Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America

“Encomiendas of conquered Moors had been awarded aplenty during the Christian reconquest of Iberia, so it was a familiar system to the Spaniards.”

Spanish and Portuguese social and political culture of the 15th century was fundamentally influenced by the countries' long struggles against the Islamic Moors. Islam and Christianity developed along lines that would make them diametrically opposed to one another. These aspects of Spain and Portugal cannot be pushed aside when one studies the repercussions of the Encounter. In many instances, with the above quote being the most prominent, the Spanish and Portuguese dealt with the Indigenous peoples of the Americas in the same ways they dealt with other non-Europeans (i.e., non-Christians). This is, of course, not a historical justification; it is merely one aspect of the explanation for why they dealt with the Americans the way they did.

“By the end of the 1500s, the basic contours of Latin American ethnicities were established. American, European, and African genes and cultures had begun to mix, creating rich potential for human diversity, but the violent and exploitive nature of the Encounter would sour the mix for centuries to come.”

Before Chasteen even begins a full discussion of transculturation, or even introduces the word, he introduces the concept of the ethnic diversity brought about in the Americas as a result of the Encounter. As he points out later, the mixing and clashing of multiple cultures, ethnicities, and subcultures thereof, would not only produce distinctive Latin American culture but also serve as evidence for much of the region’s difficulties after independence as Latin American nations dealt with dismantling an intrenched caste system, the definition of freedom, social and racial inequalities, and economic troubles that dated back to colonialism.

“There had been a few ominous tremors before 1800, but the most remarkable thing about colonial rule continued to be its overall stability.”

Chapter 4 deals broadly with the moves toward independence in Latin America, but the entrenchment of colonial ideas and beliefs lingered even after independence. The stability of European hegemony in Latin America was so strong that its replacement, independence, struggled to change many of the social and economic issues that were rallying cries for independence, such as universal freedom and more economic equality. Thus, in a way, this quote links the topics in Chapter 3 and 4 and segues into the post-independence issues discussed in Chapter 5.

“No patriot fighter could ignore the rhetorical appeal of nativism, and all used it sooner or later.”

The grand diversity of Latin America pointed out earlier in the book is shown to have been a problem for revolutionary leaders during the wars for independence. The only thing they could hope to use to unify such diverse groups as Indigenous peoples, Africans, white people, and all the mixtures therefrom was to appeal to the idea that they were alike in one area: they all were natives of the land, all had been born in Latin America and all shared more in common with one another than with the Spanish or Portuguese. Unfortunately, the diversity would continue to be problematic after independence as well.

“The broad contours of colonial Latin American culture and society underwent no profound, sudden change [following independence].”

One of the greatest rallying cries during the struggles for independence was for freedom. The despised caste system established under colonial rule was promised to be dismantled. There was great hope for the inauguration of social equality. This didn’t happen to the chagrin and frustration of many independence leaders, such as Simón Bolívar. Too many in power wanted to make sure they remained in power and did not want the social hierarchy to change. The struggle for social and racial equality was one of the greatest problems facing Latin American nations after gaining independence.

“But most indigenous people cared little for republic politics. They wanted to live apart, observing their own customs, speaking their own language, and generally minding their own business.”

This quote illustrates the difficulty of unification Latin American nations faced during the early, post-colonial period. Not only did leaders find it difficult to include everyone in the new governments, but many did not see the need or have a desire to participate. Even for those leaders who genuinely wanted to be as inclusive as possible, exclusion became the rule, and equality was thrown out the window with leaders squabbling over its definition. Indigenous people had been sidelined and mistreated since the Encounter; thus, their desire to maintain separation from the political world of the creoles and mestizos is understandable. In hindsight, what was truly needed was the gradual integration of lower-class people into an overall liberal society that provided them with true equality. Obviously, that was what liberalism preached but was unable to deliver, so history continued to repeat itself for the Indigenous people of Latin America.

“Any official ideology, any ruling cadre, tends to discredit itself after decades in power.”

