Exam 1

Manifest Destiny (Lec 6)

19th century white supremacy belief in US entitlement (by God) to land at whatever human cost in order to spread Protestantism and acquire resources. Everyone else is "wasting" opportunity to be fruitful. -Mexico was "lucky" that the US invaded and took over Texas, California, etc. -the desire to own all of the land from one coast tot he other. America has a god given right to expand/message that it's there duty to move west. -mix of racial, economic, and religious views -also taking land away from Native Americans Texans should not be subjugated by those they were "superior" to (the Mexicans)

Latino/a (Lec 1)

A pan-ethnic identity incorporating those of Latin American Origin. It would include Brazilians but excludes Spain. -This is a VERY broad group. -NOT a race -political identity and multiethnic identity

Hispanic (Lec 1)

A pan-ethnic identity incorporating those of Spanish-speaking cultures (excludes Brazil and indigenous peoples and includes Spanish)

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Birth of Mexican America (Lec 6)

Ends the Mexican American War-gives half of Mexicos territory to the US for about 15,000 dollars and then thousands (75-100 thousand) Mexicans become US citizens overnight. Mexico wanted them to get citizenship, so as not to uproot its people.--"We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us." (In 1848)Mexican diplomat Rejón:"our race, our unfortunate pósele will have to wander in search of hospitality in a strange land, only to be ejected later" (p. 20 of Lec 6 readings)

Spanish-American War (1898) (Reading by Greek Scholars)

