Please use categories or tags when writing your blog posts. Use categories to indicate the week (Week 3 or Week 10 etc.), and tags for key concepts or topics covered.
Uncovering the Magalomania Behind Evita Peron
Posted by: feedwordpress
In my reading of “Uncovering the Megalomania Behind Evita Peron”, Eva Peron undergoes a somewhat scathing dissection of her persona as opposed to her talents and influence. The critique that Evita’s popularity is attributable to her lack of testing is … Continue reading read full post >>
Research Assignment: Source 2
Posted by: feedwordpress
Second Source
A.P. Archive. “Mexico: Zapatista Leader Comandante Ramona Joins Student Rally.” Youtube. June 21st,
Three years after the official start of the Zapatista Revolution in 1994, Comandanta Ramona attended and spoke at student protest in Mexico City. The EZLN was highly popular in the 1990s as the organization represented significant pushback towards the government and demanded justice for indigenous communities. Based off of Emiliano Zapata’s principles, the modern EZLN carried the spirit of the Mexican Revolution, strengthening youth participation. Simultaneously, the guerilla warfare style reimagined earlier struggles of Che Guevara. In 1996, students accused the president Ernesto Zedillo of not following through with peace agreements signed a year prior to protect indigenous rights. Due to the modern nature of the EZLN rebellion, the protest and speeches were captured on film while EZLN organizing began to take place on the internet. Hundreds of students march through what appears to be a campus with handmade flags and signs demanding justice and advocating the Zapatista cause. At one point a young man writes graffiti on a public building’s wall about the need for autonomy. Destruction of state property indicates defiance towards oppressive power structures. There is evident tension, yet excitement as Comandanta Ramona attends the gathering.
Comandanta Ramona appears on video dressed in traditional clothing, donning the black trademark Zapatista mask covering her whole face except her eyes. As her car arrives, activists and students cheer. Later, she sits on stage she holding a bouquet of flowers presented to her. The celebration of Comandanta Ramona indicates a sort of celebrity status for revolutionary figures. Her clothing reinforces her identity as an indgienous woman; while likely more palatable to government officials if she wore more westernized clothes, Comandanta Ramona would not sacrifice her identity in the struggle for reforms. Comandanta Ramona’s speech is not on video, however, she spoke for twenty minutes in her native language. This choice is also significant; like her clothing, choosing to speak a Tzotzil language presents as unapologetically indigenous. Refusing to assimilate to the language of the state is an act of defiance but also a form of representation for the disenfranchised. The video later cuts to armed police officers and guards swarming the venue. Although a peaceful set of talks, police arrived with riot shields and weapons as if anticipating a struggle. The police presence reveals the intensity of state control in the 1990s and the armed relationship between the EZLN. While no riot occurs, the police stand closely behind protesters, reminding them that the state is watching and present.
Source:
A.P. Archive. “Mexico: Zapatista Leader Comandante Ramona Joins Student Rally.” Youtube. June 21st,
read full post >>
Research Assignment: Source 1
Posted by: feedwordpress
First Source
Comandanta Ramona. “Message from Comandanta Ramona, to the students of University City.” March
Dressed in a black balaclava, Comandanta Ramona looks incredibly similar to her male and more famous counterpart, Subcomandante Marcos. In 1994, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), organized an uprising against the Mexican Government over land policies that threatened the livelihood of indigenous communities. Named after Emiliano Zapata, a revolutionary figure who famously advocated agrarian reform in the Ayala Plan, the EZLN continues to advocate for indigenous rights to this day. The EZLN ran an unprecedented campaign, utilizing guerilla fighting styles while incorporating the use of internet and radio to craft a modern-day revolution. The EZLN was highly successful due to the strong leadership, which embraced a variety of figureheads who connected with the disenfranchised. Wearing masks, Subcomandante Marcos and Comandanta Ramona advocated for the people by limiting the influence of their personal identities on the cause. Comandanta Ramona, on the council for the EZLN, actively incorporated indigenous women into the cause for land rights. In 1997, she gave a speech to the students of UNAM that declared the interests of the EZLN such as women’s rights, indigenous rights, and undoing colonial violence. Her audience is significant giving the timing; dirty wars around Latin America frequently targeted student activists often in extreme acts of violence, such as the Tlatelolco massacre which left many dead. As a Tzotzil woman in a position of power, she represented a largely underrepresented group in the struggle for indigenous rights.