The discreditation of any ruling cadre in Latin America following on the heels of independence was the rule rather than an exception. No nation in Spanish America experienced any form of stabile government during the first half of the 19th century. Mexico witnessed the rise and fall of numerous presidents. For example, Antonio López de Santa Anna was President of Mexico five times.

“Progress (with a capital P) was the great theme of the West in the nineteenth century.”

The Industrial Revolution was in full swing in Europe and the United States. European powers, such as France and Britain, and the United States began investing more into the development of Latin America. They were wanting to open new markets for trade and goods. Progress became the political and economic slogan of the mid-19th century onwards. Progress became associated with liberalism, change, and modernity and was directly opposed in most instances with ruralism and conservatism.

“The theme of Sab allowed Cuban readers to explore the meaning of their society’s racial divisions and the possibility of somehow overcoming them through love.”

As the nations of Latin America began embracing liberalism and Progress, the age-old questions of race and class emerged stronger. Though much of Latin America had abolished slavery, there was still a rigid class system that kept social climbing to a bare minimum, if not an impossibility. Thus, with little ability to change things politically, writers like de Avellaneda, Gorriti, and Matto de Turner brought the possibility of ethnic equality to the public.

“By century’s end, liberalism served, in one form or another, as the official ideology of every Latin American country.”

A major theme of Latin America is the back-and-forth struggle between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism had been the drive behind independence and revolution; however, following independence, liberal leaders were unable to unify and deliver on promises. Thus, conservatism took over leadership positions throughout Latin America in the form of caudillismo. However, as the industrial revolution arrived in Latin America via French, British, and US business and trade, Progress, i.e., social and economic progress, placed pressure on Latin American governments for change. Liberalism was that change.

“Foreign influence was so pervasive and powerful that Latin American historians call the years 1880-1930 their neocolonial period.”

The end of the 19th century witnessed the arrival of industrialization to Latin America. The problem, however, was that the vast majority of industrial improvements were carried out by foreigners rather than an internal drive at industrialization. The result was diplomatic and military pressure at the hands of European powers, predominantly from the British but also the French and the US. Much of the behavior of these foreign powers mirrored those from Spain and Portugal during the colonial era. Furthermore, the term neocolonial illustrates Latin America's dominance by European/US hegemony.

“Such ‘managed elections’ were essential to the political system of neocolonialism.”

The governments of many Latin American nations (most all in Central America) were manipulated so that those who supported US or European policies would remain in power. Freedom for locals was sacrificed in the name of capitalism. An example was the long presidency of Porfirio Díaz in Mexico between 1876-1911.

“The new nationalism that swept the region in the 1900s was another wave of the earlier nativist spirit, now with a strong economic agenda.”

Progress affected many aspects of Latin America. In the move toward greater economic development and less dependence on foreign industry, oligarchies and dictatorships provided the stability for economic development via foreign investment but at the price of freedom for the citizens. As a result, nationalism rose in response. Nationalism desired to harness the effects of Progress but under local control rather than foreign.

“The nationalist’s simple truths–that everybody belonged, that the benefits of Progress should be shared, and that industrial development should be the priority–offered an important principle of cohesion.”

This quote supports the importance of the previous quote. Furthermore, not only were development, inclusion, and universal benefits core beliefs of nationalist ideology, it affected the unification of large portions of the population with disparate backgrounds and from different classes. Nationalism did not solely appeal to lower classes but also to upper classes, who had been secluded from business opportunities because they couldn’t compete against foreign investors.

“Nationalist leaders who made a vigorous outreach to the common people without being Marxists were often called populists.” 

Marxism, and therefore communism, was a political ideology that dominated the 20th century as much as capitalism and industrialization did. However, neither capitalism nor communism provided answers and prosperity for all. During the Cold War, Latin American nations were increasingly pressured to choose between capitalism or communism, and to choose communism meant trouble with the US. In order to avoid being labeled communists or Marxist, populists used different terminology denying communism but establishing socialist programs. The presidency of Juan Perón in Argentina provides an example of populism at its strongest.

