Book Review

The following review was taken from H-LatAm. It is posted here since it is aligned with some of the main topics of this blog.

Greg Grandin. Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism.
New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006. 237 pp. $25.00 (cloth),
ISBN 978-0-8050-7738-4; $16.00 (paper).

Reviewed by: Michelle DiPuma, School of Law, Hofstra University.
Published by: H-LatAm (October, 2007)

The average U.S. citizen is doubtless unaware of its country's involvement in Latin America throughout the twentieth century. In Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism, Professor Greg Grandin attempts to give his readers the inside scoop into U.S.-Latin American relations, with extra attention to the period of the Reagan administration. Grandin here argues that the foreign policy pursued in Latin America since Reagan correlates to the current guiding principles leading U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Actually, Grandin explicitly states that the U.S. foreign policy implemented in Latin America during the 1980s became the model for the policy pursued today in the Middle East, especially in Iraq.

Although written following the traditional arrangement of an introduction, six chapters, and a conclusion, the book can be broken down into four distinct sections. They are as follows: The first quarter of the book gives a brief overview of U.S.-Latin American relations from the end of the nineteenth century up to the present. The second quarter of the book details U.S.-controlled activity in Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador during the 1980s and the events leading up to this activity in the 1960s and 1970s. The third quarter of the book explains how these events in Central America were kept from or legitimized to the U.S. public. The final quarter of the book focuses on economic incentives for U.S. involvement in Latin America. Grandin begins in the 1940s but he once again focuses a great deal on the Reagan administration. Grandin then concludes by re-stating his thesis that much of the foreign policy pursued by the Reagan administration in Latin America is today emulated by the Bush administration in the Middle East.

This book may prove a good read for both scholars of Latin American history and those who have little background in Latin American history. For readers who are unfamiliar with Latin American history, the book opens their eyes to a side of U.S. history little known to general audiences, especially its involvement in Latin America in the last twenty-five years. For these readers, the book definitely has a shock value, as it describes U.S.-led brutality in Central America and other regions. For readers with a background in Latin American history, the book provides further insight into why the United States selected the foreign policy that it did in Latin America.

But, for reasons that are not clear, this book is really targeted more toward readers who already have knowledge of Latin American history. Throughout the book, for example, Grandin constantly cites events that occurred in Latin America without explaining them. Although the book admittedly follows a loose chronological order, Grandin does jump around, both in place and time, more than what I would have preferred. This may prove even more problematic for readers who do not know much about Latin American history. Furthermore, the meaning of the titles of Grandin's chapters and the titles of the subsections within these chapters are not so obvious. If a reader does not fully understand Grandin's argument, then she will not appreciate the significance of the titles.

While it may prove informative and beneficial to readers familiar with Latin American history, from the perspective of the uninitiated Grandin's book contains one major flaw: Grandin never proves his thesis. Do not get me wrong. Grandin does fully explain how U.S. imperialism in Latin America, particularly in the 1980s, parallels U.S. imperialism today in the Middle East. But what Grandin fails to show is how the Bush administration directly models its current foreign policy in the Middle East, especially Iraq, after the foreign policy of the Regan administration in Latin America. In fact, Iraq itself is barely mentioned at all in the book.

Throughout the book, Grandin in a way disproves his own thesis. He discuses how during the Reagan administration, the United States managed to control Central America without sending a large number of U.S. troops. Indeed, much of Grandin's book is based on how the United States gained so much control in Central America with little actual occupation. But Iraq currently has a relatively large number of U.S. troops physically there, which does not compare well to the numbers present in Central America in the 1980s. In his introduction, Grandin states that most Americans do not pay much attention to Latin America because they take it for granted. But perhaps most Americans currently ignore Latin America because what is currently occurring in Iraq is very different from what occurred in Latin America during the Reagan administration. And yet, despite this shortcoming, the book is an invaluable addition to the literature on U.S. and Latin American relations, though, perhaps, the non-conversant should read it accompanied by other traditional references.

Como un bronceador en casa de esquimales: Life of Latin American descendents in the US.

It is interesting how many United Statians call "latino culture" to cultural elements which haven't been born in Latin America at all; for instance, the over-sized pants and t-shirt, the caps leaning to the side, the distinctive cadence while walking, the so-called-music "reggaetón," etc. Even more importantly, certain long-rooted ideas --like that poverty, crime and family disintegration are intrinsically related-- are more of a United Statian phenomenon and are not widely seen south of the border... but, unfortunalely, lately this has become more of a trend in Latin America, thanks to the deportation of United Statian-raized individuals and the cultural hegemony of the States over its southern neighbors.

