OMAR MATOS – History 3072, History of Modern Latin America

Cuban & US Relations During The Cold War

Work Cited

Problems in Modern Latin American History (Latin American Silhouettes). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kindle Edition.

The rise of Castro and the outbreak of revolution. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/event/Cuban-Revolution/The-rise-of-Castro-and-the-outbreak-of-revolution

Castro and the Cold War. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2020, from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/comandante-cold-war/

U.S.-Cuba Relations. (n.d.). Retrieved December 11, 2020, from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-cuba-relations

He Grew up White. Now He Identifies as Black. Brazil Grapples with Racial Redefinition.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazil-racial-identity-black-white/2020/11/15/2b7d41d2-21cb-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html

Terrance McCoy and Heloisa Traiano’s Washington Post article, “He Grew Up White. Now He Identifies as Black. Brazil Grapples with Racial Redefinition,” implies that shifting racial identity is a new construct in Brazil. During Brazil’s making as a nation, people always shifted their racial identity, and sometimes they did so in vastly contradictory ways. McCoy and Traiano are wrong to suggest this is a new phenomenon.

Brazil has the largest population of people of African descent outside of Africa. White colonists imported the most significant number of enslaved Africans to Brazil, and they did not abolish slavery until 1888. The early Portuguese settlers, predominantly men, routinely raped African and indigenous women, creating a mulatto population. “From their first contact with women of color, the Portuguese mingled with them and procreated children of mixed race” (Freyre 168). Throughout Brazilian slavery, miscegenation was common, and today Brazilians commonly accept racial identity as something fluid. In contemporary Brazil, Black people make up a racial majority, yet they are the most marginalized and politically underrepresented.

McCoy and Traiano’s article examines how political candidates identify racially in Brazil. They find that “More than a quarter of the 168,000 candidates who also ran in 2016 have changed their race, according to a Washington Post analysis of election registration data. Nearly 17,000 who said they were White in 2016 are now mixed. Around 6,000 who said they were mixed are now Black. And more than 14,000 who said they were mixed now identify as White” (McCoy & Traiano). I argued that the Washington Post oversimplifies the issue of Brazilian racial identities. Brazilians have always claimed a mixed racial identity. According to historians, “Portuguese colonies in tropical America became, in their demographic composition, hybrids of European, Indian, and later, African [sic]” (Freyre 166). Thus, for many contemporary Brazilians, they consider themselves not a race but rather just Brazilian. Consequently, skin color is just the skin color and not tied to any understanding of one’s race.

Today, Brazil’s marginalized Black population has become more politically vocal. Perhaps the protests against racial injustice in the United States have awakened this Afro-Brazilian voice. Ideologies of Black power has empowered Afro-Brazilians to become vocal about the disparities they face from their government. “In Brazil, which still carries the imprint of colonization and slavery, where class and privilege are strongly associated with race, the racial reconfiguration has been striking” (McCoy & Traiano). According to McCoy and Traiano, Brazilians are now redefining their identities.

In conclusion, Brazilians are not redefining their identity, but rather have always been fluid with how they racially categorize themselves. In the Washington Post article, the politicians who changed their racial identity multiple times did so to maintain or obtain power. Their behavior is not a new phenomenon. People in Brazil have always opted to change their racial identity to benefit themselves socially, politically, and economically. These politicians are merely continuing historical continuities of racial identity in Brazil. Racial identity is about power, not just skin color. Brazilians once saw Blackness as a political weakness, but today they see it as social capital and a benefit.

Terrence McCoy, H. (2020, November 19). He grew up White. Now he identifies as Black. Brazil grapples with racial redefinition. Retrieved December 10, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazil-racial-identity-black-white/2020/11/15/2b7d41d2-21cb-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html

Problems in Modern Latin American History (Latin American Silhouettes). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Document 10. Memorandum of Conversation, “Rough Draft of Summary of Conversation Between Vice President and Fidel Castro,” April 25, 1959

Based on a memorandum between Fidel Castro and the U.S. Vice-President, it is clear that Castro helped Cuba create its fate. On January 8, 1959, Castro and his forces entered Havana as the Cuban Revolution’s victors. Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista, who served as a military dictator from 1952-1959. Batista’s repressive government widened the gap between the rich and poor. His economic policies gave away 75% of Cuba’s farmland to foreigners, and the United States held control over Cuba’s sugar industry. According to class readings, “The economic instability of the sugar industry … and foreign domination of the economy … exacerbated these inequalities, generating twin sets of grievances for ordinary Cubans” (Dawson location 5571). Eventually, Cubans began to riot, displaying public discontent over the declining economy, inequality, and the repressive government. Castro managed to expand these demonstrations and riots into a collective people’s fight.

