Counter-Narratives
The Mexican Revolution was a milestone on the way to the formation of statehood in the country and the movement toward social reforms designed to improve citizens’ standard of living. However, despite the dominant view that the events of the early 20th century had exclusively positive effects, this can be challenged. Related books, such as The Death of Artemio Cruz by Fuentes and McAdam and Here’s to You, Jesusa! by Poniatowska, offer counterarguments that are crucial to take into account when evaluating the outcomes of the Mexican Revolution.
Although the revolutionary actions helped the country improve its economic and political well-being, thereby addressing pressing social problems, not everything that had been planned was realized. The example of Artemio Cruz, Fuentes and McAdam’s character, demonstrates that the paradoxes of Mexican society, which consisted of inequality and class dominance, continued to exist. The authors describe Cruz as a young revolutionary idealist committed to Marxist ideals from childhood (Fuentes and McAdam 153). One of his few goals was to fight for freedom in a society where everyone would have the right to their own housing and protection. However, already on his deathbed, Cruz recalls his youth, including the events of the Mexican Revolution, and mentions “the wound we suffer when we betray ourselves” (Fuentes and McAdam 249). While focusing on accumulating wealth, he lost his ideals and acquired the habits of the ruling class, thereby becoming a spoiled and cocky businessman. His image reflects a paradox, indicating that the fierce struggle for justice, realized during the revolution, can drown in the pursuit of wealth.
The history of the development of Mexico after the revolution shows that even violent measures to change the regime in the country could not give people security and complete freedom. In her book, Poniatowska recalls some sad events, such as the massacre of young protesters by the government army in 1968 (147). The Mexicans wanted to maintain what they had achieved during the revolution, but as Poniatowska’s book shows, history is cyclical. The woman recalls her mother’s poor funeral, noting their financial distress at the time (77). This case is one of many, but the way the sadness of the child is presented against the backdrop of common problems demonstrates the absence of normal life in the country. Moreover, in the decades since the revolution, the situation did not improve. The citizens of the country failed to establish order and well-being, and individual stories, such as those described by Poniatowska and Fuentes and McAdam, confirm this.
The Cuban Revolution
The Cuban Revolution is a world-famous event that introduced to the world such socialist leaders as Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. In the early 1950s, the country was dependent on the United States. Although the island nation was not a de facto colony, the economic and political situation in it was typical of this form of statehood (Reid 88). In addition, Reid notes the interests of European politicians in dominating Latin America, for instance, the position of the German Kaiser that Cuba should have been controlled by Europe (88). However, the view of important sectors in the Latin American region, including intellectual elites, on the issue of dependency was clear: the country had the right to remain free. Therefore, the Cuban Revolution was welcomed by those who were opinion leaders.
The context of the revolution was in many ways similar to that in Mexico, which had happened several decades earlier. Fuentes and McAdam compare “this Cuban mess with the old-time Mexican Revolution” (191). Such a drawing of a parallel means that the authors support the ideas of the revolution, treating it as a natural and logical continuation of the struggle for the freedom and independence of Latin America. After World War II, when the USA was one of the victorious powers that were part of the anti-Hitler coalition, America’s status increased on the world stage. This, in turn, expanded the geopolitical possibilities of the country, which was ready to do everything possible to take total control of Cuba. Such a result would mean that the locals would lose their ethnocultural values, becoming like an American state. Since this outcome would have meant a complete lack of authority for local regulators, the Cuban Revolution was supported by various important sectors.
After the end of the revolution, it was obvious that the efforts of the Cuban elites were widely supported. The Declaration, signed in 1962 in Havana, included not only the main provisions regarding further development but also the key reasons for the need to gain independence from the United States (The Second Declaration of Havana). They were many years of humiliation, imperialist culture, and other prerequisites (The Second Declaration of Havana). The movement toward socialism was one of the few ways for the local authorities to maintain statehood and prevent a complete transfer of power to the United States. Opinion leaders understood this, and to prevent the loss of influence, they considered the revolution a real means of struggle. As a result, the resistance became massive and was part of the liberation movement.
The desire of the American government to prevent coups in Latin America, which were interpreted as attempts to maintain the status quo, can be characterized from both ideological and political perspectives. As the guarantor of democracy and one of the leaders on the world stage, the US deliberately opposed communist sentiment in Chile, Cuba, and Guatemala. As he said in his last address to the nation, Dr. Salavador Allende, President of Chile from 1970 to 1973, imperialism and foreign capital left the country no choice (Document #28). It was captured by the Chilean right wing, backed by US President Nixon (Document #28). The rhetoric of the United States suggested a clear resistance to the communist ideas cultivated in the USSR and promoted in the countries of Latin America. In his address to Congress in 1961, the then US President Kennedy, citing Chile as an example, insisted that the limitation of power for military leaders was a necessary step (Address at a White House Reception). As a result, one can talk about the American idea of preventing radical communists from coming to power, which, in turn, could cause imbalance.
The threat that the United States saw in the face of the USSR was identified as one of the main reasons indicating the need to prevent the adoption of Eastern ideological doctrines by Latin America. In his radio speech in 1954, John F. Dulles, the Secretary of State, argued that through reformist ideas, the Kremlin government intended to take over the Guatemalan media as its ideological weapon (RS#07: Source 4). He emphasized the loss of freedom for the people of Guatemala if they followed communist ideas, pointing out that the US intended to support “that sister Republic” (RS#07: Source 4). At the same time, Juan José Arévalo, the predecessor of the then president of the country, expressed a different position. In his address after the coup d’état in Guatemala, he noted that the United States played the role of a state interested in achieving world domination (Document #9). He was convinced that problems in Latin America were in the hands of the American authorities, who sought to dominate by any means (Document #9). This position suggests that the divergence of views was critical and reflected the distinctive interests of states.
The actions of the United States in countering the revolutions in Latin America were successful, as evidenced by numerous primary sources. For instance, in the document called “The Second Declaration of Havana” and published in 1962, it was said that the US monopoly system had done everything possible to prevent the complete liberation of Cuba from American control (The Second Declaration of Havana). The United States was interested in continuing to maintain the previous order in the country. In the case of the complete alienation of Cuba, the threat of signing agreements between the island state and the USSR arose. This, in turn, posed significant problems for the American government that feared an escalation of the conflict and sought to prevent the strengthening of the Kremlin’s power, including from the perspective of territorial security. These descriptions were justified by the current risk of a nuclear war between the superpowers. Therefore, maintaining a balance, even through such tight control, was the goal of the American authorities, who did not intend to concede to the eastern opponent either from a political or an ideological perspective.
When evaluating the thesis that opposing the governments of Latin American countries helped the United States maintain the status quo, one should take into account the methods that the American government took to do this. Reid refers to the concept of “liberal interventionism” and notes that during the first third of the 20th century, the US carried out more than 30 military operations in nine Caribbean countries (90). This method of imposing democracy, bypassing communist ideals, had an appropriate ideological background. Although, as Reid argues, the United States positioned itself as a state that did not interfere in the interests of other countries, the experience of World War II showed otherwise (91). Being drawn into a conflict can be forced under the threat of territorial security, for instance, during the attack on Pearl Harbor (Reid 91). As a result, in an effort to protect itself from the potential danger of being attacked by unfriendly countries, the USA chose the tactic of preempting the threat rather than eliminating it after the fact.
Thus, in summarizing the idea of the US status as a country maintaining global balance during a period of exacerbation of communist sentiment in Latin America, this is crucial to consider the threats to America itself. The ideological doctrine propagated by the USSR and disseminated in Guatemala, Chile, and Cuba was dangerous for the US, which was particularly evident in the context of the current Cold War. As a result, in an effort to prevent the imbalance of power and the loss of its superpower status, the US government was forced to take measures to suppress communist ideology in Latin America.
Works Cited
“Address at a White House Reception for Members of Congress and for the Diplomatic Corps of the Latin American Republics, 1961.” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. Web.
“Document #9: “Introduction to the Shark and the Sardines,” Juan José Arévalo (1956).” Brown University Library. Web.
“Document #28: “Final Speech,” Salvador Allende (1973).” Brown University Library. Web.
Fuentes, Carlos, and Alfred McAdam. The Death of Artemio Cruz. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009.
Poniatowska, Elena. Here’s to You, Jesusa! Penguin Books, 2002.
Reid, Michael. Forgotten Continent: A History of the New Latin America. Yale University Press, 2020.
“RS#07: Source 4 – Secretary of State John F. Dulles, Radio Address, 1954.” The UMBC Center for History Education. Web.
“The Second Declaration of Havana.” Walter Lippmann. Web.