“It was Marxist historical analysis that made persuasive sense to Latin American nationalists bent on dismantling neocolonialism.”

Marx’s analysis of history viewed the narration of mankind as a class struggle, specifically workers against those who owned the means of production (i.e., the wealthy elite). This analysis appeared to describe exactly what Latin Americans had been experiencing since the Encounter. Even if Latin American governments did not completely agree with every aspect of communism as interpreted by the Soviets, many of Marx’s theories seemed plausible as a means of combating capitalist hegemony that gave Latin America another taste of being subjugated by foreign powers.

“All but the most committed Latin American anticommunists felt immense satisfaction at seeing a Cuban David stand up to the US Goliath.”

US foreign policy regarding Latin America created more enemies than friends and allies during the Cold War era. US intervention in other nations (Guatemala, Bolivia, etc.), had already diminished US prestige in Latin America; thus, when Cuba openly defied US demands and won, many Latin Americans celebrated Cuban defiance. Castro and Cuba showed it was possible to stand against and defeat the US.

“Perhaps a siege mentality explains the gruesome violence committed from the 1960s to the 1980s by Latin American militaries against their ‘internal enemies.’”

Fear of further communist revolutions in Latin America following the Cuban example caused the US to fund more and more governments opposed to communism in the region. Unfortunately, many of these government were military dictatorships that used violent methods to repress any semblance of socialist or communist organization. There was an increasing fear of the proletariat, and governments constantly felt threatened by elements from within their own countries more than foreign aggression.

“US policy called for democracy but helped trigger dictatorship.”

The US world view during the Cold War era was binary: a country was either capitalist and democratic (i.e., free) or communist. There was no middle ground. Unfortunately for many thousands of Latin Americans, this meant the US supported violent dictatorships that censored and forbade freedom far more than any communist regime had done.

“As in Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay, thousands fell victim to a well-organized program of official but clandestine torture and murder.”

Countries that had been prosperous earlier in the 20th century prior to World War II, like Brazil and Argentina, fell to military dictatorships under Cold War era pressures. In Argentina, the earlier Perón era was remembered fondly, and in the 1970s there was an attempt to bring Peronism back. However, other groups, among them communist movements, fought for political dominance. Eventually, in 1976 the military took over control of the government and dealt harshly with any subversive or perceived as subversive elements in the country. The term dirty war originated in Argentina to describe the governments battle against state terrorism.

“In 1992 she won the Nobel Peace Prize for calling world attention to the atrocities of Guatemala’s dirty war.”

“She” is Rigoberta Menchú. She was born in 1959 and grew up during the civil war in Guatemala. She lost many family members to the Guatemalan military. Her mother and brother were kidnapped, tortured, and murdered. Her father was killed during a peasant revolt that resulted in the burning of the Spanish embassy, and another of her brothers was shot surrendering to the Guatemalan army. Her book, I, Rigoberta Menchú, brought the crimes of the Guatemalan government international attention.

“Were our tax dollars paying for these bullets that cut down priests and nuns in the name of democracy? Massive public opposition to US policy in Latin America, led especially by religious groups, arose now for the only time in the Cold War.” 

Americans have asked themselves, and must continue to ponder, what repercussions US foreign policy has on foreign populations. During the Cold War era governments supported by US money and weapons destroyed the lives of peaceful innocents simply because their ideology paralleled communist ideology. Liberation theology in many ways reiterated Christ’s admonition to care for the poor and afflicted. For the most part, it had nothing to do with instigating communist revolts.

“The optimism of the 1990s evaporated afterwards, in most of Latin America, despite the new cars and computers enjoyed by the middle class, as globalization failed notably to produce universal prosperity.”

It is a tale that repeats itself throughout the book. Economic progress does occur in Latin America. The problem is, however, that progress and development only benefit a small portion of the population. The rest are left behind. This was true during industrialization, throughout the 20th century, and continues into the 21st.