened in Latin America to make it what they wanted Latin America to be. We gained the imperialism that Europe introduced to them. America trying to colonize Latin America just like Europe colonized them. As Francisco Garcia Calderón said, "Essential points of difference separate the two Americas." Latin America feels the way that we did when Europe was "controling" the American government.
Monroe Doctrine: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/monroe.asp
Francisco Garcia Calderón: Latin America: Its Rise and Progress (London: T. F. Unwin, 1913), pp.392-393
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1913calderon.html
Taylor Rauch
ReplyDeleteMrs. Bloom - 5th period
As Europeans continued to migrate west to America, they not only came for freedom but also, to control and rule the government of their new homelands. In America, there was lots of turmoil over power and when our American Revolution arose, we attempted to gained full independence from Europe. The Monroe Doctrine is one powerful document that reinforces our needs in America during this time period. It states, “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). This statement clearly represents how foreign rule in America was unwanted because it upset the peace among the nation. Once Europe got the point, success rang in the ears of the Americans and they continued on with out any foreign rule. The Monroe Doctrine brought out the courage of the Americans to stand up to Europe once and for all and ever since has been successful.
Now when Latin American Colonies started forming, America had wanted to reflect their ways of life into these colonies in every aspect they could. Just like Europe had done to us. Simon Bolivar states in his Jamaica Letter, "Consequently, one can only offer imprecise conjectures, especially concerning future successes and the true plans of the Americans,” (Bolivar). This explains how he was not quite sure about America’s plans for Latin America and strongly disagreed with their attempts to rule. America believed that they were the key to success. Without unification of these countries, they had no success. Bolivars dreams to unite South America was a failure due to the fact that the Americans attempted to take over. When the Americans attempted to rule, they placed themselves at the top of the hierarchy and there was a very rigid social structure. The people at the bottom became very bitter and were treated poorly, just like people in Europe had been treated. Westernization was not necessarily wanted in the Americas, or in Latin America. It was almost thrown upon them, especially when it was greatly unwanted.
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
Faith L Bloom p. 3 (This comment is locust-approved)
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson’s response to the Monroe Doctrine is an attempt at supporting the US foreign policy move without being overt. By this time he has been out of the presidency for over a decade, and admits openly that because of his time out of political office, over political affairs he is “not qualified to offer opinions…worthy of any attention”, but he still offers specific diplomatic suggestions on the Monroe doctrine. Some of these include not directly intervening in Central American affairs but rather doing it under the guise of war and keeping Western Europe from intervening. It seems contradictory that Jefferson suggests that they ought to “never entangle [themselves] in the broils of Europe” but condones involvement in Mexican affairs. This confirms some of the motivations behind Western intervention put forth in the book, and adds an element of deception. The newly formed US was like any budding empire-they wanted to profit in trade and hold clout on the world stage. However, being a nation built on the ideals of freedom and equality, imperialism was difficult to reconcile to the principles set forth in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, though certainly an elite citizen in early America, is a safe representation of the general opinion in America. He is viciously proud of his country and feels that because they have risen from oppression before (inflicted by Great Britain) they ought to prove their vitality by becoming more and more powerful. He is therefore somewhat blinded to the effects of this push for power and ignores the effects that taking territories like Cuba and parts of Mexico will have on the existing populations.
Source: Thomas Jefferson on the Monroe Doctrine
To the President of the United States (James Monroe)
Monticello, October 24, 1823
Francisco Garcia Calderon lived in Peru during the time of U.S. imperialism and offered criticisms of the process that reveal a world climate full of deciding what to do based on what the most powerful country was doing. He thought it dangerous to allow foreign policy to be shaped by the “tyranny of opinion” that exists in the US, or the idea that whatever feels right at the time is what ought to be followed. It is valid that the sentiment of employing what has worked for powerful states ought to work for other states is an arrogant proposition and completely ignores the unique situations of each emerging country, however it is important to note that the author lived in a country that was once under imperialism and had a rocky road to independence, so he is likely to have a negative opinion of imperialism no matter what, because it seems to have caused so much political instability in central and south America. However, this does echo the dangers of imperialism found in the text and put forth by other thinkers of the time, that a one-size-fits-all approach to formulating new governments is not a smart approach to take due to the diversity of the different countries around the world.
Source: From Francisco Garcia Calderón: Latin America: Its Rise and Progress (London: T. F. Unwin, 1913), pp.392-393.
Alyssa B - Mrs. Bloom period 1
ReplyDeleteBeing in the early 1800s Latin American nations began to break free from their original European founders and claim their independence through revolutions. By the 1830s almost all Latin American countries had gained independence and began the journey of establishing stable, thriving nations. However, no matter the new nations attempts European intervention was inevitable. The nations soon became dependent on European markets to sell their goods which left their own economy in a vulnerable state, susceptible to the whims of the European economy itself. In 1823 however the United Sates took a very large step for the previously silent nation and issued the Monroe Doctrine. In which they declared “that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers . . . (Monroe Doctrine).” The United States said to the world that Latin America was to be left alone and although some European nations could have easily defied these statements, it showed the young nation’s spirit and their true belief in what they were declaring. However, the United States did intervene in Latin American affairs and made exceptions to their own doctrine, angering some Latin Americans.
One such angered man was the Peruvian diplomat and writer Francisco Garcia Calderón. He declared that “interventions have been more frequent with the expansion of frontiers.” He saw European and American intervention as a bad thing that threatened the new nations, and warned “anarchy and violence will be born in the future.” His criticism of western intervention shows the growing mistrust among nations and their resentment of each other. This Peruvian gentleman gives us insight from a Latin American perspective and exemplifies that although in such cases such as the Monroe Doctrine, where the United Sates claimed to be protecting themselves and Latin American interests, in truth they were merely hoping to exploit these nations in vulnerable states. During the time period between the 1830s and 1920s a lot was occurring south of the equator in Latin American and while some nations praised the advances in this area other took full advantage of the situation and exploited Latin American society.
Monroe, James. Monroe Doctrine; December 2, 1823. Lillian Goldman Law Library, The Avalon Project, 2008. Web. 14 March 2011.
Halsall, Paul. Modern History Sourcebook: Francisco Garcia Calderón: Imperialism of Decadence, 1913. Internet Modern History Sourcebook, July 1998. Web. 14 March 2011.
Alyssa B - Mrs. Bloom Period 1
ReplyDeleteBeing in the early 1800s Latin American nations began to break free from their original European founders and claim their independence through revolutions. By the 1830s almost all Latin American countries had gained independence and began the journey of establishing stable, thriving nations. However, no matter the new nations attempts European intervention was inevitable. The nations soon became dependent on European markets to sell their goods which left their own economy in a vulnerable state, susceptible to the whims of the European economy itself. In 1823 however the United Sates took a very large step for the previously silent nation and issued the Monroe Doctrine. In which they declared “that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers . . . (Monroe Doctrine).” The United States said to the world that Latin America was to be left alone and although some European nations could have easily defied these statements, it showed the young nation’s spirit and their true belief in what they were declaring. However, the United States did intervene in Latin American affairs and made exceptions to their own doctrine, angering some Latin Americans.
One such angered man was the Peruvian diplomat and writer Francisco Garcia Calderón. He declared that “interventions have been more frequent with the expansion of frontiers.” He saw European and American intervention as a bad thing that threatened the new nations, and warned “anarchy and violence will be born in the future.” His criticism of western intervention shows the growing mistrust among nations and their resentment of each other. This Peruvian gentleman gives us insight from a Latin American perspective and exemplifies that although in such cases such as the Monroe Doctrine, where the United Sates claimed to be protecting themselves and Latin American interests, in truth they were merely hoping to exploit these nations in vulnerable states. During the time period between the 1830s and 1920s a lot was occurring south of the equator in Latin American and while some nations praised the advances in this area other took full advantage of the situation and exploited Latin American society.
Monroe, James. Monroe Doctrine; December 2, 1823. Lillian Goldman Law Library, The Avalon Project, 2008. Web. 14 March 2011.
Halsall, Paul. Modern History Sourcebook: Francisco Garcia Calderón: Imperialism of Decadence, 1913. Internet Modern History Sourcebook, July 1998. Web. 14 March 2011.