Comandanta Ramona opens her speech with a nod to International Women's Day, stating that the aim of her work is to not only fight for the women's struggle but to also do so within political frameworks. This acknowledgment as her first sentence is incredibly important; it suggests that she will put women first in her work with the EZLN. During intense political instability, women occupied an interesting space as a largely underrepresented group. Frequently women exhibited powerful displays of resistance against oppressive governments such as in Argentina with the Madres. Their positionality as women complicated government responses to protest, as initially the Madres were allowed to protest before they were realized as a threat to the regime. Comandanta Ramona reveals that while indigenous communities struggled for land rights, indigenous women were also “victims because of the lack of education, of not having jobs, of daily violence, of worsening health conditions.” Her attention to women is important; she persuades the public that although agrarian reform is a pressing concern, so is the disenfranchisement of indigenous women: to solve certain issues while the indigenous woman is still oppressed is no solution at all. Comandanta Ramona argues that violence towards indigenous communities is a vestige of Mexico’s colonial past; the government replicates conquest through murder and force. Her language commands unity; she speaks to the students about “our ancestors” to connect them to the cause and herself. She finishes her speech stating that “we will...construct a Mexico with all of you.” Through her previous language and focus on women, indigenous women knew that this new Mexico would include their voices because of Comandanta Ramona. Young people also felt engaged and listened too as the EZLN frequently reached out to students to garner support. Comandanta Ramona was responsible for the creation of the Revolutionary Women's Law drafted in 1996, which advocated “women's right to self-determination and equality in society, at home and in the ranks of the EZLN.” Her leadership alone gave representation to those who had little autonomy and advocacy through her powerful example of female resistance against abuses of power.
Sources:
Comandanta Ramona. “Message from Comandanta Ramona, to the students of University City.” March
Wolfwood, Terry. “Who is Comandanta Ramona?” August 1997.
Cambell, Heather. “Zapatista National Liberation Army.” September 11th, 2001.
read full post >>
Week 12: Where do we go now?
Posted by: feedwordpress
I found this weeks readings very emotional and it was hard to read about the atrocities that went on in Latin America during the late 20th century and the early 21st century. It was also very moving to read about the Madres de la plaza de Mayo in particular. For a group of mothers whoContinue reading "Week 12: Where do we go now?" read full post >>
Research Assignment: Source 2
Posted by: feedwordpress
Second Source
A.P. Archive. “Mexico: Zapatista Leader Comandante Ramona Joins Student Rally.” Youtube. June 21st,
Three years after the official start of the Zapatista Revolution in 1994, Comandanta Ramona attended and spoke at student protest in Mexico City. The EZLN was highly popular in the 1990s as the organization represented significant pushback towards the government and demanded justice for indigenous communities. Based off of Emiliano Zapata’s principles, the modern EZLN carried the spirit of the Mexican Revolution, strengthening youth participation. Simultaneously, the guerilla warfare style reimagined earlier struggles of Che Guevara. In 1996, students accused the president Ernesto Zedillo of not following through with peace agreements signed a year prior to protect indigenous rights. Due to the modern nature of the EZLN rebellion, the protest and speeches were captured on film while EZLN organizing began to take place on the internet. Hundreds of students march through what appears to be a campus with handmade flags and signs demanding justice and advocating the Zapatista cause. At one point a young man writes graffiti on a public building’s wall about the need for autonomy. Destruction of state property indicates defiance towards oppressive power structures. There is evident tension, yet excitement as Comandanta Ramona attends the gathering.
Comandanta Ramona appears on video dressed in traditional clothing, donning the black trademark Zapatista mask covering her whole face except her eyes. As her car arrives, activists and students cheer. Later, she sits on stage she holding a bouquet of flowers presented to her. The celebration of Comandanta Ramona indicates a sort of celebrity status for revolutionary figures. Her clothing reinforces her identity as an indgienous woman; while likely more palatable to government officials if she wore more westernized clothes, Comandanta Ramona would not sacrifice her identity in the struggle for reforms. Comandanta Ramona’s speech is not on video, however, she spoke for twenty minutes in her native language. This choice is also significant; like her clothing, choosing to speak a Tzotzil language presents as unapologetically indigenous. Refusing to assimilate to the language of the state is an act of defiance but also a form of representation for the disenfranchised. The video later cuts to armed police officers and guards swarming the venue. Although a peaceful set of talks, police arrived with riot shields and weapons as if anticipating a struggle. The police presence reveals the intensity of state control in the 1990s and the armed relationship between the EZLN. While no riot occurs, the police stand closely behind protesters, reminding them that the state is watching and present.