All begins with the Monroe Doctrine (US is in charge of the Western Hemisphere and Europe cannot intervene in US affairs) Why would this doctrine pose a problem in the case of Cuba by the late 1800s? -Cuba belongs to Spain! It's a spanish colony and the US agreed to leave European colonies in the Western Hemisphere alone. When Spain begins to treat the Cubans poorly, the US is torn about breaking the doctrine for humanitarian (and potentially economic) reasons. By 1904, Roosevelt Corollary would allow for US intervention due to "chronic wrongdoing" in Latin America. This is from a speech the president gave in his state of the union and "amended' or is seen as amending the Monroe doctrine.-Latin Americans are not happy with the Roosevelt corollary and push back, as it is from their perspective imperialistic in nature.-By 1936, they push back against thE Corollary and establish their autonomy in global courts. Cuban Context What do we know about Cuba at this point?-Spanish Colony-island in the Caribbean -US business interest (trade)-High creole population-many spanish peninsulares -slavery abolished in the late 1880s-large amount of African slave population-Sugar quickly became the largest commodity on the island which led to millions of African slaves being brought in throughout Spanish colonial rule-It was one of the few colonies that remained part of Spanish Latin America beyond the independence movements.-White/Black racial makeup; not many indigenous people; Spanish migration until the 1880s: 150,000 peninsulars, 950,000 creoles, 500,000 Afro-Cubans/mulattos. Majority of people are creoles.-A couple of independence efforts in the mid to late 19th century. Mostly lead by creoles in addition to Afro-Cubans. Unsuccessful. Spain Context Spain refuses to relinquish Cuba (1492 colony and their last colony along with Puerto Rico) Cuba Libre, 10 Years War (1868-1878) Ten Years War (1868 - 1878): ultimately unsuccessful but ultimate delay leads to the abolition of slavery in 1886. The rebellions pushed for abolition. 1892 - Partido Revolucionario Cubano forms under José MartÍ (Poet and political philosopher at the time, very significant in much of Latin American movements following this time, and the father of the cuba libre movement) -Martí today is considered a "father" of Cuba; inspired by Revolution of 1959 -Goals under the Partido Revolucionario Cubano were a mix of economic and racial goals. Creoles were the dominant population and dont care much about racial goals -1895 independence is declared. US Interests -US has a history of trying to purchase cuba from Spain (like it did with Mexico) -view the spanish as barbaric (influenced by the "Black Legend" view of Spain -US expansionism is anticipated by Martí Two Divergent Views about US involvement in Cuba (1) The US was acting in a humanitarian way and colonization and imperialism jus thappened by chance (2) There are no accidents in history, things happen for the reason, follow the money trail, follow the deep seated political interests, etc. Evidence for (1): -President McKinley was, by all accounts, against war and had humanitarian convictions. -Business interests were largely against intervention - they viewed war as expensive and potentially disruptive to economic systems. (Eventually switch over to the other side...) -widespread public support for humanitarian intervention. (The yellow press - spreading early fake news, with fake news that is poorly reasearched, poor journalism) Evidence for (2): -The "Large Policy" supposed by the likes of Teddy Roosevelt. -New Manifest Destiny (white supremacist ideal in the beginning but Now by the late 19th century it takes a dark turn into the "sciences" and genetic traits and falsely interpreting Darwin's findings of racial superiority, and a paranoia globally that we cannot allow non-whites to govern because they are factually and generally inferior) featuring social Darwinism -Expansionism (jingoes) was a way of regaining manhood after tough times (fighting back from the economic collapse in the US) -"Glut thesis" - the idea that business interests would sway towards the side of war because they would make money off of a war, especially in the rough economic times. A conflict could open up more markets -Outcome of the war; the US doesn't support independence. They're protectorates. Cleveland believes cuba shouldn't govern itself because black people should not be allowed to govern themselves "we don't want another Haiti." This will work against the global order of the time (white supremacy) He feared a "Negro Republic." --Puerto Rico, Guam, Philippines, Hawaii, and Cuba are all protectorates of the US as the outcome of the war. Lead up to the War The spanish were absolutely brutal. Weyler (1895 or 1896) and reconcentration were brutal (200,000 died), even if the accounts were exaggerated by "yellow press." He was starving out the Cubans. Weyler is Governor of Cuba at this time. Spain was BRUTAL in terms of squanching the revolutionary efforts.Reconcentration ultimately ends with the assassination of Canovas (Spanish prime minister at the time) and autonomy offered To the Cuban revolutionaries, but it was too little too late for insurgents (they want liberation from Spain; peninsulars don't like the autonomous cuba because of the potential backlash from the creoles and afro-Cubans. The peninsulars are praying for US annexation at the time. War Breaks Out April 1898 War between Spain and US Factors that lead to the war: -explosion of the USS Maine in Feb 1898 (that was harbored in Havana, Cuba at the time): there is a rush to judgement and assuming it's Spanish forces. The explosion is most likely from an internal torpedo explosion but the US believes Spain did it. -Public support for humanitarian intervention reaches fever pitch; USS Maine, Cuban humanitarian crisis (and the yellow press), "remember the Maine to Hell with Spain": -Shifting business interests. -Spain, filled with fear of losing the monarchy and with public antagonizing of the US, also decides they have no choice. The US is attempting to act aggressively towards its colonies, and the Spanish would rather fight and lose than not fight at all (even in economic turmoil and outmatched by US military) Key Take Aways Aberration Thesis: imperialism was just a coincidence - doesn't hold water. -it is likely a combination of factors from both sides of the dichotomous positions (highlighted above). There were humanitarian and imperialistic forcesSome questions emerge: -Why take so much territory if it's for humanitarian reasons? --an "imperialism of righteousness" or "benevolent imperialism" Meaning we were doing things with the best intentions and with the most people in mind. Is this even possible? No it cannot, it is already an attack on sovereignty and therefore it is inherently flawed. Or yes, ultimately the ends justify the means. -Why not give Cuba any credit and/or real autonomy if the US claims to be doing it benevolently? --Platt Amendment (1903): allows US intervention in Cuba until 1959 -US is a protectorate, and can go in and intervene in Cuban policy at any time. In 1959, Fidel Castro kicks the US out completely. In conclusion, US reunited after Civil War, thrust into role as global power. This was big for the US.