Castro gained support from the working-class poor and Cuba’s rural classes. He chose to live among Cuba’s rural population and identified with the poor. Despite having little to nothing, Castro inspired everyday people to fight the Cuban military that the U.S. had supported with heavy arms. Outnumbered and poorly armed, Castro and his countrymen used guerrilla warfare tactics. Historians assert, “Batista fell because of a concerted effort that included rural guerrillas, an urban underground, and striking workers” (Dawson location 5576). Ultimately, Cubans from the ground up defeated Batista’s regime, and with their victory, they decided their country’s political and ideological fate.

The United States kept a watchful eye on Cuba. Since the end of World War II, U.S. Presidents feared the Soviet Union would convert Latin American countries into Communist allies. Cuba was a close neighbor to the U.S. and had achieved a revolution during the Cold War. It was not a literal war, but rather an ongoing political and ideological rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Castro emerged as the new leader of Cuba and chose communism, infuriating U.S. President Eisenhower.

After the Cuban Revolution, Castro visited the United States in April 1959. The trip was an opportunity to prove himself a world leader, validate socialist policies, and explain how communism best served the Cuban nation. Vice-President Richard Nixon wrote a memorandum that provides a description of a meeting he had with Castro on April 19, 1959. In the memo, Nixon explains how he tried to push Castro towards pursuing democracy and capitalism for Cuba. Nixon has doubts if he could sway Castro’s thinking. For example, Nixon speaks to Castro about holding public elections as soon as possible. However, Nixon found it hard to convince a man who “seemed obsessed with the idea that it was his responsibility to carry out the will of the people” (Nixon p.1). In return, Castro offered criticisms of the U.S. He suggested that Nixon talk about U.S. Democracy rather than use propaganda to create fear of communism. According to Castro, fear-mongering was not the best way to convince the world of U.S. superiority to communism. Ultimately, Nixon admits to being impressed by Castro’s undeniable force as a leader. Nevertheless, he concludes by criticizing Castro, saying, “he is either incredibly naïve about communism or under communist discipline – my guess is the former” (Nixon p.4).

The relationship between the U.S. and Castro would go downhill after this meeting. In less than a year, the U.S. government would attempt to overthrow Castro in the Bay of Pigs attack, but they failed, ending with decades of animosity between the two countries.

Work Cited

Dawson, Alexander. Latin America since Independence. Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

Document-10-Memorandum-of-Conversation-Rough

Myre, G. (2014, December 17). The U.S. And Cuba: A Brief History Of A Complicated Relationship. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/12/17/371405620/the-u-s-and-cuba-a-brief-history-of-a-tortured-relationship

President Porfirio Diaz

This is a portrait of Porfirio Diaz created around 1874-1879. He was Mexico’s President and dictator for more than 30 years, from 1876 to 1911, serving seven terms. Born on September 15, 1830, his parents named him Jose de la Cruz Porfirio Diaz Mori. Diaz’s father was a criollo and worked as an innkeeper. He died when Diaz was only three years old, leaving his wife to raise their seven children. Diaz’s mother–a mestiza–could hardly make ends meet but managed to provide Diaz with an education. She wanted him to become a priest, but Diaz wanted something different. At the age of 16, he joined a militia and thus began his climb to power.

Mexico enjoyed great political order and prosperity under Diaz’s rule. During his regime–a period known as Porfiriato–Diaz encouraged economic development, established new industry, and revised laws to attract foreign capital. Historian Celso Furtado examined the advances Latin American countries achieved over the three decades leading up to World War I. He found, for example, in Mexico, the “Díaz administration created the conditions for a large inflow of foreign capital directed mainly into mineral production” (Furtado, 269). Thus, oil production rose from 10,000 barrels a year to 13 million. Additionally, Diaz transformed Mexico’s system for mining various precious metals, such as copper, gold, and silver. He also built an efficient transportation system to ensure Mexico’s economy would continue to boom.

Not all Mexicans benefitted under Porfiriato and the new economic policies. Although Diaz and his elite friends enjoyed the boom, Native Indian people suffered. Diaz appeared to care little for the native majority. He and his followers believed the Native Indian population was incapable of rational thought. In a 1908 interview with James Creelman for Pearson’s Magazine, Porfirio Diaz states, “The Indians, who are more than half of our population, care little for politics. They are accustomed to look to those in authority for leadership instead of thinking for themselves. That is a tendency they inherited from the Spaniards, who taught them to refrain from meddling in public affairs and rely on the Government for guidance.” Ironically, people from Native communities filed several lawsuits fighting to keep their lands. Diaz struck down every lawsuit and instead allowed foreigners to purchase almost everything.

In sum, Mexico became a democracy ruled by a self-interested dictator who would stop at nothing to maintain power, which ultimately led to his demise. Eventually, some elites grew tired of his rule and efforts to prevent others from gaining any political power. As we have learned in class, Mexican elites did not like their ambitions to be held back (which is what caused people to push for independence from Spain). Consequently, one such elite challenged Diaz. In 1908, Francisco I. Madero, the son of one of Mexico’s wealthiest families, ran against Diaz for the presidency. Diaz arrested Maduro in an effort to control the outcome of the election. Diaz won. Maduro fled to the United States and declared himself the legitimate President. On November 20, 1910, Maduro called for a revolution. Back in Mexico, unrest exploded. At 80 years old, Diaz Faced the inevitable and resigned from office on May 25, 1911. On July 2, 1915, he died an exile in France.

Work Cited

Dawson, Alexander. Latin America since Independence. Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

Problems in Modern Latin American History (Latin American Silhouettes) (p. 269). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Richard Cavendish | Published in History Today Volume 61 Issue 5 May 2011. (n.d.). The ousting of Porfirio Díaz. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/ousting-porfirio-d%C3%ADaz

Tony. (2020, June 24). Porfirio Diaz, an enigma. Retrieved October 15, 2020, from https://www.mexconnect.com/articles/661-porfirio-diaz-an-enigma/

La Virgin de Guadalupe

La Virgin de Guadalupe holds a special place in Mexico’s religious life and is one of the most famous religious devotions. The origin of La Virgin goes back to December 12, 1531. The Virgin Mary, with native features and dressed in Aztec attire, first appeared to a native man named Juan Diego, who had converted to Christianity. In his indigenous language, she asked for a shrine in her honor on the very spot where she appeared, Tepeyac Hill, located just outside of Mexico City. When he approached the town bishop with his vision, the bishop demanded a sign before he would approve such a task. Mary then appeared a second time to Juan Diego and ordered him to collect dozens of roses. When he met with the bishop again, Juan Diego opened his cloak, letting the roses fall to the floor, revealing Mary’s image imprinted on the inside of the cloak.

Guadalupe’s brown skin and native features drew similarities to Tonantzin, a goddess worshipped by the Aztec people. Her visual representation also suggests traditional Catholic imagery. Her eyes look down with humility and compassion. She is human, not God. She wears a cloak covered with stars to show that she comes from heaven. The constellations are in the exact position as they were the morning of December 12, 1531. Her robe is usually covered with Aztec flowers, symbolic of an Aztec princess.

From the sixteenth century on, her image served as a symbol of freedom for the oppressed native populations. It spontaneously welded together all the different layers of the Viceroyalty of Nueva España. The criollos, distrusted by the Peninsulares, were treated as second-class citizens and given lesser positions at every professional level. With their growing numbers, intensely dedicated to the colony’s success, the criollos would become essential characters in Guadalupe’s spreading, aiding their ambition to create a Mexico out of Nueva España.

Miguel Hidalgo, a father of Mexico, was a Catholic priest and a criollo who envisioned an independent kingdom. He took up Guadalupe’s banner, gave the Virgin the title of “General Captain,” and paraded her image in every city he entered on his march to Mexico City, declaring independence on September 16, 1810. Hidalgo used her image as a catalyst for his nationalist goals and a focus for anti-Spanish sentiments. Guadalupe attracted a wider following for his rebellion, propelling her to become the symbol of the movement. “When they rallied behind the flag of rebellion, Mexicans followed the image of The Virgin of Guadalupe” (Dawson). They defined themselves as fundamentally distinct from the Spanish and celebrated their national cultures.

In 1811, Jose Maria Morelos, a catholic priest but of mixed ethnic background, joined Hidalgo’s rebellion and later became a leader after his execution. Inspired by Hidalgo’s actions, he created a preemptive piece that laid the bases for a future national constitution. This document became known as The Sentiments of the Nation and consisted of twenty-three articles. In the nineteenth article, he calls for the constitution to establish December 12, the day of La Virgin de Guadalupe, patron saint of Mexico, as a holiday to be celebrated (Wood, Alexander 36).

La Virgin de Guadalupe has played a vital role in Mexico’s history and remains a powerful symbol of Mexican identity and faith. To honor her, people light a candle and say a prayer in her name. Today, her image is associated with everything from motherhood to feminism to social justice and has come to embody Mexico’s modern reality as a melting pot. Serving as a reminder of the power of Mexico and the Mexican people.