Latin America 19th Century

American attitudes towards Latin America can be summed up as an extension of larger global directives, and the exclusion of foreign powers in the region. This was highlighted especially during the Cold War as US involvement was essentially in competition with the USSR. Latin America was therefore a mere pawn in the larger context of US-Soviet competition for global dominance. The actions and methods used are also characterized by the lack of an international authority, or an atmosphere of inter-state anarchy, which shaped their calculations in the endeavor to increase their influence over Latin America. When one analyzes the situation, it seems only rational that the United States treated its southern neighbors so, due to the geographical

3. Monroe warned European leaders not to interfere with the independent stated of Latin America.

The Monroe Doctrine had three main concepts that were “designed to signify a clear break between the New World and the autocratic realm of Europe”(www. history.state.gov). These concepts were: “separate the spheres of influence for the Americas and Europe, non-colonization, and non-intervention”( www. history.state.gov). Monroe stated, “The American continents . . . are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers”.

Through the strong foundation of Isolationism and the policies enacted such as The Monroe Doctrine, the United States played a largely neutral role in foreign affairs. The Monroe Doctrine passed in 1823 was to forbid European nations from colonizing any territory in the Western Hemisphere. Although the United States didn’t have the authority or firepower to back this up, it resulted in almost four decades of compulsory US involvement in any foreign affair. After the Civil War, Isolationistic practices grew stronger as the government had to find a way to re-unite the torn nation. President Grover Cleveland promised to avoid committing the nation to form any alliances with other countries while also opposed to the acquisition of new land. The climate of post Civil War US prevented us from deep involvement in foreign affairs. Our navy was also weakened by the war. Our natural resources were scarce and our diplomatic relations with other countries had been neglected. With the attention of our government focused solely on our nation, we proceeded to develop our interior. One of the biggest reasons for growth in US land mass was the public idea of Manifest

Monroe in 1823 formulated a declaration of principles on South America, known in later years as the Monroe Doctrine. Warning that the “American Continents where free and independent are henceforth not to be considered for colonization by and European power. Any attempt would be regarded as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United states.” (Roark)

In 1820, during the Age of Good Feelings and Monroe's second term as president, Spain's colonies in Latin America revolted. The colonies gained their independence from Spain and between 1822 and 1826 the United States recognized a tie with the Latin republics. Recognizing this tie put the United States at odds with the Great Alliance. America also feared that Russia would take over the Oregon Territory. Great Britain was also upset because they feared that the Great Alliance would try to colonize the new Latin Republics again. If this were to happen it would result in worse commerce and trade for them. (Text, 2005)

Nationalism can be traced to the nineteenth century, European peoples came to identify strongly with communities they called nations. Members of a nation considered themselves a distinctive people that spoke a common language, observed common customs, inherited common cultural conditions, held common values, and shared common

COLLAPSE The Monroe Doctrine became one of the crucial foundations of American foreign policy over the next century; what was the occasion for Monroe's articulation of this doctrine, and what were the circumstances motivating its adoption? As the Latin American colonies rebelled to create self-governing nations, the United States felt empathy towards the uprisings. With that sympathy came the Monroe administration, giving the new democracy of Latin American recognition.

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the United States was the most dominant power in the Western Hemisphere. European nations conceded to the United States their right of any intervention in the Western Hemisphere and allowed the United States to do whatever they wanted. The United States took this newly bestowed power and abused it. The United States intervened in many Latin American countries and imposed their policies on to these countries against their will. A perfect example of this aggression is what occurred in the Dominican Republic in 1904. The United States intervened in this sovereign nation and took control of their economy and custom houses. A memorandum from Francis B. Loomis, the United States Assistant

Nationalism is a widely debated ideology that differs based on the historian’s definition. For example, Benedict Anderson attempts to define nationalism as "an imagined political community [that is] imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign"(Anderson, pg 6). Anderson also believes the main causes of nationalism can be

When looking at the history between the United States and Latin America, you see many interactions between them, all that aided the relationship that they have today. Despite that the United States and Latin America are in the same part of the world, the beliefs in which they govern may differ. This difference has often been seen playing a major role in the disputes that have occurred in past. The United States and Latin America have faced many social, economical and governing barriers in forming a strong and positive relationship in the early twentieth century, this is due to the differences that the two had between cultures and the constant demand for power. However, the two countries have found ways to meet in the middle of their cultural differences, to form an equally fair relationship.

Nationalism, a political or social philosophy in which the prosperity of a nation-state as an existence is considered supreme or more important than anything else. The primary duty and loyalty should be toward the nation-state. The love for one's country often reflected dominance and power as people were able to unite toward common good. Furthermore, republic governments were reestablished a result of Nationalism.

The Latin America region is south of North America on the world map. This region was once filled with countries that were at one point colonialized by European countries, but these countries are now independent. The Latin American region consists of mainly the South America continent, Central America, and Mexico. Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Costa Rica, Chile, and many other countries make up this region. One thing that many people do not know is that Puerto Rico is an American territory and its inhabitants are United States citizens. The Latin American region does not offer the best economic situations, but it does have many other aspects to it.

In addition to defining the political units for democratic governance, nationalism can also bind citizens to a common destiny, and in doing so provide the motivation for citizens to take part in the democratic life. Much of democracy is based on the voluntary participation of citizens with a personally identification with the democratic ideals: rights, responsibility, and procedure. However, such commitment is often insufficient to inspire an

Abstract in Abstract in principle, yet individually quantifiable, nationalism swept through 18th and 19th century global populations, igniting the fire for some of the most significant and revolutionary changes of the time. During the period, eons’ old hierarchal systems found themselves closeted, as novel enlightenment principles were bred and spread throughout the world. Kingdoms fell, borders were redrawn, and ultimately, nationalism led to the worldwide adoption of a new sense of individual identity, no longer associated with kings and queens. Full embracement of the nationalistic revolution benefited individuals and nations alike, eliciting feelings of pride in its practitioners, while uniting individuals in invisible and powerful communities, resulting in the forward progression of society.