Monroe Doctrine (1823)

An 1823 US policy of: (1) Disallowance of European colonialism in the Americas - lets respect sovereignty (2) Agreement to abstain from interfering in Euro affairs (3) Disallowance of European intervention in hemispheric affairs (US agreeing to leave European colonies already in the Western Hemisphere alone)

Texas-Mexican War (Acuña) - 1836 (Lec 6)

Build Up (Mexico 1800s) What do we know about Mexico leading up to its 1836 showdown with Texas?-struggle for control in Mexico: -economic struggles: mining shafts were destroyed. Following independence in 1821. -lack of infrastructure -largely an indigenous and mixed-race people -Outlawed slavery in 1829-Under Caudillo/Patronage sometimes Liberal governance --Antonio López de Santa Anna: a charismatic blizzar figure, who was a little out there, had a ceremony about his leg he lost in battle 1836 What does Acuña say about the TX struggle for independence from MX:-it was about the US Western expansionism and was in concert with the provocation of the Mexican American War. Facilitated the beginnings of the Mexican American War-Texas is a very fringe section, and soon anglo-Texans enter Texas to help stimulate its economy, and overtime, they want to join the US-US soldiers, money, and weapons were involved in the conflict. -Franklin wanted Mexican territory since 1767, Jefferson gestured toward it, Adams tried to buy it in 1826, Jackson in 1830 (all precursors to trying to get Mexico): history of anglo-America's desire to expand and seed valuable Mexican territory-Stephen F. Austin, a Texas revolutionary leader, wanted US annexation of Texas (1836 Texas wins independence as an independent republic)-The US considered Texas as independent, and this is how the republic remained stable-Anglos in Texas argue that Mexico is oppressing them after years of anti-Mexican efforts. The Mexican regime is definitely not oppressive, but maybe disorganized. They challenged slave ownership in Texas, and the anglo Texans want to craft an image of being victims. They were often revolting to the "oppressive barbaric Mexican state."--They are remembered as "freedom fighters" and significant still today Why does Acuña believe Texas Anglos had the upper hand? -Anglos heavily outnumbered Mexicans living in Texas (at least 10:1 if not 20:1)-Texans were receiving continual US support: people coming in, weaponry-Mexican soldiers were recruited from interior/southern Mexico, and many were Mayan (forced to fight and they didn't care about the cause and many didn't even speak Spanish so there was a language barrier)

United Fruit Company (Lec. 10 - Chasteen Ch. 8)

Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, Cold War era US intervention. Big company in Guatemala and other parts of Central America that the US had interest in preserving. (Chasteen chapter 8 maybe...?) Guatemala The US begins to see Marxism where it isn't (its just old school nationalism) and will overreact to its thought that Marxism is present -Guatemala: Jacob Arbenz is accused of communism for redistributing foreign-owned land to peasants from the united fruit company produce the big bananas. The United Fruit Company has built up a lot of the infrastructure in Guatemala to facilitate the export of bananas to the United States. Guatemala has the "banana republics" in which leaders are continuously appointed or put in power by the United States to continuously allow the United Fruit Company to operate in Guatemala without much regulation at all. At some point, the company owned 40 to 50% of the aritable land in the region and before Arbenz, they owned over 80% of the farmable land in the entire country. Arbenz, far from being a Marxist revolutionary (like not Fidel castro) just wants to stabilize his country against US economic imperialism. Much of his land he distributed belonged to the United Fruit Company. Additionally, the Dulles brothers have overwhelming influence with the US government and The Fruit Company (one is the head of the CIA), and they have CIA in Guatemala training for a coup of the democratically elected Guatemalan government lead by Arbenz. It is hard to say that the economics have nothing to do with it, when the political forces are closely tied to the people who are losing out by land redistribution. Because of a conservative army, Guatemala receives arms from Soviet-run Czechoslovakia to arm a counter-militia to ensure that the Arbenz government is not overthrown. A coup, entirely orchestrated by the US is staged to remove the democratically elected leader beloved by his country. His rule is known as the time of "Spring" with peace finally. We see decades of strife and civil war follow the CIA's coup.

Hegemony (Lec 2 - Chasteen)