John N. Period 3
ReplyDeleteLatin America was always in the economic shadow of Western Europe, and when the time came to free themselves from this oppression, they took it. Simon Bolivar was considered “The Liberator” for his constant advocacy for independencein the early 19th century, causing his exile on several occasions. Bolivar was adamant that “the present state of America [is] similar to that of Rome after its fall”(Jamaica Letter), giving the everyday citizen hope of a new start, with a blank slate to start off clean. This idea that independence would provide a better future was crucial to recruiting the lower social classes to the revolutionary causes. These lower social classes were often treated badly under foreign rule and eager for change, much like our book discusses on page 576.
The United States was not about to let Latin America get a free ride, however. In 1823 President Monroe released what came to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, and it issued a warning to Europe for intervening in the Americas. Monroe stated “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. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense” making a case for each hemisphere to stick to its own problems. While the US seems to be coming to the rescue of the upstart Latin American nations, it is in fact laying the groundwork for United States influence in the area, while keeping European influence out. This is evidenced by both the Spanish American War and Panama Canal, which expanded American influence in Latin America, as evidenced in our textbook.
Monroe Doctrine:http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?flash=true&page=transcript&doc=23&title=Transcript+of+Monroe+Doctrine+%281823%29
Jamaica Letter: p. 588-589 of textbook
Response to Alyssa
ReplyDeleteAlyssa, you are absolutely right in your assessment that the underlying intention of the European and Western intervention in Latin American affairs was to exploit the new nations to get their land and economic advantages; however I think it’s important to consider Manifest Destiny when evaluating the motives of the United States. I don’t think the intention was purposefully so malignant, but rather the next logical step according to Manifest Destiny. The Americans at the time honestly believed that it was their divine purpose to expand the US from coast to coast, reaping whatever benefits they could along the way. I think economic exploitation was more a result of the motive of manifest destiny, rather than economic exploitation being the direct motive.
Taylor R.
ReplyDeleteResponse to John - Period 05
John, I completely agree with you when stating that lower social classes were often treated badly under foreign rule and eager for change, as I clearly stated in my blog. They were taken advantage of and this lead to a higher tax burden on the poor. The gap between the rich and the poor kept increasing, due to the fact that the rich kept getting richer and the poor, poorer. This made it very hard to change someone’s social status and move up in society; as well as it making it difficult to better ones self as an individual. All of this had started because when the Americans attempted to gain control, and rule their government (just as the Europeans had done to America), they had placed themselves at the top of the hierarchy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe United States, during the 1800's, was shutting down thier land for European colinization, otherwise known as the Monroe Doctrine. Americans believed that they worked for their hard-won freedom and didn't want the European colonies to interfere any longer. Monroe proclaimed that any European nations "are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization" (Monroe Doctrine). Because the European powers, Great Britain, were so powerful in trade at sea they desperately wanted to be involved with trade with the new nations, including Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine stopped them from becoming involved with Latin America's trade in 1823. Britain and Latin America became dependent on each other for each other's exports before and the Monroe Doctrine was declared and cuased them to stop trade abruptly. Our history book supports these facts and also suggest that the doctrine was a little hypicritical. Some arguements the Monroe Doctrine mentions is that "they have not interfered and shall not interfere" with any nation's business (Monroe Doctrine). However, the United States was forcing themselves to get involved with Latin America's government, making many Latin American citizens angry.
ReplyDeleteSource: Monroe, James. Monroe Docrine; December 2, 1823.Lillian Goldman Law Library, The Avalon Project, 2008.Web 15 March 2011.
Francisco Garcia-Calderon was the president of Puru and critisized the progressions the United States was doing and making in Latin America including the Panamal Canal. Francisco Garcia-Calderon was opposed for foriegn intervention and believed that the United States applied the Monroe Doctrine to help themselves get involved with Latin America themselves. Calderon felt that "the American foriegn policies restricted Latin America from reaching out to European powers and developing their own independent relationships other then with" the U.S. (Francisco Garcia Calderon). He felt that it was "wrongdoing" of the United States to put restrictions on Latin America like the Monroe Doctrine.
Source: Wikipedia: Francisco Garcia Calderon: Wikipedia foundation Inc,24 November 2010. Web. 15 March 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCori G.
ReplyDeleteBloom
Period 1
Before the 1800's Latin America began to feel oppressed by the Europeans. And by the 1830's their revolution efforts had left almost all of Latin America free and independent. Only, there was one problem: Latin America had become dependent on European markets. So, in an effort to help Latin America the United States issued the Monroe Doctrine. The United States declared that “[they] have never taken any part,[in Latin American affairs,] nor does it comport with [their] policy to do so” (Monroe). “The Governments who have declared their independence” were promised that, [they,] by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . .” (Monroe). Unfortunately, the United States believed that they were exempt from their own policy and intervened in Latin American affairs.
In response to the Monroe Doctrine, Thomas Jefferson wrote Monroe a letter discussing the issues presented with Europe and Latin America. Jefferson clearly agrees that Latin America should be rid of European influence and “have a system of her own” (Jefferson). However, Jefferson believes that it is “[their] endeavor … to make [their] hemisphere that of freedom” (Jefferson). This only continually suggests that the United States didn’t stay true to their policy and intervened in Latin American affairs. This could be due to the fact that the United States viewed themselves above all others and felt they had the right to intervene wherever they wanted and help nations in need.
Monroe, James. Monroe Doctrine; December 2, 1823. Lillian Goldman Law Library, The Avalon Project, 2008. 15 March 2011. Web.
Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to James Monroe. 24 Oct. 1823.
Michal T.
ReplyDeleteBloom
Period 1
At the time the essay "Imperialism of Decadence" was written, Latin America had already had a long history of Western intervention and involvement. In fact, the Latin American countries’ struggle for independence in the 19th century was based on the very idea of resentment of Western power over their nations. When the newly independent Latin American democracies became somewhat consolidated, a new wave of Western intervention was set into motion. Latin America became increasingly dependent on Western markets and Western businesses, especially the ones from England, United States, Germany, Portugal, etc. started to gain ground within local economies. This was met with much discontent and bitterness among the natives that were often unable to oppose these efforts. The document accurately describes how many Latin Americans felt about Western, later especially US intervention in the Latin American countries and gives many examples of US involvement all across the continent. This document also addresses another important piece – the major differences between the North and Latin American cultures. According to the document, “[d]ifferences of language and therefore of spirit; the difference between Spanish Catholicism and multiform Protestantism of the Anglo-Saxons; between the Yankee individualism and the omnipotence of the State natural to the nations of the South” are the main causes of division and therefore hostility between the two cultures. The author of this essay is a Peruvian diplomat and writer, so it is understandable that he might be a little biased toward the Latin American nations. Although his involvement in diplomacy gives him a little bit more credibility, he is still likely to give more credit to his country and culture and be opposed to the US policies.
Source: Modern History Sourcebook: Francisco Garcia Calderón: "Imperialism of Decadence", 1913.
During this time period, even some Americans were opposed to the idea of Western involvement in the Latin American affairs. In his letter to President Monroe, Thomas Jefferson expresses fears of European nations getting involved in the Western Hemisphere in any way and the US determination to oppose any such actions; however, he also mentions he has always seen Cuba “as the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States”. His standpoint reflects the general belief among Americans that the Americas are not Europe’s business and the United States is the only nation that should get involved in the affairs of the nations of the Western Hemisphere. As a US ex-president, it is obvious that his actions and opinions support US interests more than anything else, which greatly influences the point of view of this message, as seen in his support of US actions.
Source: Thomas Jefferson on the Monroe Doctrine
To the President of the United States (James Monroe)
Monticello, October 24, 1823
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMelissa Schweitz
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
Western Intervention
Latin American countries began to break free from European power in the early 1800’s. Revolutions helped almost all of these countries to break free and enabled them to create their own form of government. They were never completely free from Europe because they were dependant on European markets. The Monroe Doctrine, written in 1823, was the Americans way of telling Europe that they will no longer govern Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine is a document that supports these Latin American countries to proceed creating their own government without influence from Europe, “American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers”. Success came from the Monroe Doctrine because Europe no longer intervened in Latin American affairs.
The response to the Monroe Doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson supports the Monroe Doctrine but finds a few changes are needed. He agrees in the fact that the Americas should “never to entangle [them]selves in the broils of Europe” and “should therefore have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe”. Because “Great Britain is the nation which can do us the most harm of any one” the main theme of the Monroe Doctrine “should surely be, to make our hemisphere that of freedom”. Making the main theme freedom would suggest Great Britain to be an ally. Although Thomas Jefferson is “not qualified to offer opinions”, he feels they are “worthy of any attention”.