Anybody with a decent knowledge of the Latin American culture will agree with the fact that the above mentioned cultural manifestations are intrinsically United Statian in origin, even though they have permeated only a segment –that is the Latin American descendants—of the United Statian culture. But, more importantly, the situation of family disintegration, high rates of crime and sexual promiscuity are much more present in the Latin Americans descendants living in the States than in their cousins and relatives living in the rest of the American continent, even if you factor in poverty: most of the new immigrants were poor in their countries of origin and after arriving to the States they become very hard workers, not criminals, and remain very close to their spouses. For instance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, the great majority of Latins in United Statian jails are US-born, not Latin American-born. Hence, the Million-dollar question is, why many of these new United Statian-born Hispanic Americans (USHAs) turn to the dark-side?? Even though I am not a sociologist, after some observation and thought, my very humble opinion is that the problem arises when the –very individualistic-- US culture clashes with the very group-oriented Latin American culture.

The book written by Hillary Clinton, It takes a Village, might be –just as organic food-- a novelty in the States, but nothing really new in Latin America. Latin American children are influenced by several entities while growing up: School (teacher are widely respected and heard by children and parents alike), Church (in many small towns the Priest is the psychologist and counselor for the whole population) and, of course, Home. Latin American children --since looking for acceptance from the group-- pay attention, respect, listen and follow the instructions and commands of the fore-mentioned institution and their representatives. Even neighbors take the responsibility of rebuking, instructing and/or teaching children if the situation presents itself. By the time these children become adults, "doing the right thing" is engraved in them, so they can be honest people even in the United Statian slums; hence, breaking the preconception of poverty equals crime.

Unfortunately, USHAs don't have the afore-mentioned network watching after them. Latin American parents who live in the States, in the majority of the cases, work 2 or more shifts and don't have time to be spent with their children. The US society has limited the amount of power that a parent and teacher can exert when rebuking a child. Even more, it is considered a "violation of the child's personal space" if his parent become too intrusive into his child's life!! What is a Parent's job anyways?! To complicate matters even more, neighbors are not supposed to rebuke --or simply watch and let parents know-- bad behavior on others children since it will be considered too invasive in this highly individualistic society. So, the unfortunate USHA who is raised in a poor neighborhood and –since not being individualistic-- is looking for acceptance from his group of friends, only has one source left to lead him in the road of discernment between right and wrong: his peers. Thanks to the modern results in non-linear analysis inspired by Lyapunov Theory, we now know that this would be a really ill-fated situation since the chances for our beloved USHA to diverge from the right trajectory leading to the dark-side would increase greatly if at least one of his peers is marginally stable. In not mathematical language: our USHA will be screwed if a small percentage of his friends are not in the right track since he will modified his own behavior in order to gain acceptance from the pack. Due to the fact that many USHAs are raised in poor neighborhoods, without adequate supporting --and protecting—networks, these new United Statians are easy pray for crooks; much like penguin chicks and orcas: some will survive, but not enough to change the stereotypes. The influence of the stereotypes is of prime importance in this highly circular problem. This is the reason why it should be stressed the importance of USHAs (and blacks) succeeding –in this case I am talking about "success" by United Statian standards. As unfortunate --and stressful-- as it might sound, it is my very humble believe that, more than a mere motivation or inclination, it is a social responsibility with the community to show what USHAs --and Latin Americans in general-- are able to achieve.

On June 21st I saw in the news a story about a group of 17 classmates, none of them older than 16, who made a pact to get pregnant…

The problem with "Americans" –-Part 2

This issue, mentioned below, has been discussed several times. For instance, Tom Holloway started a bloodless internet discussion at the H-LatAm discussion list when his very interesting letter was posted. In this letter Dr. Holloway proposed the alternate word "United Statian" when referring to people from, or citizens of, the United States of America.

Even though there are many other very important issues to focus our energies on, this one is –with more or less transcendence-- part of the whole solution equation. As Luís Cláudio Villafañe G. Santos mentioned at H-LatAm:

Terms used to identify peoples, cultures, and regions have lately come under intense scrutiny. It has been recognized that those words can harm people not only because they are sometimes received as an overt insult but also because they can propagate a debasing representation of those people which affects their social status, political leverage, and access to public goods. The appropriation of the collective identity of the continent by one country is clearly an expression of power and a mode of manipulation that reinforces the idea of alterity used to describe the countries and peoples of the American continent excluded from this definition of America.