Hegemony is the control of people through social norms. Some examples of hegemony in Latin America include the patriarchy, racial hierarchy, and religion. This form of control mandates consent from the bottom. The indigenous people of Latin America were effectively controlled by the Iberians although they outnumber them. These people were able to be conquered longterm via their conversion to Catholicism and the creation of a colonial structure. How did such few people colonize so many? Hegemony. Hegemony is a form of ideological/cultural domination via establishment of social norms through institutions (governments, religion, etc.)-thus, more than merely rule by outsiders, colonization was a social and cultures, event psychological processcounterculture = counter-hegemonic (norms are oppressive, not worth following)In colonial Latin America, religions nd government were intricately tied; kings were divine appointments (god placed the king there)-crowns legitimized their authority with the help of the Catholic Church-the church created a public ebb and flow of emotions with their festivities/traditions and "created time" via church bells. Life revolves around the church.Patriarchy as a hegemonic force.-precolonial Latin America was far less rigidly patriarchal-Women and mestizos/indigenous/Africans will submit often with little to no violence-Sor Juana, because of hegemony. (Sor Juana Ines De la Cruz: feminist Latin American nun who desired to be educated and an intelectual in her time, but she is forced to give up on her dreams and become a nun due to the patriarchal society and just becomes a nun)--there is a threat of violence initially, eventually a way of life (the threat is always there). Most people become Catholics and assimilate into the Iberian way of life even without an immediate physical threat of violence, but knowing that it's always present int he background Forced conversion and then they are catholic, but not catholic enough-religious newcomers are not easily accepted as legitimate therefore they are continually subjugated. Chasteen (first lectures probs lecture 2)

Describe how the formation of a monoculture economy in much of Central America arguably led to a civil war in Guatemala in which a genocide of the nation's indigenous population occurred.

In Guatemala, the establishment of a monoculture economy by U.S. agribusiness ultimately lead to civil war in Guatemala and the mass genocide of the indigenous population. The Del Monte Company, the largest landowner in Guatemala with fifty-seven thousand acres, was cultivating the land for luxury crops that were mainly sold in the United States. This monopoly of land ownership left little space for sustainable agriculture to feed Guatemalans. This leads to the popular election of Jacobo Arbenz in 1950, and Arbenz promises to reform agrarian law in 1952: authorizing the expropriation of unused land in large estates. However, this attempt to redistribute land and destroy the monoculture economy is considered "communistic" in the US and Arbenz is toppled by the CIA. This leads to a series of successive military-dominated regimes in Guatemala. In 1982, General Efraín Ríos Montt takes power at a time when the guerrilla movement has gained momentum and support from the starving indigenous sympathizers. Ríos Montt begins genocidal efforts against indigenous people and anyone suspected of Marxist tendencies by attacking villages and forcing remaining survivors into the mountains. The U.S. and its creation of a monoculture that starved the Guatemalan people, and its motive to displace Arbenz, in addition to its military aid to the genocidal leadership all contributed to the mass genocide of indigenous people in Guatemala leaving 200,000 dead and ultimately allowing Ríos Montt to evade any charges for his actions.

Why do some believe that the U.S. was imperialistic in its involvement in the Spanish American War of 1898 and what do they point to as evidence?

In the Spanish American War of 1898, there are many reasons to believe that the US was acting in an imperialistic manner. First, the US had repeatedly attempted to purchase Cuba from Spain. This begins with Adams who in 1825 attempted to purchase the island, and even José Martí predicts this US expansionism attitude writing "to change masters is not to be free." Besides this preliminary evidence, following the "money trail" and deep seated political interests, it is evident that the US involvement in the Spanish American War did not stem directly from humanitarian values. To begin, there is a new "Manifest Destiny." This white supremacist ideology has taken a darkly scientific turn, with false interpretations of Darwin's findings of racial superiority. This leads to global paranoia and fear of non-whites, such as most Cubans, governing, and is a reason for potential US invasion. Cleveland even says "we don't want another Haiti" and that he feared a "Negro Republic." Furthermore, the US has just come out of economic collapse, and the belief that this expansionism policy will be a way of bouncing back after the tough times facing the US, and promoting the country as a superpower. The US, in the end, finishes on top and showing its strength as a global super power reunited after Civil War, which was a big deal for the country. Also tied to the rough economic times is the glut thesis that predicts the sway of business interests to the side of US imperialistic intervention in Cuba via the support of the Spanish American War of 1898. This idea predicts that the businesses will support such intervention, although they did not originally, as it will be a way to make money off of conflict and that conflict will open up more markets. This prediction was correct. Furthermore, in the end, the US had taken so much territory for a country that invaded only for humanitarian reasons, and it maintained Cuba as a protectorate via the Platt Amendment of 1903 until the Cuban Revolution in 1959 instead of giving the country more autonomy. All of this evidence suggests that the economic and political reasoning is why the US was imperialistic in its involvement in the Spanish American War of 1898 and did not get involved solely for humanitarian reasons.