Monroe Doctrine : http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?page=transcript&doc=23&title=Transcript+of+Monroe+Doctrine+%281823%29
Response to Monroe Doctrine:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/thomas.htm
Erik D
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
Western Intervention-
European influence of Latin America was a major cause for the Latin American people to rebel and take back their lives. The Europeans saw the Americas as a vat of raw materials, ready to be harvested, and ignored and abused the people. The people of Latin America then heard of the American Revolution and the French revolution and were inspired to break free from European rule. In fact according to this document, a letter from Simon Bolívar, Bolivar was inspired by Europe to revolt against the Europeans. This reinforces what our textbook explains caused the revolutions in Latin America. Even though according to Bolivar, his country “ [derived its] rights from Europe,” this letter is still biased in the direction of the Latin Americans.
Source: Bolivar’s “Jamaica letter” (1815) pages 588-89 of textbook.
Even after breaking from the European influence, the newly formed Latin American countries were still not free from outside influence. Once the Europeans had been ousted, the neighbors to the north published a doctrine, the Monroe Doctrine, stating that ‘Europeans cannot interfere with the western hemisphere,’ but the USA can. This led the USA to interfere with Latin America, building the Panama Canal, and occupying certain pieces of land. This document is biased against the Latin Americans because it gives the USA rights to mess around with Latin America but not Europe.
Source: Monroe Doctrine (1823)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteErin Dobey
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Western intervention was proved almost inevitable to the Latin American civilizations during the 1800's. Due to the fact that these countries were going through serious periods of political/economic reform and instability, European countries assumed the role to obtain some control. European countries, particularly Britain, established themselves as a consumer of Latin American goods, causing this area to be extremely dependent upon them. Because of this, the Monroe Doctrine was written, in 1823, stating that European nations are "henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization" (Monroe Doctrine) arguing that Europe was to keep out of the West Hemisphere's affairs. This also revealed that western intervention became competitive because of the tension between the U.S. and Europe. This reinforces the ideas in our textbook, however the textbook explains the overall view of the argument, while this one demonstrates the United States biased view. This develops the document to prove somewhat arrogant because of their perspective that Europe shouldn't intervene, as well as hypocritical because they would do some of the same things to Latin America, that Europe did.
Although the United States viewed themselves as facilitating the redevelopment of the country, others would disagree. Francisco Garcia Calderon, a Peruvian diplomat, saw the United States intervention as corrupt. He proceeded to write the "Imperialism of Decadence" in 1913, stating that the U.S. was in "undisciplined force... which ignore[d] moral laws" (Imperialism of Decadence) because of their exploitation of Latin America. This illustrates that Western Intervention again was unavoidable from foreign countries, but that it also was viewed very differently from others perspectives, as well as being controversial. This states the biased view of one Latin American, making us credit this group more with their beliefs, while the textbook mainly shows the overall facts, somewhat reinforcing the text's information.
Jessie Wormer
ReplyDeletePeriod 6/ Bloom
Western Intervention
Although western intervention caused revolution, the killing of large amounts of indigenous and native people, and a complete cultural shift for those who were settled in these isolated societies, western intervention actually helped these societies develop and keep up with the rest of the world in some respect. If these societies had not been found until later, their economy, social, and governmental organization would crash because they would be two extremes. Western intervention helped these people come in contact with the outside world, and good or bad, watched revolutions happen that may have initiated ones of their own. Simon Boliviar states to congress, “As our role has always been strictly passive and political existence nil, we find that our quest for liberty is now even more difficult of accomplishment; for we, having been placed in a state lower than slavery, had been robbed not only of our freedom but also of the right to exercise an active domestic tyranny...” This shows that is these people had not been controlled or put under a bus, they never would have thrown down such a desire to gain power and independence in the world.
On the other side of the situation, western intervention really was harmful to many social classes. The whites/Europeans set themselves at the top of the social hierarchy, and people already in a lower social class, were squished to the bottom. Many people of power before European intervention also were turned into slaves for the new colonizers of the America’s. This also becomes true when the Monroe Doctrine from the America’s begins and once again Latin America is being controlled by outside influences. The Monroe Doctrine states, “The Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government.” (Monroe Doctrine) It seems like a friendly manner, but is actually a forceful action taken by the United States, making Latin America inferior once again.
Boliviar, Simon. “Message to Congress”Web. 16. Mar. 2011.
Monroe Doctrine “Transcript of Monroe Doctrine” Web. 16. Mar. 2011.
When the european powers started to interfere with the affairs in the Americas, the U.S. threatened them telling europe to back off and leave the western hemisphere alone. Europe had been taking advantage of the americas and wasn't wanted everywhere. "European powers not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere." caused major revolts and let to the victories of countries. Europe was taking advantage of Latin America and that mistake led to independence's. Once the people of Latin America heard of the American and French revolution, they decided to fight back for their freedom. "Liberals and regional caudillos joined to overthrow." It didn't really work in Brazil though since they basically fought for another Brazilian government.
ReplyDeleteEven with the independence of Latin American countries, they were still not completely free. The United States then realized that it was their turn to use some of the countries for their goods. "American political and economic interest in Latin America grew after the Civil War." So now parts of Latin America had other problems to deal with.http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=23
Jake G.
ReplyDeleteBloom Per 1
As many nations in Latin America began to gain their independence from European nations, they were beginning on a new slate without much historical background, no concrete foundation, no organized governments, and not much economic influence. However, there was a significant amount of raw materials that other countries would desire. Both the lack of structure and the abundant amount of raw goods acted as invitations for western European countries, as well as America, to partake in the building of these new nations. However, this was not what these new Latin American nations wanted. The influences became too significant, especially by America, and they began trying to take over this new land. In Bolivar’s letter, he focuses on the idea that the plans of America are highly unpredictable which makes his country of Jamaica “susceptible to the same uncertainties marking the history of the other nations” (Bolivar). They fear being taken over by the North American powers and wish to get rid of the influence of foreign nations. Bolivar has a clear position against the influence of the United States and ideally wants to develop into a truly independent nation.
After time, foreign influence on the new independent Latin American nations decreased and they began to build a civil infrastructure. However, it was inevitable that they could not eliminate interactions with the foreign countries. They needed to trade goods with other nations to stimulate their slow developing economy which led to Latin American nations becoming virtually stuck in the European trade system. As much work they had put in to try and eliminate foreign influence, they could not escape the European economy. Eventually, the United States created the Monroe Doctrine which eliminated forceful, unwanted influence by the European nations on both the United States and the Latin American nations. It banned Europeans from taking land from the two regions and stated that they are not to be “considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers” (Monroe). With the help of the United States, Latin America was finally able to remove most foreign influence and begin developing as their own independent nations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWestern Intervention: The Monroe Doctrine was a United States policy introduced on December 2, 1823. This policy was an attempt to prevent Europe from further colonizing the Western Hemisphere, all the while granting the United States dominance over this hemisphere. Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and control. This document reveals Latin America’s struggle to gain independence on their own, versus the stronger European forces, thus succumbing to the intervention of the United States. This confirms our textbook’s information in that Latin America could not easily gain independence and was easily influenced by Western Intervention. Without intervention from the United States, Latin America would have been “kept in the dark, with incompetence to [sovereignty]”(Monroe). Although there are valid arguments in the doctrine, it is plausible to argue the validity of Latin America’s struggles based on it, because of its biased opinion. Because the authors are trying to gain acceptance of the doctrine, they would not point out flaws in their logic, such as the fact that they seek hemispheric dominance.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in Bolivar’s “Jamaica Letter,” the exploitation of the “tasks of liberation”(588) are revealed in the attempts to warn against monarchies and dictatorships after personal experience in Jamaica. His letter is blatantly advocating independence from Spanish and European rule however making logical the difficulties of “ris[ing] to the enjoyment of freedom” (588). Bolivar advocates focusing on internal affairs and the promotion of unity, criticizing Latin America’s attempts at a revolution, wanting to avoid western intervention altogether. Bolivar makes obvious the struggles of Latin America in criticizing the little effect that the revolution will have if certain aspects are avoided - such as “active tyranny”(588) - confirming the textbook’s argument of Latin America’s struggles. In this article, Bolivar tries to stay unbiased in that he wants to point out the difficulties of gaining freedom from different perspectives, however is still biased in wanting the Latin American colonies to succeed in their battle for sovereignty.