Source:
A.P. Archive. “Mexico: Zapatista Leader Comandante Ramona Joins Student Rally.” Youtube. June 21st,
read full post >>
Research Assignment: Source 1
Posted by: feedwordpress
First Source
Comandanta Ramona. “Message from Comandanta Ramona, to the students of University City.” March
Dressed in a black balaclava, Comandanta Ramona looks incredibly similar to her male and more famous counterpart, Subcomandante Marcos. In 1994, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), organized an uprising against the Mexican Government over land policies that threatened the livelihood of indigenous communities. Named after Emiliano Zapata, a revolutionary figure who famously advocated agrarian reform in the Ayala Plan, the EZLN continues to advocate for indigenous rights to this day. The EZLN ran an unprecedented campaign, utilizing guerilla fighting styles while incorporating the use of internet and radio to craft a modern-day revolution. The EZLN was highly successful due to the strong leadership, which embraced a variety of figureheads who connected with the disenfranchised. Wearing masks, Subcomandante Marcos and Comandanta Ramona advocated for the people by limiting the influence of their personal identities on the cause. Comandanta Ramona, on the council for the EZLN, actively incorporated indigenous women into the cause for land rights. In 1997, she gave a speech to the students of UNAM that declared the interests of the EZLN such as women’s rights, indigenous rights, and undoing colonial violence. Her audience is significant giving the timing; dirty wars around Latin America frequently targeted student activists often in extreme acts of violence, such as the Tlatelolco massacre which left many dead. As a Tzotzil woman in a position of power, she represented a largely underrepresented group in the struggle for indigenous rights.
Comandanta Ramona opens her speech with a nod to International Women's Day, stating that the aim of her work is to not only fight for the women's struggle but to also do so within political frameworks. This acknowledgment as her first sentence is incredibly important; it suggests that she will put women first in her work with the EZLN. During intense political instability, women occupied an interesting space as a largely underrepresented group. Frequently women exhibited powerful displays of resistance against oppressive governments such as in Argentina with the Madres. Their positionality as women complicated government responses to protest, as initially the Madres were allowed to protest before they were realized as a threat to the regime. Comandanta Ramona reveals that while indigenous communities struggled for land rights, indigenous women were also “victims because of the lack of education, of not having jobs, of daily violence, of worsening health conditions.” Her attention to women is important; she persuades the public that although agrarian reform is a pressing concern, so is the disenfranchisement of indigenous women: to solve certain issues while the indigenous woman is still oppressed is no solution at all. Comandanta Ramona argues that violence towards indigenous communities is a vestige of Mexico’s colonial past; the government replicates conquest through murder and force. Her language commands unity; she speaks to the students about “our ancestors” to connect them to the cause and herself. She finishes her speech stating that “we will...construct a Mexico with all of you.” Through her previous language and focus on women, indigenous women knew that this new Mexico would include their voices because of Comandanta Ramona. Young people also felt engaged and listened too as the EZLN frequently reached out to students to garner support. Comandanta Ramona was responsible for the creation of the Revolutionary Women's Law drafted in 1996, which advocated “women's right to self-determination and equality in society, at home and in the ranks of the EZLN.” Her leadership alone gave representation to those who had little autonomy and advocacy through her powerful example of female resistance against abuses of power.
Sources:
Comandanta Ramona. “Message from Comandanta Ramona, to the students of University City.” March
Wolfwood, Terry. “Who is Comandanta Ramona?” August 1997.
Cambell, Heather. “Zapatista National Liberation Army.” September 11th, 2001.
read full post >>
Week 12: Speaking Truth to Power
Posted by: feedwordpress
Last week we discussed the terror induced by authoritarian regimes in Latin American states and as a result this week focuses on the resistance of the citizens against these regimes. After reading this weeks chapter I was mostly shocked and impressed by the protests led by the Madres de la Plaza de Mayo in Argentina.Continue reading "Week 12: Speaking Truth to Power" read full post >>
Short Research and Writing Assignment
Posted by: feedwordpress
“El papel del narcotráfico en los feminicidios de Ciudad Juárez” (The role of the narcotraffic in the feminicides in the city of Juarez) This document was written by Santiago Gallur Santorum in 2010, and is a secondary source compiling and analysing data about the disappearance and murder of women around the 1990’s in the city […] read full post >>
Short Research and Writing Assignment
Posted by: feedwordpress
First Source: Pereira, A. W. (2018), The US Role in the 1964 Coup in Brazil: A Reassessment. Bull Lat Am Res, 37: 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/blar.12518
This article talks about the 1964 coup in Brazil against the elected President João Goulart. As the article stipulates, the role of the US in the coup is well known. There are important books about this, for example, by Parker (2011), and Dreifuss (2006). However, the difference between these books and the article I chose is that Pereira sees the US role in the coup as stemming from the interest of the US capitalist class in inhibiting autonomous, nationalist industrialization in Brazil. In this reading, the clash between the US and the Goulart government was inevitable and driven by the increasing lack of complementarity between the two national economies, once Brazil began to industrialize in the mid‐twentieth century. For Pereira, the Kennedy administration joined the opposition and showed a predisposition to depose, Goulart well before 1963. