Anti-Americanism Abroad

Anti-Americanism Abroad:

A call for students to brush up on their history lessons*

On a tranquil weeknight in Oaxaca, I enjoyed the smells and sounds of the city while sipping on a drink in a very hip, very dark bar. Basking in the ambiance of the city, couples and groups of teenagers strolled through the open air plaza. Over the sounds of conversation and clinking of glasses, I listened closely to the lyrics of the club music: “Señor Presidente George Bush: ¡Cuidado! Look, the eagle is watching, high in sky, it’s watching everything.” With a funky electric beat, the popular music artist Manu Chau is known for using music for political expression. I am glad that the global popular culture is engaged in conversation about American foreign policy, but I wish more U.S. citizens participated in the global exchange of these ideas.

The United States has a long history of military intervention and commercial exploitation in many Latin American nations. Military forces, corporate entitlement, border control, resource conflicts, and the overall reputation for aggressive engagement worldwide, paints a negative picture of the United States and its citizens. Unfortunately, individual travelers wishing to explore other lifestyles and cultures are often inhibited by the reputation which precedes them. First impressions are considered instead of individual beliefs.

I find myself reflecting on what it means to be an American traveling abroad, considering the negative opinions many have about the United States foreign relations. While abroad, I have frequently felt that the negative image associated with my nationality precedes my individual identity as a woman, traveler, student, or otherwise. I resent that I am stereotyped based on my government’s imperialistic and unethical foreign practices. I am not alone when I say that not all Americans support the Bush administration’s doctrine. For students abroad, the only way to be culturally competent and surpass the negative prejudices is to not only know the political situation of his or her host country, but to also know how the United States effects the economic and political situation in that region. Active dialog is essential for creating a peaceful global community.

In the case of Latin America, many reasons contribute to the development of anti-Americanism. For example, the Monroe Doctrine served to protect independent nations in Latin America, instead the United States used the military to protect commercial ventures in these nations. Under the doctrine, Argentina was occupied in 1833 and 1852, Perú in 1835, Nicaragua in 1853, 1857 and 1899, Uruguay in 1855 and 1858, Panama in 1856 and 1901, and Honduras in 1905. Many of these interventions were to protect American capital investment in these countries. Hispanic literature reveals the reaction to these occupations. In Ruben Dario’s poem, “A Roosevelt,” he expresses the resentment surrounding the 1904 military intervention and annexation of the Panama Canal.

Social uprisings and grassroots movements, especially those which threaten investments, continue to be targets of aggressive foreign policy. For these reasons, the United States military intervened in Cuba in 1917, Nicaragua in 1926 and 1928, Guatemala in 1920 and again in 1922 to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company. The military intervention in Guatemala is also denounced in Hispanic literature. Pablo Neruda’s “La United Fruit Co.” describes the unjust treatment and victimization of landowners and workers at the hands of the American company.

This pattern continues today, there is a plethora of military intervention to protect political and economic interests abroad. The modern financial aid policy for Latin American countries supports paramilitaries, causing blood shed aboard while keeping the hands of American politicians clean. The United States military intervened in Bolivia in 1966 and 1971, El Salvador in 1966 and 1980, Uruguay in 1971, Nicaragua in 1982, Guatemala in1982, and Panama in 1988 and 1989. Much of the modern intervention is indirect; the United States funds foreign fighters without sending their own troops. The best example of this is the war on drugs in Columbia. The funding for Plan Columbia -the war to stop drug production- actually secures oil pipelines in the most violent regions of the country. In 2006 the United States spent over 600 million dollars aiding Columbian police and 82 million to the military. The United States is securing its economic interest, not solving a drug problem (Zarate-Laun). Another good example of this is the School of the Americas. Paradoxically, in order to maintain peace in Latin American countries, the United States military trains foreign combatants at Fort Benning, Georgia. Social revolutionaries are generally the target these U.S. trained combatants (School of the Americas Watch). In the past and present, there is a myriad of examples of the United States protecting its economic interest through military intervention.

In 2005, the Pew Global Attitudes project took several polls and concluded, “anti-Americanism is deeper and broader now than any other time in modern history” (McPherson, 23). Students planning to study abroad in should consider this as they develop their own understanding of foreign relations. With the ad-nauseam discussion about the war in Iraq and the price of oil in the media, there is little time spent analyzing the interconnected web of cooperate and military interests worldwide. Do not go abroad unaware of these events and others that similarly would contribute to creating an imperial image of the United States, and consequently a negative image of its citizens.

A student can not truly engage in cultural emersion and understanding without first understanding how their own country has played a role in affecting other nations. Considering lessons from history and literature, interpreting current events, and reflecting on my own expiries, it is clear that there is justification in resentment towards the American foreign policy. Doing more research will only broaden the horizons of students. Becoming well versed in issues of global relations helps students to understand the social, economic, and cultural situations abroad, while building strong opinions and communication skills. Understating the history of oppression is essential to changing it. While Bush may be seen as a gringo malo, engaged students have the opportunity to be seen as representatives of a politically aware generation of true global citizens.

* All dates in this article are taken from Lasn, Kalle

Sources:

Frontline World. “Colombia: The Pipeline War.” http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/

stories/colombia/thestory.html. Accessed 20 October, 2007

McPherson, Alan, ed. Anti-Americanism in Latin America and the Caribbean. New York:

Berghahn Books, 2006.

Lasn, Kalle, ed. “Adbusters Journal of the Mental Enviornment: Hope and Memory” vol. 12

no. 3, May-June 2004.

School of the Americas Watch. http://www.soaw.org/

Zarate-Laun, Cecilia, “Paramilitarism and the Limits of Democracy in Columbia.”

Columbian Human Rights Lecture, Dept. of Latin American Studies. Kalamazoo

College, 17 Oct. 2007.