Monroe, James. Monroe Doctrine; December 2, 1823. Lillian Goldman Law Library, The Avalon Project, 2008. Web. 12 March 2011.
Jamaica Letter: p. 588-589 of textbook.
Rob Murphy
ReplyDeleteBloom Per 6
Westernization effected the lives of many indigenous populations and changed the history of the Americas. The Europeans were very interested in the goods presented by the Americas and how they would be able to use them to their advantage. Yet the U.S. had other ideas and shunned away Europe from intervening in what what going on. This caused many revolts and caused the western hemisphere to become more of its own then being controlled by Europeans. The U.S. helped to protect Latin American Colonies and to keep them from falling under European rule.
In many ways Western Intervention helped to strengthen the west and its views. This caused the U.S. to build of a new form of govt. and allow for freedom of choice from the people. This also allowed for Latin American Colonies to strengthen up and rethink government control. Allowing them to get back on their feet and get out from under European control. Yet at the same time the U.S. was trying to grab a hold of Latin American colonies for the goods they provided.
Jake Hutcherson
ReplyDeleteBloom 6th
Western involvement played a crucial role in the development of Latin America. When the Monroe doctrine was put into effect on December 2, 1823, it prevented further interference in the western hemisphere by outside sources, including Europe. This allowed for the United States to gain control of Latin American countries. The goal of this was to allow the freed colonies of Latin America to flourish, while also being a US ally.
Western Intervention allowed the Latin American countries to develop more on their own than if they had been under the control of Europe. They were able to strengthen their new government during this time. However, they were not completely free of influence from outside sources. The US was heavily involved in Latin American affairs, mainly for natural resources and movement of goods, thus the reason they built the Panama Canal. Clearly, western intervention played an important role in Latin America.
Joe VinGNARsick
ReplyDeleteBloom Period 1
Despite the dwindling Western Imperialism of this era in Latin America, foreign influences played a massive role in the colonization and maintenance of the Latin American countries. In many cases, such as that of Brazil, the lack of foreign influence caused the country to enter a brief stage of disorganization and trouble. Yet in most cases, the transfer to independence was positive to the countries and the people. In his “Jamaica Letter” Simon Bolivar stated, “We find that America was denied not only its freedom but even an effective and active tyranny…” It is very evident that foreign influence deprived Latin America of its freedom and right to govern itself based on the opinion of a biased Latin American.
The constant and unwelcome threat of imperialist European countries even caused the US to form the Monroe Doctrine which considered the imperialist actions of Europe unfriendly. This document is once again biased in favor of the America’s, but its ardent theme seems very accurate and convincing. Fighting foreign politics, it states, “It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness.” In the end, the decline of foreign influence caused the Americas to prosper and develop better than ever.
Bolivar’s “Jamaica letter” (1815) pages 588-89 of textbook.
Monroe, James. Monroe Doctrine; December 2, 1823. Lillian Goldman Law Library, The Avalon Project, 2008. Web. 12 March 2011.
Coleton Joos
ReplyDeleteBloom
Per: 6
The US has always had a special interest in Latin American and took the time to protect Latin America from the invasions of European nations, and by doing so profited off it. In 1846 lead by the Democrats use beliefs such as Manifest Destiny to persuade the US into fighting a war with Mexico, were the US ends up taking a third of Mexico’s land.
Another case is with the signing of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 by President James Monroe stating that the European powers must stay out of Latin American affairs and there could be no more colonization in the western hemisphere or they could risk going to war with America. The Monroe Doctrine failed to say anything about the US and there relationships with the nearly independent country's. The US used this “loop hole” to make a very profitable investment in making a short cut from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean ( aka the Panama Canal ) creating a substantial impact on shipping companies, ma
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIan R. P.6
ReplyDeleteAlthough, Western Intervention does seem like a burden, it was really helpful in the end. This is because the United States stopped any further European invasions. We completed this amazing feat with the help of our government. Our government put in place the Monroe Doctrine. This document says that we will take any invasion as a war threat to the new super-power, the USA. The exact wording is, “that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . .” The quote just shows how the US wanted to show off its new power. This arrogance shows the point of view very well, we want to protect both America’s and will stop at nothing to show off. However, the book explains both sides of the argument. It says how helpful the Monroe Doctrine was but it also talks about how these newly freed countries wanted to be free and not controlled by Europe.
My next document shows the other side of the intervention argument. This document talks about how we should leave Latin America alone. The strong wording in the document is the point of view of the author. The author, Francisco Garcia Calderon, was an inhabitant of Latin America; this is most likely the reason why he was so harsh toward the USA and their helpful policies. This view shows through in this statement, “…that a North American syndicate wished to buy enormous belts of land in Guatemala, where the English tongue is the obligatory language. The fortification of the Panama Canal, and the possible acquisition of the Galapagos Island in the Pacific, are fresh manifestations of imperialistic progress....” This document’s side of the argument is also shown in the book. It talks about how England tried to help Latin America but also needed to lay-off and allow them to grow on their own. Both sides are legitimate arguments, but I think they needed our help.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSam K
ReplyDeleteMrs. Bloom, Per. 3
When the Americas were finally independent they still were unavoidably connected to the western world through their dependence on foreign markets. However, the United States adopted a policy of hemispheric isolation as shown by the Monroe Doctrine. The US didn’t want interference in any American affairs “…the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers…” It was stated that any advances attempted would be taken as threats. It should be taken into account that these claims were made by the United States president, giving him a large bias. He wanted Europe out of the picture so advances from the US could be made
This was a hypocritical position for the US to take as we interfered in Latin American affairs as often as possible. “Interventions have become more frequent with the expansion of frontiers. The United States have recently intervened in the territory of Acre…” this was written by Peruvian author Francisco Garcia Calderón, who criticized the American hypocrisy. The slight bias here is that Calderón was a Latin American, rather than an uninvolved third party.
Monroe, James. Monroe Doctrine; December 2, 1823. Lillian Goldman Law Library, The Avalon Project, 2008. Web. 16 March 2011.
Halsall, Paul. Modern History Sourcebook: Francisco Garcia Calderón: Imperialism of Decadence, 1913. Internet Modern History Sourcebook, July 1998. Web. 16 March 2011.
Kylee Russell
ReplyDeleteMrs. Bloom: Period: 6
WESTERN INTERVENTION
Although westernization in Latin America caused many cultural and economic advances for the indigenous people, many issues came across this intervention. Europeans began by gaining control over the Latin American government through revolutions. Not only did they begin to take control, but Great Britain supported the means of opening Latin American Trade. “Spanish America is free and if we do not mismanage our affairs sadly, she is English,” Lord Canning once stated. This statement is referring to the commercial advantages that Westernization offers. The new founders began to establish themselves as consumers in the Latin American governmental and economic system through goods and services. The Monroe Doctrine was introduced on December 2, 1823 to reinforce the efforts of Westernization by European countries as acts of aggression with the Americas. This policy asserted that the Western Hemisphere was not to be further colonized by European countries. Latin America believed in staying independent.
Simon Bolivar (1783-1830) campaigned for independence. Many of his campaigns were defeated, however, this didn’t stop his beliefs. In the “Jamaica Letter” Bolivar stated, “We have been harassed by a conduct which has not only deprived us of our rights but has kept us in a sort of permanent infancy with regard to public affairs.” This letter supported the Latin American independence against Spanish rule.
Confronting the Hispanic Heritage: From Independence to consolidation: Textbook pg. 588-589
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=23
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h255.html
Monroe Doctrine: pg 582
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn Remington
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
The Monroe Doctrine was when the U.S. really completely broke its ties with Europe, that the United States “are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers”. This of course didn't stop the U.S. from building the panama canal to cause a revolution in another country to get what they want. They helped create the Republic of Panama, and promised to always “maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama”. This created huge trade opportunities and boosted the American economy, as well as some parts of Latin America's trade.
The British were almost demanding the freedom of trade in Latin America and eventually expanded the European market. When America won Texas from Mexico, they practically shrank Mexico by 50%. This caused major changes in all Mexican aspects of life, and America gained some hatred. The American upbringing of many Enlightenment ideas flowed over into Latin America, and changed many social, political, religious, intellectual, and technological aspects of society. The American revolution also set the stage for many revolutions, including the French revolution, which affected most of the world.
Monroe, James. Monroe Doctrine; December 2, 1823. Lillian Goldman Law Library, The Avalon Project, 2008. Web. 16 March 2011.
Hay, John. Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty; November 18, 1903. American Historical Documents, Convention Between the United States and the Republic of Panama. Web. 16 March 2011.
Carly Badger, Mrs. Bloom Period 6
ReplyDeleteA rising feeling of resentment towards European power began to arise in the late 1700’s in Latin America. This sparked a series of revolutions. By the early 1800’s Latin American nations began to declare independence from their European overlords. However the Europeans still felt that they had the right to interfere with the economy and other important aspects of their former colonies. This however made the emerging new nations and countries and even the United States nervous of the Europeans attempting to recolonize. So in 1823 James Monroe wrote the Monroe doctrine to declare that any attempts of “oppressing them or controlling in any manner their destiny by any European power [will be seen as] an unfriendly disposition towards the United States” (Monroe doctrine). This stated that all independent nations are “not to be considered as subjects for future colonization “ (Monroe doctrine). The textbook does support these claims however it also implies an American ulterior motive for composing this doctrine. The textbook states that even though the document forces Europeans not to interfere that it leaves the opportunity for Americans to interfere with Latin American policies all they want.
Western intervention did not stop here however. The United States government soon felt that it was their divine right to rule North America from coast to coast. This belief led to further settlement into areas such as Texas. This infuriated the Mexican Government and these disputes directly led to the Mexican-American war. However after signing the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which signed over Texas and California to the United States, all was still not settled. This left an overall feeling of “distrust of the United States in Latin America” (Chapter 25).
Online textbook: http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_stearns_wrldcivil_6_AP/142/36436/9327812.cw/index.html
Monroe Doctrine: http://www.ushistory.org/documents/monroe.htm
Luke Chamberlain
ReplyDeleteBloom
Period 6
The colonization in the americas has changed the face of this world forever. As colonization developed they began to influence many native american tribes with there search for valuable resources. As the Europeans saw all the money being created in the Americas they instantly wanted in. When the Europeans began to force there way in, the Americans had to create the Monroe Doctrine in order to preserve their land.
When the Monroe Doctrine was created on December 2, 1823 this instantly separated the Americas from Europe. This separation created tension for quite some time influenced the trade between these countries. As well as pushing the Europeans off american soil America also tried to do the same in Latin America. Trying to get ride of European influence in Latin America.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1913calderon.html criticism of U.S. imperialism in Latin America
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/thomas.htm Thomas Jefferson’s comments on the Monroe Doctrine’s “imperial” implications
Kammy D.
ReplyDeleteBloom
Per. 5
When Europeans migrated west to the Americas, they had two goals in mind: freedom and the power to rule their own governments. When the American Revolution arose, the dispair over power drove the newborn settlements to secede and gain full independence from Britain. One of the most powerful documents to aid the secession was the Monroe Doctrine. Stating how the European rule over the colonies creates distress among the nation, the document pushes the oppressors out of the way so the oppressed may be free to grow on it’s own terms.
However, the newly freed Americans felt the need to intrude on Latin America’s affairs just as Europe had done to them. In the Jamaica Letter, Simon Bolivar explains his opposition to the attempts and admits that he is uncertain of what America plans to do with their business in the colonies. Bolivar attempts to unify the Latin American colonies but ultimately failed. America placed themselves at the peak of the social hierarchy which in turn created the same spiteful attitudes once given to the British.
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
Konnor Propst
ReplyDeleteAP World
Period 1
As years went on, and more European countries conquered and interfered with America, more problems and confusion arose. South and Latin America was looked at as a place where raw materials could be found and used with no resistance. Although these have been the cause at first, it changed as time went on and the Europeans ignored what the people’s rights. Latin America was looked at as an economic hot spot at the time, so Europe rushed in to claim their territory. As their laws became more and more oppressing, the people of South America such as Simon Bolivar and others stood up to fight.
America also intervened; they released the Monroe Doctrine which basically stated that there will be no more interference with Latin America from Europe. It is accurately depicted her, “are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . .”(Monroe). Although it would almost seem as a good thing at the time for Latin America it turned out America would do the exact same thing to Latin America. They too liked what Latin America had to offer and wanted to have it all. This quote also shows how America limited the successes and how the ideas of the Monroe Doctrine didn’t exactly help, "the American foreign policies restricted Latin America from reaching out to European powers and developing their own independent relationships other then with the U.S." (Francisco Garcia Calderon).
Sources:
Monroe Doctrine:
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?page=transcript&doc=23&title=Transcript+of+Monroe+Doctrine+%281823%29
Wikipedia: Francisco Garcia Calderon: Wikipedia foundation Inc,24 November 2010. Web. 15 March 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco
Bloom
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Historically, Latin America struggled to gain independence and identity free of Western influence. Jamaicans themselves experienced a struggle for freedom. In the form of a letter, Jamaica warns that dictatorships and monarchies do not create true independence. The letter suggests that in order to have Latin America “rise to the enjoyment of freedom,” they must unify and focus on establishing an effective government for all, which reinforces the text’s information about Latin America’s struggle to unify and free itself from Western influence. The author of the letter takes a clear position on freedom from Western intervention, but suggests that there are many ways to go about gaining it. The United States also had suggestions that advocated Latin American independence from Europe. In 1823, the United States initiated the Monroe Doctrine, an effort to prevent European powers from interfering in the affairs of the americas. The Monroe Doctrine was a policy that was developed in order to keep Latin American colonies from being controlled by Europe. The doctrine reinforces our textbook’s suggestion that Latin America struggled to gain independence under the strong influences of the West and suggests that without acceptance of the doctrine, Latin America will have “incompetence to [sovereignty]” and never gain independence. Although the doctrine appears to be an effort to help Latin America develop free of Western influence, the writers of the doctrine have an ulterior motive of dominating the hemisphere. Both documents advocate Latin American independence from Europe, but the Monroe Doctrine is questionable in its motive because Americans will eventually move to control Latin America themselves, which does not advocate true independence like the Jamaica letter.
Jamaica Letter. Textbook pg 588-589
Monroe, James. Monroe Doctrine; December 2, 1823. Lillian Goldman Law Library, The Avalon Project, 2008. Web. 15 March 2011.
Konnor Propst
ReplyDeleteResponse to John
John, I completely agree with you in that you stated how America also oppressed Latin America with the Monroe Doctrine. Although it seemed that they were helping the harsh rule of Europe get out of the lower Americas, the U.S. themselves then stepped in and created a very large amount of confusion and oppressing ideas on them. I also really liked her fact about how when America took over Texas it almost cut Mexico in half! And you're exactly right, that would extremely devastate and hold back a growing country as Mexico was.
Brenna Buckwalter
ReplyDeleteMrs. Bloom
Period 3
European influence and involvement on Latin America was both counterproductive and oppressive to the lower class. Instead of strengthening ties to Europe, the people of South America revolted against their controlling rulers. Europe made the mistake of looking at their colonies solely as raw material but never considered the consequences of disregarding native culture, human rights and satisfaction with European government, which ultimately led to the colony’s demise. Even in the upper class of the natives, the lower class was segregated and seen as “barbarians,” (Sarmiento). Sarmiento, one of the upper class natives, saw the lower class “insensibly proceeding towards barbarianism,” (Sarmiento). Europe’s involvement led to their demise by the oppression of the lower class and the secession of the upper class.
Source: Domingo F. Sarmiento, Life in the Argentine excerpt, page 589
Just as Latin America gained its freedom, it realized that its dependency on the West was too great and that they could not even speak for themselves after the Monroe Doctrine was issued. South America’s economy was completely reliant on European demand, and European demand for cheap recourses was high. Besides the entrenchment of European economy, however, the Monroe Doctrine took an even larger share of the freedom South America had gained. Foreign power in South America had not been removed, rather shifted to a different continent that “[was] of necessity more immediately connected,”(Monroe). The Monroe Doctrine spoke for South America, saying that “It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent ,” North or South America, (Monroe). South America gained minimal freedom from foreign powers after their revolutions.
Source: Monroe, James. Monroe Doctrine; December 2, 1823. Lillian Goldman Law Library, The Avalon Project, 2008. Web. 16 March 2011.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMaddie Smith
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Although the West is primarily remembered for provoking Latin America’s series of revolutions, it also served as an inspiration and model. “Latin American leaders were moved by the same ideas as those seeking political change elsewhere in the Atlantic world” (576). When the French began their revolution, the American people were deeply inspired by the slogan “liberty, equality, and fraternity” and used it as the muse behind their efforts. When the Reign of Terror began and the French became increasingly radical, the Americans discontinued their imitation and admiration of this rebellion. On the flip side, when slaves France’s sugar colony, St. Domingue, rebelled and failed, Latin America learned on how to not rebel. They witnessed a fate to be avoided, but were not disheartened, only educated. The final push for Latin America was found when France invaded Spain and Portugal. The spirit and excitement of this event precipitated the revolutions in Latin America.
Remaining Spanish influence in the newly independent nations caused social and religious turmoil. Because “Roman Catholicism had been the state religion and the only one allowed by the Spanish crown” (580) many Conservative Americans still strongly followed it and wanted it to remain their sole faith. Many others wanted to end religious persecution and open the door to other systems of belief. This influence from Spain created more social confusion in the colonies.
Will Stinson
ReplyDeleteMs. Bloom – 3rd Period
Since Columbus landed in the Caribbean in 1492, the Western world, Europe in particular, has exploited, oppressed, and heavily influenced Latin America. Each major Western superpower has dominated an area of Latin America. This dominance has caused Latin America adopt an essentially Western cultural. This is evident most prominently in the political and social aspects of their cultural. Politically, democracy is the most outstanding political system and all aspects of Latin government are symmetrical to that of Western government. When a western government is not established in any region of Latin America, either the West intervenes or a revolution inspired by western revolutions occurs. This correlation between the political structures between Latin America and the West suggests prominent western influence and intervention. This influence is also demonstrated in the social structure of Latin America. Rather than have social status depend on birth, heritage or an other defining characteristic, they define their social classes by financial stability and material possessions. This is a western ideal that has been adapted by Latin America because of the large amounts of Western intervention. James Monroe isolated where Latin America was most heavily influenced by creating the Monroe Doctrine. This doctrine declared that Europe will stay out of the Americas and that the United States will manage all affairs occurring in Latin America. This cemented and revealed how the West had profoundly affected the culture in Latin America. However, the natives did not tolerate this oppression and dominance that was so consistently enforced upon Latin America pleasantly.
Simon Bolivar wrote the “Jamaica Letter” to outline the struggles against Western oppression and describe how it was unnecessary and that they are “their own people” and they “inhabit a word apart” from Europe and the Western world. This letter demonstrates how Latin America was influenced by the West and adapted much of Western culture, yet that they are still their own culture that is unique with much influence from place that are not Western in the slightest.
Cole Johnson period 6
ReplyDeleteAmerica was going through distinct changes, the biggest being the revolution against Europe, including the Monroe Doctrine, which completely seperates America from Europe. In terms of Latin America, the Doctorine had little to no effect on European intervention, even though at the time of the doctrine, many Latin American colonies were becoming more and more independant from Spain. Although the idea was originally thought of by Britian, the US worried about having the Latin American countries liberated, only to be controlled by a different European power.
Also, Europe saw Latin America as profit and materials to include in their long list of exports, but failed to see Latin America as a place with culture and people, instead Europe saw them as money signs.
What I don't understand is, why did Latin America focus all their attention on internal distractions(leadership and whatnot), while Europe is controlling them from across seas. If I could get a comment back on that, that'd be great.
Hailey Newhall
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
When America was beginning to be colonized, many Europeans traveled here to begin anew. While people saw it as a place for newly found freedom, the European government viewed it as a place filled with raw materials. This idea then caused the European government to take control of the new world. This then led to the American Revolution, which resulted in the freedom of America. The newly desired independence America had from Europe was further imposed through the Monroe Doctrine. “As a principle [of] the rights and interests” of the United States, the European powers “shall not interfere” an longer (Monroe). This influential document initiated the people of America to speak out against Europe and gain their independence.
When Latin American colonies began forming, Americans attempted to force their ways of life into the colonies. This hypocritical ways are exactly as Europe did to us. Simon Bolivar points out in his Jamaica Letter, that he was worried about the “future successes and true plans of the Americans” (Bolivar). The Americans believed that they were the source Latin America needed to be successful. Bolivar aspired to unify South America, but resulted ultimately in failure because of the Americans desire to have power. Westernization wasn’t fully wanted in Latin America and was more so forced upon them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt can be noted that western intervention not only occurred physically with documents such as the Monroe Doctrine, but also subconsciously. It is quite obvious that Latin America followed the same process in duplicating France’s revolution as France did in duplicating America’s. This process begins with European colonization (mostly Spain and Portugal in Latin America). This is another way that the west intervened subconsciously as the interactions among Europeans and Latin American’s gave the Latin American’s so of the ‘flare’ of European culture. Jose Marti noticed this affect and stated that, “Trenches of ideas are worth more than trenches of stone,” (Marti) meaning that the way people act and think is far more important in deciding the outcome of a country.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the most obvious western intervention of Latin America is how it physically impacted it. Possibly the most influential in all documents of western intervention is the Monroe Doctrine. The point of the document was to declare to the Europeans that American’s would, “…leave the [Europeans] to themselves, in hope that other powers [would] pursue the same…” (Monroe) ideas regarding leaving Latin America exactly how it was, and protecting it from any more intervention from the western cultures of Europe. Of course, this document (actually a speech by the American President Monroe) is biased in favor of America. As history played out, American’s used the document to infiltrate the economies of Latin America, but not allowing Europe to do the same.
Marti, Jose. "Our America." Cuban History Begins Here. Web. 17 Mar. 2011. .
Monroe, James. "Monroe Doctrine: December 2 1823." Avalon Project - Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy. 2008. Web. 17 Mar. 2011. .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJay Henderson
ReplyDeleteBloom
Period 5
The Spanish American War and its effects on the Caribbean
Since the Christopher Columbus first landed on the white beaches of Cuba, in 1492, the largest island of the Caribbean had always been the apex of Spanish Colonization over the world. The conquistadors sailed from Havana to conquer the Aztecs and Spanish Galleons made birth there, bringing gold back from the new world.
But from one defeat to another, at the hands of superior England, France and America; Spanish influence began to shrink, along with its island holdings. Land was either taken or freed as the magnificence that was once Spain faltered. The US eventually became more influential over Cuba than the motherland, as American businessmen came to the country to invest in tobacco and sugar plantations. While America promised opportunity, Spain only increased the taxation burden on the colony. When Spain began to hold Cuba down, they revolted. Cuba failed to separate from Spain many times, with no success.
During this time period, however, many economic and social reforms were made. Slavery was abolished, bringing a large population of tenant farmers into the workforce. Sugar Productions rose to an all-time high. US dollars moved in as products were shipped out.
Finally, after the famous sinking of the US warship Maine, President McKinley was forced to declare war on Spain. After many months of naval combat, the far superior American fleet crushed the aging Spanish fleet. On May 20, 1902, Cuba gained formal independence from the U.S. as the Republic of Cuba. Eventually, they sunk back into domestic chaos, however, the most peaceful and prosperous times in Cuban history came to be because of American intervention.
World Civilizations: The Global Experience, 6th Edition World Civilizations: The Global Experience, 6th Edition.
Bonnie M.
ReplyDeleteBloom Period 6
Brendan, it is very interesting to think how much western intervention impacted Latin America in so many ways. Latin America followed the in the footsteps in the revolutions of American and French Revolutions. In a way, that is also western intervention; the revolutions from the west inspired them to do exactly the same as they did. They wanted to win their independence from the countries that exploited their land and suppressed them. Thus bringing us to the Monroe Doctrine. You mentioned how the Doctrine was intended for Europeans stay out of America. But Latin America also used that document, in a way, as their own. They wanted the west and United States to stay out of their interests and leave them alone. But, as you said, the United States and Europeans used it to infiltrate Latin America.
Keenan Prouty-Mr.Macy-Period 6
ReplyDeleteWhen Europeans kept moving on and trying to migrate to America. while the Europeans were migrating, many things were happening in America. Such as The Monroe Doctrine and the American Revolution was taking place. Two very important things in American history. The Europeans were trying to come to the americas for on main reason, Freedom! “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) The Monroe Doctrine states that the rule in america states they dont want to deal with foreign policy. But Europeans wanted to come over to america and nothing was going to stop them.
Another huge thing that took place was the Western Intervention.When western intervention cam into play it caused a major revolution to take place. Many native people were killed. But overall the western intervention was very harmful to multiple social classes and people. The main people that were affected were the Europenas and the whites. as soon as this happened the whites and europeans got put all the way down at the bottom of the food chain. but the Monroe Doctrine realates to this also. because the americas were being controlled by outside sources. “The Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government.” (Monroe) This statement is suppose to sound friendly and nice but if you really think about it it is a very strong statement and alot happened after it was stated.
Carly Badger
ReplyDeleteper 6
Responce to Maddie S.
Maddie, I love how you choose two documents that had opposing viewpoints. It provided your post with a clear look into what both societies thought of the same document, the Monroe Doctrine. This allows the reader to see an ulterior motive that the United States had when they wrote this document. Your post also let us see that the Latin Americans also knew of this motive and you clearly demonstrated with hard evidence their reaction to it. I also liked that you supported the documents you found by comparing them to what we have previously learned in our text books. Great job Maddie!
Alyssa Boyle Period 1 - Bloom
ReplyDeleteResponse to Bonnie Mach
Bonnie, I completely agree with your statements concerning the ideology behind the United States’ prerogatives concerning not only their affairs but the affairs of Latin America as well. They broke away from Europe and now had begun asserting themselves in worldly affairs, “flexing their muscles,” and the Monroe Doctrine was their initial step into the big leagues. Also your completely right in that after the United States said hands off Latin America they immediately began making concessions and forcing their way in.
Maddie Sherman
ReplyDeletePeriod 1-Bloom
Carly B., this is awesome writing and you pack it full with great information that backs up your reasonings and views on Westernization. I like how you included information about how the United States’ intervention didn’t stop after the Monroe Doctrine. You included in your paragraphs, the Monroe Doctrine and how the United States interfered with Texas which influenced the American- Mexican War. You did a very good job with informing the readers on how you feel about Westernization and back it up very well. Good Job =).
Ian R.
ReplyDeleteBloom P.6
Response to Stephen Hardy
All of your points are very valid, but there are some other points you could have added. First, you could add points on how common people felt. Points such as how they reacted to the invasion. However, you covered all the main points and all you could add is to elaborate on your points. A bit more explanation would include background on how they got to the point of revolutions. All around you did a stellar job.
John N.
ReplyDeleteBloom P.3
Response to Ian,
Ian, I liked the fact that you acknowledged that the US wasn't using the Monroe Doctrine for peace and a big brother sort of gesture, it was using it to expand the US influence in South America. This lead to construction of the Panama Canal and the breaking up of many Latin American countries well into the 20th century. Nicely done.
Jessie Wormer. Period 6.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Konnor...
I agree with your statements about how South America was easily taken advantage of and they were just a hub for raw materials and a “quick destination for wealth”. But, i also think that this colonization was good for the America’s. If they were not given the chance to come in contact with global trade, they would have had more catching up to do with the rest of the world when they finally became interested. This also allowed them to come in contact with ideas such as revolution which overall led to their freedom and this would not have initiated so soon if they had not received the attention that they did. Before, the opportunity for success in the America’s was very limited and to broaden their view this was bound to happen. Although for a while the natives did not resist the influence, if they did not build up rage revolution might never have happened.
KJ S. Period 6 Bloom:
ReplyDeleteResponse to John N. (Western Intervention)
John, I think it is extremely important you mentioned the intervention of the United States in Latin America’s affairs, and the guise they wore to disguise attempts to further themselves economically as an outstretched hand to help in achieving independence. It couldn’t have been explained much better and I agree with you 100%, especially with the sources you cited: the United States utilized the Monroe Doctrine to gain a monopoly over the vulnerable Latin American nations seeking independence. I think it is also important for us to remember that they were so vulnerable to the demands of the United States due to the diversity of these nations. The differing views and values of the numerous diverse people seeking to unite under one nation or state led to the inability to cooperate and create a stable government, let alone defend itself. Perhaps if the United States had abided by the Monroe Doctrine, Latin America would have had a chance to develop and would be further along today.
Seth Taylor Period 1 Bloom
ReplyDeleteResponse to Stephen Hardy
Stephen, I definitely agree with you statements. It is almost ironic that the U.S. told the Europeans to back off but then they used Latin America for their own benefit later. It was Europe’s fault though that the countries that they had conquered decided to revolt against them. Your theme is very accurate, Latin America was never really free from foreign influences. One thing you could have improved on is your use of documents. Try to include them in your writing to conclude your point and make it stronger.
Michal T.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Melissa
I completely agree with the statement that Latin American countries were dependent on European markets. After all, that's why they were colonized in the first place, to trade new products with Europe and provide an opportunity for European countries to expand their markets. However, I also think that Monroe Doctrine was a little hypocritical by its nature, because instead of helping Latin American countries break free from any world power it made it easier for the US to get involved in these countries. Although, as the article says, Thomas Jefferson's opinions are "worthy of any attention", he fails to see this important aspect of the problem.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteErik D.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa, I agree with the argument you make about the US being hypocritical by still interfering with Latin America while the Monroe doctrine said that it was to be left alone. I also agree that the US tricked Latin America by claiming to help, but actually exploiting their recourses. Good paragraphs.
Jake G.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I like how you pointed out how ironic it was that the United States established the Monroe Doctrine to eliminate any foreign intervention from Europe, yet they had no problem meddling with affairs in the new Latin America. The constructed the Panama canal and conquered new territory from Spain. They even attempted to run the government in order to help "maintain their independence." The irony and hypocrisy of this situation between the United States and Latin America stands out significantly.
Cori Graves
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
Response to Brenna
Brenna,
I really like how you talk about the divisions within South America and how the lower class was viewed as barbaric. However, I'm not sure how the West is exactly involved with the natives being barbarians. It would help to explain how the West interfered and oppressed Latin America. Also, I like how you mention that Latin America's voice was taken away from the Monroe Doctrine.
Rob Murphy
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Response to Stephen Hardy
I agree with you and how Latin America was trying to gain independence from Europe and how the U.S. really helped them. I think you could've talked about how after Latin America gained independence the U.S. tried to gain control over them and how they struggled with this.
Mr. Rob Murphy,
ReplyDeleteYou are completely right about how the United States took advantage of Latin America as soon as the europeans backed off. You explained everything and made a very good point, especially about how the Latin American countries eventually gained their independence.
Bonnie. Your ideas about Europeans coming over is pretty accurate. They came here to settle new land and discover new materials. Especially when the gold rush started up, there was hype all over to get to the Americas. This helped the settling of America. But this was also bad because Europeans thought that they could do anything they wanted in the new land because their country settled it. And I like your ideas in your second paragraph. America was being hypocritical by not letting other countries come in, but we could go into other countries. This isn't right is it? But overall good post.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Cori G.
ReplyDeleteCori I definitely agree with your point you made about how the U.S believed they could go against their own doctrine and interfere with other countries in order to help them. The U.S. believes that they are the best and allowed to intervene with other countries. However, to also add with this idea of already believing they are the best they wanted to ensure this power. The U.S. wanted to continue to grow on their strength and so by having the monroe doctrine it kept European powers out and the rest for the U.S. With all the power going to the U.S they made there thought of the best become true with all the strength they obtained.
Luke Chamberlain
ReplyDeleteResponse
Coleton I agree with what you have to say regarding the developments, and the interest America had in Latin America. I think that point that you make regarding the Americas profiting off the Panama canal is an interesting point, and I too believe this. If the Europeans are threatened away from America and Latin America the Americas will make much more money and be able to industrialize faster.
Konnor P:
ReplyDeleteKonnor, this was absolutely terrible. Just kidding, I liked it. I thought it was important that you addressed both European and American intervention in Latin America. I also liked that you incorporated political issues into the post as well, such as the Monroe Doctrine, in order to further demonstrate the extent of European intervention. I agree with your claim that Latin America was easily taken advantage of because of their newly won independence.
Response to Maddie Smith
ReplyDeleteMaddie, you discuss how America inspired the Latin American revolutions through our own revolution, yet you fail to discuss how America responded to these revolutions. We did not respect their independence, instead we immediately took advantage of their vulnerability and appointed ourself the "protectors" of the Latin America. I believe that there may have been an alterior motive to supporting these revolution. Particularly in light of the growth of imperialistic ideals.
Cori Graves,
ReplyDeleteI agree completely that Latin America's economy had become far too entrenched in Europe's demand for raw materials, jeopardizing their newly gained freedom and hope for an independent economy and socioeconomic balance with Europe. I disagree, however, with your statement that the Monroe Doctrine was put into action to help Latin America. I thought that the Monroe Doctrine was used, (and maybe even abused) by the United States for their own economy. Great essay,though Cori!
@Bonnie Mach: I feel as though your blog post summarized the big picture of your ideas about the movements of people seeking to improve their future. While your main concepts were great, I feel as though your extremely powerful quotes from important documents needed to be backed up with more background information. If this was backed up with more detailed information it would have supported your theses more clearly and concisely. However, with that said, the information provided did provide an excellent big picture idea.
ReplyDeleteCole Johnson
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
In response to Brendan W:
Brendan, I completely agree with all points made in your argument. I especially like the first quote you mentioned from one of your sources, explaining how the thoughts and actions of the Latin American people will ultimately determine their means of independence. Also, I really liked the comment at the end flipping the Monroe Doctrine on the US, hinting that the US is hypocritical in their decisions, which I could definitely believe.
Erin Dobey
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Response to Maddie Moran:
I think you have a really good point in demonstrating the alterior motives of the United States when they wrote the Monroe Doctrine. An additional fact that I think would be helpful to your argument, is the mentioning of how corrput and hypocritical this legislature was, due to the fact that the United States would do a very similar thing to the Latin American societies by dominating their affairs. This caused the Latin American colonies to rely heavily on the U.S. which demonstrates the exploitation of the doctrine.
Claire Martin
ReplyDeleteResponse to Faith
Faith I completely agree with you and the documents you used. That the way the United States completely shut out the eastern hemisphere only to end up being entangled with Central and South America when the clear intention of the Monroe Doctrine is to keep out of any foreign affairs at all. The way that America used the Monroe Doctrine was to clear gain a head start. The other document that was used was a clear example of how western intervention isn't always going to be the best idea for that country, and that sometimes the civilizations need to decide for themselves what will work for their country and not follow what the developed/developing western countries are doing.
Josh Conroy period 5 Macy
ReplyDeleteEurope’s presence in Latin America was almost entirely for the vast amount of raw materials such as corn and coffee. The Europeans did not give them basic human rights as citizens of their own country. This led to the revolutions of many countries in Latin America. Citizens had enough of the west intervening in their countries. The revolution of Venezuela led by Simon Bolivar is an example of how the citizens could not take the political, economic, and social rule over their country. “An ignorant people is the blind instrument of its own destruction (Bolivar).”
The Monroe Doctrine, written in 1823, was a message to Europe explaining how they cannot intervene in the affairs with Latin America anymore. If they continued to intervene they would wage war against the United States. “It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries, or make preparation for our defense. (Monroe)”
http://www.bolivarmo.com/history.htm
Monroe Doctrine Document from packet. Print.
Carly Badger, I agree with you about the United States’ role in the intervention of the socioeconomic aspect of Latin America. You had some really good points about the false freedom that Latin America experienced. I think you were very thorough with your argument. I would have loved to hear you talk more about the expansion of the US, though. Good essay.
ReplyDeleteJosh Conroy
ReplyDeletePeriod 5 Mrs, Bloom
response to Konnor Propst
I like your post because it reflected the intervention of European countries into Latin America very well. I agree with you when you stated that Europe became so interested in the raw materials of Latin America that they didn’t take care or even give basic human rights to the people of Latin America. I liked how you included the intervention of both Europe and the U.S.
Sam,
ReplyDeleteYour posting was very good and I enjoyed reading it. You presented all your facts very vell and backed them up with information. I especially liked your point on the monroe doctrine and how the United States acted with Latin America. Good Job.
Arron Harms
ReplyDeletePeriod 5, Bloom
Response to Jay Henderson
Jay,
First off, I really enjoyed the way you worded this. it was interesting and, surprisingly, pretty engaging. On a more on-topic note: I completely agree with you when you say that the main reason for peace finally coming to Latin America was because of US intervention. Without the US and the Monroe Doctrine, Latin America would have been left to fend off the Europeans on their own - and seeing as they had absolutely no military or way to defend themselves, this would not have been good for them. Even though it was a little bit ugly, the United States intervening is indeed the real reason that Latin America finally saw peace.
Joe Vinarcsik P 1
ReplyDeleteRob, I agree that Latin America's and Europe's spread from each other over time led to many revolutions. After a certain point, the Latin American countries were only negatively affected by Europe and had no reasons to be controled by them. I liked your post, I thought it was very thoughtful.
Reilly F.
ReplyDeleteP.6
Western Intervention
European involvement in Latin America was a main reason for the mass rebellions. Latin Americans, similarly to North Americans, derived their society and ideals from Europe. Simon Bolivar stated that a people is “enslaved when the government, by its nature or its vices infringes on and usurps the rights of the citizens…”. The Americans were inspired to revolt by the examples set by the French and US revolutions, as well as the anti-colonist sentiments expressed by Bolivar. Bolivar also thought that his people “[derived their] rights from Europe.” This letter is obviously biased in favor of the Latin Americans and shows their thirst for new representation in their government.
Unfortunately for the revolutionaries the region was rich with natural resources which created an instant competition for control. The newly imperialist US saw this as an opportune moment to assert their dominance in global affairs. The Monroe Doctrine stated that “Europeans cannot interfere in the western hemisphere” and that any attempt to intervene by non-American powers would be considered a threat to the United States. The Monroe Doctrine was biased in favor of the US because it gave them sole power over much of Latin America’s affairs despite the wishes of Simon Bolivar and other Americans. The US used the Monroe Doctrine to solidify their control on many of the newly formed Latin countries.
Sources: Monroe Doctrine (1823)
Simon Bolivar, “Jamaica Letter” excerpt, pages 588-589
Reilly F.
ReplyDeletep. 6
In response to Rob
I completely agree that the US’s actions helped to protect Latin America from continual European dominance and involvement. However, I disagree in that I think US interference did not strengthen the West. The involvement of US in Latin America simply changed who Latin America was dependent on. I believe that the US undercut the Latin American independence movement from which they have still yet to fully recover.
Reilly F.
ReplyDeleteP.6
Political
Politically the revolutions in Latin America marked a turning point in global affairs. It exposed the hypocrisy of American imperialism in a country that was founded on a hatred of the very principal. The US’s separation of the western hemisphere from the influence of Europe was very successful. Like many Americans, Thomas Jefferson believed that the western hemisphere should “have a system of [its] own, separate and apart from Europe.” TJ believed with the Monroe Doctrine and believed that it was necessary to keep foreign powers out of the Americas. In a letter to President James Monroe Thomas Jefferson said that it was necessary to never “[permit] those of Europe to intermeddle with the affairs of our nations.” This letter shows bias towards the United Stated in that Thomas Jefferson considered it alright for only the US to have a say in Latin American affairs and not the Europeans.
The new era was also marked by foreign contempt for the US. The United States had become the very same oppressive government that they had just recently escaped. Many Latin American nations had the same attitude toward the US intervention that the US had toward the European intervention. Francisco Garcia Calderon was a Peruvian diplomat and writer who criticized the US foreign policy at the time. He stated that “The fortification of the Panama Canal, and the possible acquisition of the Galapagos Island in the Pacific, are fresh manifestations of imperialistic progress,” showing that US imperialism was not exclusive to Latin America. He argued that the US had taken advantage of Latin America by gaining power during the internal chaos of the revolutions. His writings were biased against the US and he wanted, like many others, a Latin America that was not economically dependent on foreign nations. Although the Latin countries had effectively removed the European’s from power with the help of the US, the US happily assumed the power over their southern brethren.
Sources: Thomas Jefferson letter to president www.mtholyoke.edu
Francisco Garcia Calderón: Latin America: Its Rise and Progress (London: T. F. Unwin, 1913), pp.392-393.
Reilly F.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ian
Ian, I like that you alluded to the fact that the US used the Monroe Doctrine for their imperialist agenda and not as a tool to create peace for the new Latin American countries. This was effectively demonstrated by the US’s support of the Republic of Panama and the building of the Panama Canal. Your post was very well organized and you mentioned key information that supported your points.