Introduction
Neocolonialism is the act of a powerful country imposing capitalism, cultural expansion, and globalization on a developing sovereign country, either directly or indirectly through military control.Impact on Latin America's Export Profits
Latin America's export profits surged in the twentieth century as America began to spend more, resulting in people losing their lands in a place where they were used to raising their food and were able to provide their other requirements as farmers. Owners of plantations and haciendas subjected native people to oppression, low wages, and harsh labor. Because of the severe conditions, the laborers had neither time or opportunity to develop their crops. Public property lands were bought, and families evicted making the landowners rich through export profits at the expense of the poor rural people. As the earnings grew, democracy was lost. For a country to enjoy trading profit and economic growth the nation was to be ruled by the richest and brightest. But this was achieved through managed elections and fraud in voter registration. This paper describes the neocolonial relationship between the US and Latin America in the twentieth century through the economic exploit and political control by the United States.The Rubber Trade and Exploitation of Laborers
Rubber growth was very economical which was brought by neocolonialism and was grown in the Amazonia rain forests. The primary consumers for the latex sap, a raw material gotten from the rubber tree, was the United States. The workers who harvested the rubber lived an isolated life along riverbanks deep in the Amazon and in Brazil refugees collected the rubber. Most of the refugees came from the northeastern Brazil in areas where it was drought-stricken. Rubber harvesters in the Amazon were natives who were forced into wage labor that was barely enough for them to pay for the food and supplies that they needed. Rubber trade boasted a quarter of the export earnings in Brazil (Chasten 199). As it became more and more profitable, the rubber barons became so overwhelmed with money, but instead of helping the indigenous community that was languishing in poverty, they would rather send their shirts to laundries in Paris. This rubber boom left the native community languishing in poverty and diseases. Malaysia's rubber took over the market and challenged the price of the Amazonian rubber. The rubber investors and barons left at the realization that the Malaysia rubber was taking control. They left the indigenous people with no jobs or help and were faced with so many diseases as others turned to alcohol and had to look for other alternative ways to survive. The rubber trade was an economic exploitation that gave high export earnings to Brazil, but still, the natives were languishing in poverty, it was more of self-development for the barons.US Influence through Banana Companies
The US took control of Latin America indirectly as investors like the United Fruit Company, which was a banana company, thrived and built an empire operating in Guatemala, Panama, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Venezuela. These companies hired managers, engineers, and agronomists from the United States and developed towns where they lived. The banana companies did little to develop the countries that hosted them and usually reserved managerial jobs for U.S. personnel while the natives were hired to do the hard field work (Chasten 200). The United States established companies in Latin America and started a war in Spain to be able to benefit in strategic and economic interests.Neocolonial Control by Porfirio Diaz
Porfirio Diaz was a neocolonial dictator, and only the candidates he endorsed won elections. He used the police to secure the investors so as to win their confidence. Diaz sold off large public lands to the investors and surveying companies which led to foreign investors taking control of silver and oil underneath. Diaz opening the doors of Mexico to the United States was a win for both of them as the investors would mine silver and oil while enjoying the political protection from Diaz and Diaz would enjoy the export profits. This use of politics showed a neocolonial relationship between the US and Diaz to control and gain from public lands.Hollywood's Cultural Influence
Socially, the US invaded the Latin America screens, and Hollywood soon dominated because it afforded to pay the most glamorous stars and the best production values. Hollywood's domination increased the US influence on Latin America with 95 percent of movies being watched coming from Hollywood (Chasten 224). The success achieved from Hollywood became an economic achievement for the United States home market.Conclusion
The evidence given above clearly shows that the relationship between America and Latin America was based on neocolonialism. For both countries to achieve what they wanted they had to have a common ground. The United States had the need to invest and gain economic control in the Latin America and to be successful they had to have the political support and protection of these countries. The politicians, on the other hand, enjoyed the export profits. From the arguments above we see a desire of the United States to have control over Latin America, while the government and the rich of Latin America oppressed the poor and grabbed their land to aid the investors and benefit as well, thus, showing the relation between them was neocolonial.Work Cited
Maxwell, Kenneth, and John Charles Chasteen. “Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 79, no. 6, 2016, pp. 197-225.
