The Latin American wars of independence were followed by … more wars?

The Napoleonic Wars sparked some serious wars of independence throughout Latin America. One portion of Spanish America after another became independent from Spain, and Brazil likewise became independent from Portugal. During these wars, the United States declared its “Monroe Doctrine,” pledging to keep European nations from making any additional encroachments into the New World. But, despite the American “Monroe Doctrine,” European nations continued to interfere in Latin America, even after the Spanish and the Portuguese had officially been kicked out of their former colonies. The Brazilian War of Independence would end in 1824, and the Spanish American wars of independence would finally end in 1833. But the remaining portions of the nineteenth century saw further wars in Latin America. Commercial considerations kept European powers in the picture there, although the distances continued to create some logistical challenges for the faraway Europeans. This post will focus specifically on the wars in South America, and how they rocked the continent in the post-independence parts of the nineteenth century. It is a story of distant empires interfering in local politics, and even of conflicts with similar cultures that were much closer to home on the continent.

The Chincha Islands of Peru being occupied by Spanish sailors, 1864

How much was Latin America involved in the World Wars?

Anecdote about the European blockade of Venezuela, in the early twentieth century

In 1902, three European nations imposed a naval blockade on the Caribbean-and-Atlantic coastline of Venezuela. The three European nations were Great Britain, Germany, and Italy. All of these European countries would later be fighting both of the others at least once during the future world wars. But, at this time, these three European countries were united – due to some foreign debts that the Venezuelans were then refusing to pay. The Venezuelan president, Cipriano Castro, assumed that the United States would then invoke the Monroe Doctrine on Venezuela’s behalf. But the American president (which was Theodore Roosevelt) saw this doctrine as applying “only to European seizure of territory, rather than intervention per se” – as Wikipedia’s page on the crisis puts it. Thus, the blockade instead went unopposed, and managed to disable the navy of Venezuela. A compromise was eventually worked out in 1903, with the European blockade being maintained in Venezuelan waters throughout the negotiations. But it was one of a number of precursors to the Latin American involvement in the World Wars. Despite the American Monroe Doctrine, there had been much European colonization in the Americas during the nineteenth century. But the Venezuelan Crisis of the early twentieth century reminded Latin Americans of how connected with Europe they still were. And naval affairs in South America would soon lead to a naval arms race.

Blockade of Venezuelan ports, 1902

A review of PBS’s “Breaking the Maya Code”

Deciphering the Maya glyphs opened up an entire world to historians …

Deciphering the Maya glyphs opened up an entire world to historians. People had long known about Ancient Maya civilization, and it was famous for the monuments that it had left behind. But until recent times, the inscriptions on these monuments had long proved impossible for linguists to decipher. The breaking of the Maya code was one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of linguistics, and allowed scholars to learn much about the early history of the Americas. It opened up a world for future study, and allowed the modern Maya people to have a greater connection with their ancestors and their heritage. Europeans are known for their colonial empires, which did not always treat the native peoples kindly (to put it mildly). Indeed, the Spanish Conquistadors had done their best to destroy many of the written Maya records that were available in their own time. But the European and North American scholars who deciphered Ancient Maya are a prominent exception to this. They did the surviving Maya an invaluable favor, by helping to undo some of the cultural damage caused by the Conquistadors.

A review of Boris Fausto’s “A Concise History of Brazil”

Note: The edition that I’m reviewing here was expanded by Boris Fausto’s son Sergio Fausto, to bring it up to date.

The most populous country in Latin America, with even more people than Mexico

Brazil is the most populous country in Latin America, with even more people than Mexico. It is also the only country in Latin America (or anywhere in the Americas) that speaks Portuguese. This often surprises North Americans, because they expect South America to speak Spanish. And in many other South American countries, they do. But in fairness, Spanish and Portuguese are extremely similar languages, so they’re not too far off. Of all of the major Romance languages, Spanish and Portuguese seem to me to be the closest. In the Old World, Spain and Portugal were neighbors on Europe’s Iberian Peninsula. And in the New World, they are the two dominant languages of South America, with a large border between their respective spheres. Famously, Spain and Portugal both had territorial ambitions on this continent, and appealed to the Pope to settle the boundary between their respective territories there. Spain then got everything to the west of that boundary, while Portugal then got everything to the east of it. The boundary may not be as linear as it once was, but you can definitely see its influence in the modern map of South America. This explains why the modern nation of Brazil speaks Portuguese, rather than Spanish. And it explains many other things about Latin American geography.