As Director of the Hemispheric Institute on the Americas at University of California at Davis, Thomas Holloway is well aware of the problematic use of “American” as a definition of the citizens of one specific country in the Western Hemisphere.

The reasons why the people from the States use the adjective 'American' to refer to themselves is explained in several articles at H-LatAm; and, even though many Latin Americans think that this is just another form of cultural imperialism, when seen under the light of the Ethics from Immanuel Kant --my very favorite philosopher, it is my understanding that the appropriation of the term was not tainted with such thoughts. Nevertheless, besides the reasons mentioned by Dr. Villafañe above, it is geographically and historically wrong; hence, I will follow the recommendation put forth by Dr. Holloway and I'll use the term "United Statian" when referring to the people of the States on this blog.

The trouble with "Americans" --Part 1

The next article was written by John Ryle on September 7, 1998. He is a columnist with the British newspaper "The Guardian."

A reader in Ecuador takes me to task for my use of the word 'American'. Why, asks Lincoln Reyes, is it routine to use this word, without qualification, as a synonym for 'citizen of the United States' when the majority of Americans, properly speaking, are not from there, but from other countries in North, South or Central America? If you are a Latin American like him, he says, it is galling to be consistently written out of the geography of the continent that gave you birth. No wonder people regard the US as imperialist, when it appropriates the entire hemisphere for its own exclusive domain name. How do I think it feels to be Mexican, Chilean or Canadian, confronted every day with such linguistic chauvinism? What I think is that Mexicans and Canadians have got used to it. They've had to. It is not impossible to change the name of a country. (Where, we may ask, are the Zaires of yesteryear?) But renaming the most powerful country in the world is not on the agenda. When Osama bin Laden declares war on 'America', we know he does not include Ecuador or Mexico. The usage is worldwide and unlikely to change.

Does the US have some proprietorial claim on the name of the continent it occupies? Some kind of historical precedence? Not at all. Amerigo Vespucci was an Italian who almost certainly never set foot in North America. He did explore the coast of South America, however, and in the 16th century a German cartographer named the southern part of the continent after him; only later was the term extended to include the north. So the US calling itself 'America' is something like South Africa calling itself 'Africa', or the Federal Republic of Germany 'Europa'.

This column, though, has never been one to turn its back on lost causes. So let us ask why it is that, in an age of political correctness, of sedulous public avoidance of terms that can cause offence to nations and ethnic groups, America has been exempted from reproach?

The US is the home of political correctness. What Lincoln Reyes is suggesting is that it take a dose of its own medicine.

About aspects of the U.S. Educational System

As a curious foreigner, it has been interesting to learn about the ideas, movements and history that have shaped the Education in this country. For instance, in the States it is relatively easy, compared to other parts of the world, to get into college. This idea is supported by the general conception that everybody, regardless of their personal history, should be given the opportunities –and tools-- to succeed. Based in the previous concept, and knowing that not everybody has the same gifts; different curricula have been designed in order to take advantage of the different contributions that a diverse group of students can make. Hence, not all students have to be very proficient if Math and/or Science. Some students not interested in Math and/or Science can follow a more general curriculum emphasizing arts, Social Sciences, History, etc.

This idea of having different curricula for students is a significant difference between the U.S. Educational System and the Educational System in my home country, the Dominican Republic. In the D.R., all throughout elementary, middle and high school, we have a relatively fix set of courses that every student has to take and pass. The Dominican Ed. System, I think, has the advantage of creating an individual with a well rounded set of knowledge. Ranging from World History and Geography, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Geometry, Trigonometry, Algebra and Sociology, all the way up to Psychology and Philosophy; a very well-rounded student, able to talk and understand the implications of an interconnected world, will be formed. The lack of a very well-rounded curriculum for everybody, mainly in subjects like World Geography and/or History, is one of the reasons why many inhabitants of the European continent, after which the Dominican Ed. System was conceived, think that the US people lack an understanding vision of global affairs. This idea can be reinforced after talking with High School graduates.

On the other hand, what if some students don't have the skills to triumph academically in every possible subject of knowledge? Could somebody be a good musician without knowing about the icy mountaintop of the Kilimanjaro? Even more importantly, can --or should-- a Society sacrifice those individuals that could make important contributions to a particular field just because they are ignorant in others? I think that the U.S. Educational System has been designed with a pragmatic mind; so that people could effectively ask not what [their] country can do for [them]; but instead, what [they] can do for [their] country.