Pan-Ethnicity (Lec. 19 - Mora)

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a pan-ethnic identity as Hispanic/Latina/o is forged by: Activists US government/Census Spanish-language media. It did NOT come from the incorporation of the new influx of "new latinos" in the 80s. Basis for Latinidad Pan-Latin Americanism is present in the work of the Cuban José Martí well before the 20th century. He was writing about Latin American colonization in the 1800s Is Latinidad based on real similarities according to Mora • Shared language, religion (typically catholic), shared colonial experience by the Iberians (not the same everywhere) ◦ Pan-Latin Americanism present well before the 20th century. José Martí was writing about Latin American colonization in the 1800s ◦ Latinos were not made by gov, media, and activists out of nothing and there is this pan-Latin American idea ◦ Even if Cuban americans struggled less, they were still tied to their latinidad, still victims of discrimination, and not necessarily granted "whiteness" without a fight with US anglos However, Mora argues these similarities are unstable, Why? • Cubans vote Republican and Puerto Rican's and Mexicans vote democrat • Prevalence of English (the idea that all latinos can be appealed to in spanish is false, as many latinos speak English) • Protestantism: not all latinos are catholic, Protestants are pushing their religious agenda in Latin America and there's a huge rise of Protestantism among lantinxs • Heterogeneity of Latin America: Latin Americans are from different racial backgrounds, different food, different political agendas, different histories, different indigenous communities (Quetchua). This is why ambiguous terms for latinidad are utilized Many latinos do not think of themselves as Latinos • most latinos just identify themselves by their ethnic ties to their nation of origin • However, the number of those who view it as a secondary identity is rising sharply (Mexican-Americans, identifying latino as their second identity) ◦ Univision promoting this, and same with English channels • Chicago: greater panethnic view than many other places due to it being more of a meeting place for latinos What are the three main forces creating this Hispanic (language identity) /Latino/a (geographic identity) panethnic identity? • Media • Government officials (burocrats) • Activists Activists • Resented the "white" label given to Mexicans ◦ Mexicans are considered as racially white (Texas): Anglo men would marry Mexican women to get in on the land that Mexican families own. Interracial marriages were illegal, so anglos wanted Mexicans to be declared as white so they could marry into the family and access the land. ◦ Focus on the idea that Puerto Ricans and Mexicans still felt the sense of "second class citizenship" although they are considered as white ◦ Today 1/5 americans is latino/a. Migrations of 80s-2000s leads to the presence of latinos and a push in leveraging political power by activists US Government/Census • Government wants to create an identity as a way to address Puerto Rican and Mexicans, so that they can address all of their needs at once. They wanted to work with all groups at the same time to meet their demands in a more moderate way and to convolute some of the demands that activists were making at the time • 1976 - congress passes policy to chart or keep track of the number of latinos/Hispanics (see the large name above). • 1980 Census: we first see people being tracked by their Hispanic identities through the Census. It continues to evolve every year because this is a panethnic term spanning multiple races and cultures. These terms begin to make their way into American popular language Media • Univision central (third party acting in conjunction with these other groups helping to circulate the ideas that people from the Latin American region all have something in common) • They have economic motivations and are trying to establish a Hispanic market for profit motives Latino and Hispanic was well on its way before a lot of latino enclaves diversified in the 1980s (Dominicans, Venezuelans, and Colombians) • This is not the reason for the latino/a and Hispanic category emerged. It is not due to new migrations.

Who was La Raza Unida Party and what was their purpose?

