Compare And Contrast The Dependency Theory And The World System Approach

Both Latin American revolutions and the American revolution were different in term of cause and the result it brought with it. For example, it was much easier for the Americans to gain independence than the Latin Americans because of the unity they manage to take and keep despite the discontent each colonist had against each other. Both of these revolutions were fighting for independence from the Old World because they could not stand the strict systems, applied to them by their mother countries, that prevented the development of a rapidly growing colonial economy. These policies were designed to maximize the trade of a nation to bring money into the suppressing powers but not for the colonists themselves.

During the 18th and 19th century, from 1776 to 1804, two nations were fighting for their independence. Latin America and America wanted to free themselves from their mother colonies that were dominating them. They had independence movements in which they fought for their freedom. The American Revolution and the Latin American Revolution were similar because they had similar motivations for the causes of their movements. Both of the nations were inspired by ideas of the Enlightenment such as natural rights. Both nations were also experiencing mercantilism by their mother colonies, Spain and Great Britain, and wanted to free themselves and control their own economies. Although they had similar goals, the consequences of these events were different. Americans were more united and had a representative form of government, which granted more equality to their citizens than Latin Americans, who had less unity because of the various ethnic groups, resulting in rigid differences in social class.

Latin America went from isolated to connected with the rest of the world during the time period 1450 to 1750 because of colonization by the Europeans. However, the economy, slavery, and the tribal systems stayed the same.

Afro Brazilians have had to deal with centuries of oppression. During these times, Afro-Brazilians have had to deal with various methods, and strategies designed to keep entire communities oppressed. Many of these methods have had effects so profound, they are still affecting many Brazilians till this day. Political oppression is one of the oldest methods known to man, along with unleashing a forceful police force mimicking military forces. Authoritarian rule also played a major role in the shaping of the country. Furthermore, an inept biased justice system will fail those who need protections, and justice the most. These four key modes will be objectively examined, as well as the efficacy of each of these repressive strategies, and the impact that they have had or still have in the Afro-Brazilian communities.

The Latin American countries have been subject to many changes ever since the American continent was discovered. These changes have mainly affected the economy, culture and power changes these countries have suffered throughout the years. According to Jon Charles Chasteen on his book “Born in Blood & Fire” During the twentieth century, there were three main events that changed the course of Latin American countries and their economies. These three events were, the emergence of nationalism, the end of World War II, and the Cuban revolution. However, in my point of view, the event that created more impact in Latin America and the future of these countries has been Cuban Revolution. It is not a secret that the Cuban Revolution created a big impact to the country’s future, unfortunately this revolution not only changed Cuba, but also the entire region of Latin America.

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

Robert O. Keohane, “From After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy,” in

The Cold War era proxy war known as the Vietnam War wrecked global havoc during 1955-1975. Although the destruction on the ground occurred in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the bloodshed of the war was just one part of a much larger worldwide communism versus capitalism battle headed by the United States and the Soviet Union. For the U.S., diplomatic and military policies had never before been so tightly intertwined with domestic policies. The war in Vietnam had such an impact on the home front in America that the term, “The Vietnam Syndrome” is still repeated to this day. The war, which is sometimes seen as a part of the larger anti-communist policy of ‘containment’, is largely to blame for the near destruction of three presidencies, as well as causing numerous political and social divides, a detrimental effect on the U.S. economy, and a credibility gap that caused distrust between government and the people. The focus on the war meant that many domestic issues such as the civil rights movement, the war on poverty, and Johnson’s ideology of the ‘Great Society’, were neglected by the government and therefore limited in their progress. The overall domestic impact of the war in Vietnam was largely negative and extremely divisive.

“When once the forms of civility are violated, there remains little hope of return to kindness or decency”(Johnson csmonitor.com). Samuel Johnson, English writer and essayist, popular in the 19th century, sums up the reality of modern American politics in such a simple sentence. However, the simple warning, unheeded, has surely stymied and gridlocked American government to such an extent, that even the most diehard believers in democracy are finding the current political environment to be permanently toxic and therefore, hopelessly ineffective. When did it all go wrong? One of the best examples of two political rivals that warred fiercely from 9-5, but liked and respected one another after hours, comes in the friendship of President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill. Reagan and O’Neill disagreed on nearly everything that a politician can include in a platform. Yet

The majority of people remained poor laborers. Most of the Latin Americans were working for large land owners that got paid very little and had to work long hours. Political instability was another issue that occurred for the other countries. Imperialism, was overall not very beneficial for Latin American countries. The only people that were allowed to vote were the upper and middle class men who either owned property or had to possibility to read.

This essay argues that 1991 was the peak of American power. The Berlin wall had fallen in 1989, and then the USSR had disbanded in 1991, making the US the only superpower in the world. In 1991 America had military and financial power of that other nations could only dream of. Cox then argues that American power declined from that point because nations have a finite lifespan. As a realist he argued that all great nations go into decline and no matter how “singular and exceptional a powerful nations qualities might be, it cannot, for ever, determine the way in which the international system operates”. Williams reviewed Cox and almost instantly argued against his theory. Cox states the traditional realist view of a rise and fall of national power, but Williams argues a more liberal view, that American power, while not being as dominant, is still a

Latin Americas desire to emulate European culture and race caused many hardships for people of color. Even before Latin America gained its independence, Natives and Africans were treated as inferior. During the neo-colonial period, the elites made it a point to imitate European culture and any

Responding to their structurally peripheral position, Southern countries, perceiving themselves as sharing the same destiny, formed a coalition demanding a new international economic order. The South opposed itself to the North, a constellation which reached its highpoint in the 70’s as the oil-exporting countries successfully displayed their collective market power with regard to the affluent

Morganthau (Cited in Haas,1953, pp.445) argues that the Balance of power can be viewed as either a description of any state of international politics in relation to power distribution or a policy or action intending to distribute power. From this framework we can use the balance of power to both understand static moments in history to observe where power lies at that moment in time and to look at how states themselves actively implement foreign policy for their own power related interests whether that be looking to balance the set of scales or to tip them

International change takes place when great powers rise and fall and followed by the shift in the balance of power (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003).