Original edition of this book

A review of PBS’s “Native America”

“An act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi … ”

– Full title of the “Indian Removal Act of 1830,” as passed by the United States Congress

This television history of Native Americans is more cultural anthropology than history

This television history of Native Americans seems to be more cultural anthropology than history. In part, this is because they are focused primarily on pre-Columbian history (or history before Columbus). This may explain why they don’t rely much on written records, whose availability for this period is somewhat limited – although I should acknowledge that some examples of it do exist here. History is defined more as the study of written records from the past, whereas archeology is more about the study of physical objects from the past. There is some overlap between these things, but there are also some significant differences. By this traditional distinction, there isn’t much history in this documentary, although there is much archeology in it. More to the point, there is also a lot of cultural anthropology in it. This seems to be one of the weaknesses of this documentary. I tend to be a little skeptical of cultural anthropology in general. (Although I tend to be more supportive of physical anthropology, which I see as quite different.) Cultural anthropology has some interesting things to say, but it would seem to be more humanities than social science, and makes a lot of assumptions that are hard to support scientifically. These assumptions underlie much of the discussion in this documentary.

A review of PBS’s “The Latino Americans”

“[The Congress shall have the power] To establish an uniform rule of naturalization … ”

– Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 of the United States Constitution (signed 1787)

The United States has more Spanish speakers than any other country in the world, except its southern neighbor of Mexico. This may be ironic, given that the most spoken language in the United States is English. Nonetheless, the United States has a significant Spanish-speaking population, most of whom are native speakers. Indeed, Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority group in the United States – although it is noteworthy that they are not considered a “race” by the United States Census. Rather, “Hispanic or Latino” is considered an ethnicity, and includes people from multiple races, particularly Whites and Native Americans. This reflects the ethnic diversity of their various countries of origin, where White colonists from Spain had frequently intermarried with the locals.

Benjamin Bratt, the Hispanic/Latino narrator of this documentary

A review of PBS’s “Black in Latin America”

The trans-Atlantic slave trade had massive effects on Latin America, and not just the future United States. Because of this, there are significant Black populations scattered throughout the Americas. All of them have roots in the kidnapping of slaves from Africa, of course, but Blacks in each country have a distinct story of their own. Their history transpired differently in some of those countries than it did in others. This program surveys black history in six of these countries. These countries are as follows: Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, and Peru. Since this series has only four episodes, some episodes have to cover more than just one country, although some are focused on just one of them, which allows for greater depth of coverage. (Incidentally, this program is hosted by Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a professor of African American Studies who is himself an African American.)

The Portuguese presenting themselves before the Manikongo – Kingdom of Kongo, Africa

Forgotten battlegrounds of the Cold War: Latin America

If the Cold War were a chess game, Latin Americans were often the pawns …

Long before the Cold War began, American president James Monroe had introduced the now-famous “Monroe Doctrine” in 1823. This doctrine said, in essence, that “the American continents … are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” (Source: Monroe Doctrine, 1823) Theodore Roosevelt later added a corollary of his own to this doctrine in 1904, in response to the Venezuelan Crisis of 1902-1903. This “Roosevelt Corollary” basically said that “Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.” (Source: Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, 1904)

Fidel Castro visits United States, 1959

Keeping European powers (like the Soviet Union) out of the New World …

The United States has not always adhered to this doctrine, but it has often been involved in Latin American politics under the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (and the original, for that matter). During the Cold War, the Soviet Union actually supported left-wing regimes throughout Latin America, and were thus interfering in the Americas. True adherence to the Monroe Doctrine thus required that we try to keep them out of the Americas, and prevent communism from gaining a foothold in our own “backyard.”