La Raza Unida Party was formed in direct response to the East LA Walkouts by Jose Angel Gutierrez. It was borne in the town of Crystal City, Texas. Here, although student walkout demands had been met, the kids were still forced to return to "the same teachers, the same principle, the same superintendent, the same school board" (Prejudice and Pride). Gutierrez quickly realized that the only way to truly effect change is through Political revolution; for this reason, La Raza Unida, a political party composed of Mexican-Americans, was formed. The goals of La Raza Unida were to gain representation for Mexican-Americans and to disseminate white power structures: addressing segregation within Crystal City and an underrepresentation of Mexican-Americans in positions of power. By the 1970s, they had taken control of many local positions within the segregated town. However, the group never gained much traction outside of Texas, and their slogan "the gringo must go," was routinely misinterpreted by Anglo-Americans as a call to 'off' all of the white people rather than one to dismantle the inherently racist and oppressive systems, such as the education system, that was harming Mexican-Americans. Furthermore, the group stands in direct opposition to Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez, who was considered to be very conservative by this time: neglecting the poorer communities and not serving his base in congress. Although La Raza Unida Party did eventually fracture due to internal fighting, it still served another important purpose creating a lasting impact on Chicano/a representation by inspiring activists like Willie Valesquez who worked to increase voter registration throughout the state of California in 1974 among Latinx communities.

Chicana/o (Lec 1)

Mexican-American. Often a political identity and it comes from the Mexicas (Aztecs) who Migrated from the north to Mexico City It is a claim of indigineity and often a term of pride. It is de-colonial.

Boricua (Lec 1)

Puerto Rican: tied to their indigeneity

Discuss some of the key distinctions between the Spanish and Portuguese movements for independence in the Americas.

The route to independence for Spanish America differs greatly from that of Brazil's independence and was much more violent. In Spain at the time, the country was already suffering due to Napoleon's imprisonment of the Spanish King, Carlos IV, which leaves the country both economically and politically unstable. Additionally, trade among the Spanish and its American colonies was cut off by the English, which further weakens Spain, and completely cuts it off from much of the commodity trade it relied on in the Americas and weakened its ties in the colonies. However, in Brazil, during the Napoleonic wars and this time of liberalism, the English escort the King to Brazil, which elevates Brazil's status. With the loss of the Spanish monarch in 1808, Spanish-America is ready for its independence, and creoles are sick of being under the control of Spain and the peninsulars, so Spanish-America takes this opportunity to form juntas, and although the Spanish attempt to include the American colonies in their new liberal constitution and the Spanish Monarchy attempts to regain control, uprising is in places like Mexico had already begun. The Creoles are able to use nativism to sway enough mestizos in addition to indigenous people and Africans to join the violent movement for independence. Additionally, people such as Simon Bolivar rallied support from South American people in order to liberate Venezuela, Bolivia, Colombia, Panama, Ecuador, and Peru. However, it tended to be far more violent than in Brazil. With the presence of the Monarch, Brazil becomes a kingdom, and when the king's son Pedro is left in charge. Under the council of his liberal advisers, they declare Brazil as independent in 1822. This is after the 1817 effort in Pernambuco that showed signs of liberalism emerging, and in an effort to prevent hostility, Brazil is declared independent instead of the brutal fight for independence in much of Spanish America. This proactive declaration prevented political instability and maintained economic stability. It left the monarchy and slavery intact for longer in Brazil, but overall, it left the country more stable than much of Spanish America.

Mexican-American War (1846-1848) Acuña (Lec 6)

Why did this war happen?The US claimed Mexican aggression over border dispute after the US annexes Texas. There is a dispute about whether the border is at the Rio Grande or Noasis river. (US says rio grand river - where it is today)-the US sends an army to say theyre prepared for war and then Mexico sees this as the US sending solders onto Mexican territory, and the Mexicans fire shots at the US solders.in Acuña's view, the US was looking for a war in order to expand its territory, show off its military prowess (the US is a young country still too), build a patrimony (legend for themselves) and make profits (most important).-this is a money game.-aids the rapid industrialization of the US at this timeWhat was the outcome?-A relatively swift and brutal war-America left a "legacy of hate" in Mexico because of their brutality during the war. Acuña views the war effort as a "conquest." He says it was brutal, they killed children, and did a lot of stuff they didn't need to.--Texans/Rangers among the worst (and the US solid eras had to say no more Texan solders, rangers also have a horrible reputation for chasing people down, killing them, and beating Mexicans); Irish platoon defects from the US after witnessing the brutality against Mexican clergy by the Anglo americans. The rationale for the conquest was Manifest Destiny War is ended by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo