Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America

The great export boom at the end of the 19th century belonged to the general era of Progress. As with many economic developments in history, the export boom in Latin America predominantly benefited the already affluent and powerful. It benefited the financial elite by garnering them more income within Latin America but also those capitalists abroad in the US and Europe. Though the elite benefited the most, the middle classes in Latin America also saw improvement in material possessions, but also there were social improvements as well. For example, increased access to education, though far from universal, did allow those from poorer classes to rise and gain fame, if not also a little fortune along with it. For the first time since the Encounter, Latin America produced artists and writers with international renown. Latin American writers specifically enjoyed a rise in influence and esteem: for the first, time writers from Latin America were recognized by Spanish critics. Rubén Darío was the pioneer of a literary movement that came to be known as modernismo (very closely related to European modernism) in Latin America, and Gabriela Mistral (the pen name of Lucila Godoy y Alcayaga) published her famous Sonnets of Death in 1914. She would eventually win the Nobel Prize in literature in 1945 and become the first writer from Latin America to win the prestigious award.

However, the export boom actually made life worse for much of the poor population in Latin America. The expansion of industry in coffee, rubber, sugar, minerals, etc., required a lot of hard, manual labor. The poor, especially those of Indigenous heritage, were already locked out for one reason or another from social advancement; thus, the burden of labor fell to them. The advancement of technology during this period did little to aid the manual laborer, who broke their back under horrible working conditions for a pittance. Just as during colonial times (and one can argue that this is a theme throughout history), the relatively few made their fortunes upon the broken backs of the many poor and destitute.

The export boom was in direct relation to the idea of Progress. As European and US markets grew, they needed to find more markets abroad to feed a growing demand to certain products and to keep their economies healthy. Latin America proved to be a region ripe and ready for investment. Foreign companies and governments invested in infrastructure to aid the production of specific goods designed to be exported to a world market hungry for products that could be produced cheaply in Latin America and in great quantities. These products were predominantly sugar, coffee, bananas, and tobacco. US investment in Latin America reached 40% (of all US foreign investment) by 1929, nearly all of which was geared toward exportation. As a result of the increase in exportation and the growing markets in Latin America, poor Europeans seeking new opportunities began emigrating to Latin American countries like Argentina and Brazil. Once there, many proved hard and knowledgeable workers, who were able to increase economic output. In Argentina specifically, a large influx of Italian immigrants further fueled transculturation, specifically in the Argentine patois known as lunfardo, which gave Argentine culture (particularly in Buenos Aires) a distinctive Italian flare.

Of course, all this foreign investment and influence carried a darker side, otherwise the period wouldn’t be called neocolonial. The powers of Britain, France, and the US wanted to protect their investments. They did not want locals interfering with their goals, but of course the investor’s goals were never conducive to the goals of their workers, which caused disgruntled workers to strike in some instances. The nations of Central America provide an excellent example of problems resulting from foreign influence.

The United Fruit Company had grown so large that by the beginning of the 20th century it overpowered any of the small governments of Central America, transforming them into so-called banana republics. They were thusly called because the leadership was in the company’s pocket. They granted the company nearly anything they asked. The Banana Wars, coined by the US historian Lester D. Langley, describe the myriad military and political interventions by the US government in Central America. The greatest intervention came with the US-led creation of Panama, which was pursued because the US wanted to build a canal. The idea of the canal was to support trade, limiting the shipping time around the Americas since it would no longer be necessary to sail around the tip of South America in order to reach the Pacific. Railroads had made transport quicker, but the canal would be faster because with the railroad, for example, goods arriving from the Atlantic side would have to be unloaded, shipped by rail, and then loaded onto another ship for transport elsewhere.

The chaos of the export boom gave rise in many areas to dictatorships under the guise of liberalism. Porfirio Díaz serves as a prime example of such a regime. Díaz had been a staunch supporter of Benito Juárez and fought on the liberal side against the French. However, his support of Juárez soon soured. In 1870, he ran for presidency against Juárez, and following his defeat Díaz claimed fraud and led a small rebellion that failed. Juárez soon died of natural causes, and Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada became president. He offered amnesty to the rebels and Díaz retired to his home province of Oaxaca. Lerdo once again became president in 1876, and Díaz once again led a revolt against the government. This time he was successful and became president. He wouldn’t relinquish control of the Mexican government for roughly another 30 years (apart from a four-year period from 1880-1884, when he stepped down of his own will).

Although Díaz had been aligned with liberalism, he was much more a pragmatist than a liberal. He saw the need for government stability to bring about the economic changes desired seen as necessary by many. He was famous for bringing stability to Mexican politics but at the cost of certain freedoms. For example, in the name of Progress and economic development, Díaz gave preferential treatment to foreign investors. Under Díaz railroads were built extensively throughout Mexico with British investment. Some people were simply pushed off their lands if they got in the way of construction. Land for agriculture was also often purchased by foreign companies, and the locals were left with little choice but to become wage laborers or move somewhere else. Mexico underwent rapid economic growth during Porfirio’s presidency, but discontent fomented.