Map of Latin America

A review of Rafael Lapesa's “Historia de la lengua española”

“We hope that this book, which knows how to say the important and say it well, contributes to spread linguistic knowledge that usually receives so little attention.”

– Ramón Menéndez Pidal, in the “Prólogo” (or “Foreword”) to this book, 1942 (translation mine)

The title translates in English to “History of the Spanish Language”

So I recently finished reading a book about the history of the Spanish language – written almost entirely in Spanish. I say “almost,” because there are a few exceptions to this, which I will note later in this post. (But I'm getting ahead of myself … )

General comments about the history of the language itself

The Spanish language has a long and rich history. It is a source of endless fascination to me, with written records stretching back into the time of the Roman Empire – and beyond. It's a story of political and social change – of religious and literary ideas, which have had a vast influence on Western history. It's a story of a language that would become one of the most spoken languages on Earth, with 460 million native speakers at the time that I write this (see source). This is more than 5% of the world's population, and more than any other language in the world except Mandarin Chinese. But it's also a story of human beings – of people who are always reinventing themselves (and their language) to change with the times, and filling their culture with new life and new energy every day.

First page of the Castilian epic poem “El Cantar de Mio Cid,” which is referenced often in this book

Chaos in Cuba: Communist revolution, Bay of Pigs, and a close call with nuclear disaster

"That all Acts of the United States in Cuba during its military occupancy thereof are ratified and validated, and all lawful rights acquired thereunder shall be maintained and protected."

- The "Platt Amendment," passed by the United States Congress as part of the Army Appropriations Act of 1901 (and forcibly added to the 1901 Constitution of Cuba by a constitutional amendment that same year)

Historians have dedicated much attention to the Cuban Missile Crisis of the early sixties, and for good reason - it was the time in our history when the world came closest to nuclear war. It was a dramatic event worthy of serious attention from both historians and the general public. Less visible, however, is the communist revolution that rocked Cuba during most of the fifties; and the "Bay of Pigs" incident that was fairly prominent in the minds of both sides during the later crisis. It is not often that these events are covered together, since any one of these things is a complex topic in its own right. But these events in Cuba would nonetheless seem to be linked together (at least somewhat); and by more than just their closeness in time and place. The common theme running through all of them would seem to be the great worldwide struggle known as the "Cold War" - a war that was fought in Cuba ferociously during these tumultuous times, and which had importance far beyond the island itself on more than one occasion.

Picture from the Cuban War of Independence, 1898

Latin America became independent because of Napoleonic Wars – (well, partially)

" ... 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 Monroe Doctrine, expressed by James Monroe (then the President of the United States) in his Seventh Annual State of the Union Address (2 December 1823)

What does Napoleon have to do with Latin American independence?

When Napoleon's troops went to occupy Spain and Portugal, they set off a chain reaction of events that had massive effects on the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in Latin America - including, eventually, independence. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Napoleon Bonaparte

A review of “The Storm That Swept Mexico”

The "Great Revolution" in Mexico: It's not the war of independence from Spain

If your average person on the street overheard a brief mention of the "Great Revolution" in Mexico (perhaps when I'm talking about it myself), they might assume that we're talking about the war of independence from Spain, with Mexico's war of independence starting in the year 1810. But when most Mexicans speak of the "Great Revolution," they are referring to a revolution against their own government in Mexico, in the year 1910 - almost an exact century after the beginning of their war of independence from Spain. It was a turbulent period, even by the standards of politics in Latin America. But it was one of the most important periods in Mexican history as well. Moreover, it merits the attention of American history buffs who want to understand our southern neighbor.

Leaders of the Mexican revolt of 1910

There is actual footage from the time to tell this story with

Surprisingly, this historical subject caught the attention of some filmmakers at American PBS, who decided to make a documentary about it called "The Storm That Swept Mexico." Because it was made for an American network, it is in English; and when it interviews people speaking Spanish, it uses English subtitles for its largely Gringo audience from north of the border. It's not a very well-known film, even by PBS standards; but its quality is a lot higher than you might expect after hearing this. Because the revolution that it depicts began in the year 1910, there exists actual footage from the time of its chosen subject - silent footage, it is true, but footage just the same. This allows them to make a pretty decent documentary about their subject, without a large budget for re-enactments. The silent footage from the time allows their film's visuals a power that even the best re-enactments would have difficulty achieving. This is probably what allowed them to make the film in the first place, because it could thus be shot on the cheap. This must have made it so that less funding was needed for the project, thus making it more likely for them to get the funding in the first place.

Woodrow Wilson, president of the United States for much of this period

Pancho Villa

A review of “Mexico: A History” (by Robert Ryal Miller)

"[The Mexican Empire] solemnly declares by means of the Supreme Junta of the Empire that it is a Sovereign nation and independent of old Spain ... "

- Declaration of the independence of the Mexican Empire, issued by its Sovereign Junta, assembled in the Capital on September 28, 1821

Since early 2012, I have made an effort to learn the Spanish language. The reasons for this are many (and too long to detail here), but chief among them is the local usefulness of the language. I live in Arizona (in the American Southwest); so Spanish is the most important local language besides my native English. The opportunities to use Spanish here are endless, and I have long wanted to know something about the Hispanic population of the Southwest. I have interacted with them for years, at school and at church.

Mexican flag

Mexico has a strong influence on the American Southwest

In the American Southwest, most of the Hispanics are of Mexican descent - in contrast to the strong Cuban descent found in Florida, and the strong Puerto Rican descent found in New York - the other parts of the United States where Spanish-speaking populations are most often found. In the American Southwest, people of Mexican origin are the most common ones, and so I thought it might be helpful to know something about their country of origin. Mexico is one of my country's only two neighbors, incidentally (the other being Canada). It is also the one that is closest to my home state of Arizona - and thus, the nation that we Arizonans do the most trade with outside of our own. (Stuff that my American audience already knows, I'm sure; but I have an international audience here, so the geography of my situation is worth going over.)

A review of “The Panama Canal” (American Experience)

"The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed ... "

- "Convention for the Construction of a Ship Canal (Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty)," Article II, 18 November 1903 (with the "perpetuity" part modified by later treaties negotiated by Jimmy Carter)

It allowed ships of all kinds to go from the Atlantic & Caribbean to the Pacific (and vice versa) without having to go around the tip of South America - drastically reducing the time needed to transport goods. The effects of the project were largely economic; but it was completed mainly for military reasons, with the need to move naval ships between oceans, without enormous delays from increased travel time. And it revolutionized the economy and international trade of the world, allowing much trade to be done for significantly lower costs.

Panama Canal in modern times

A review of Michael Wood's “Conquistadors”

A disturbing and intensely fascinating human drama ...

It caused the fall of empires, and the rise of a new one in their place. It changed the destiny of continents, and left the imprint of Europe on their face. And it was a tale of cruelty and ruthlessness - a disturbing and intensely fascinating human drama - which forever changed the Western Hemisphere; and by extension, the entire world.

Machu Picchu, Peru

The story has an air of Shakespearean tragedy to it ...

The event is, of course, the Spanish Conquest; and generations of schoolchildren have grown up with the story of how it happened. The story has an air of Shakespearean tragedy to it, of complicated characters who manage to be sympathetic even when callous and cruel; and even the brutality and horrors of it cannot stop it from being interesting, captivating, and utterly compelling. We may not like it, but we'll never be able to get away from it; and instead of ignoring it, there is value in learning about this epic tale; and hearing of the tremendous impact it has left on our civilization, and our world.

Moctezuma II being held captive by Cortés, circa 1519 or 1520

A review of “The U.S.-Mexican War 1846-1848” (PBS series)

"The occupation, separation, and annexation [of Texas] were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union."

"For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."

- Ulysses S. Grant, in "Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant," Chapter III

I live in a region of the United States that was once controlled by Mexico (in the state of Arizona), so I live daily with the effects of a war from the 1840's. Few people could put this war in the right half-century, let alone the correct decade; and fewer still could name any major battles or players in this war. Nonetheless, the effects of the war are all around us, and it has entered discussions about contemporary politics on more than one occasion. On topics ranging from illegal immigration to anti-Hispanic racism to foreign policy towards Mexico, we in the American Southwest are often reminded of this war. In less controversial ways, we are reminded of it in the many place names of Spanish origin that surround our homes. From names of streets to names of cities to names of entire states, the influence of Spanish place names are all around us, which were often borrowed in their turn from the native peoples of the region. Mexican culture is all around us, from Spanish taught in schools to the remarkable Mexican food that many of us eat; and the region would belong to Mexico still, if not for a long-ago war from the 1840's.

Mexico lost half its territory to the United States in this war ...

The war was, of course, fought between the United States and Mexico, and was the only major war between our two nations. There have been border skirmishes since then (notably one in the 1910's), but nothing on the massive scale of this one from the 1840's. Mexico lost half its territory to the United States in this war, and several American states were formed out of the land transferred in the peace treaty. The war was undoubtedly an act of imperialist aggression motivated (to some degree, at least) by racism. But there's more to the story than that. Imperialism and racism are favorite topics of liberal PBS; but surprisingly, the network manages to tell the story in a documentary for television with a minimum of political correctness, and manages to stick to the facts about this topic most of the time. My judgments might not completely agree with theirs, but I have to hand it to them that their documentary about this war is extremely interesting, and it is of tremendous value to the student of American history, particularly those who (like me) live in the Southwest. Thus, I thought I would offer my review of this documentary here.

The Cuban Missile Crisis: A comparison of two movies

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union."

- John F. Kennedy, in his Address on the Cuban Missile Crisis (22 October 1962)

I have watched two movies about the Cuban Missile Crisis, in addition to the episode about it in CNN's Cold War series. I've also seen it treated in some documentaries about the Kennedys, so I feel like I have some basic knowledge about it. I'm thus in a position to compare the different media about the Cuban Missile Crisis, and say what the advantages and disadvantages of each one are.

U-2 reconnaissance plane (during refueling)

How the crisis began

But before I do this, I should probably explain what the Cuban Missile Crisis was, for those who don't know. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the time in world history when the world came closest to nuclear war. The Soviets began to put nuclear missiles in Cuba, which were discovered by an American U-2 reconnaissance flight. The plane brought photographic evidence of them back to the United States, which alarmed the few authorized to see them. President Kennedy and his advisers knew that these missiles were well within range of a significant portion of the United States, and would have allowed the Soviets to nuke much of the country with little or no warning. This would have given them a first-strike capability.

Actual U-2 reconnaissance photograph of Soviet missiles in Cuba (visible when magnified)

A review of "Crucible of Empire: the Spanish-American War"

I just finished watching "Crucible of Empire: The Spanish-American War," PBS's two-hour documentary about this time. I was generally impressed by this documentary. One of the pleasant surprises for me was that they did not just cover the American side, but also the Cuban and Filipino sides as well. They interview some Filipino historians in addition to American ones, although there are no interviews with Cubans or Spaniards. The Cuban part is more understandable, since people in this communist country cannot speak their mind freely without fear of government reprisal; but the general omission of the Spanish perspective is something of a mystery, given the pains that they took to depict other perspectives.

Map of the Americas, with Cuba highlighted in red

This war was a two-front war, fought in both Cuba and the Philippines ...

This war of 1898 was really a two-front war, with fighting in both the Caribbean and the Pacific. Thus, the geography of the war is somewhat complicated. On the one hand, Cuba is a Caribbean island close to American Florida; but on the other hand, the Philippines are way across the Pacific Ocean, with distances comparable to those traversed during the Pacific theater of World War II. Thus, the fighting in this war was somewhat spread out.

Far side of the globe, with Philippines highlighted in green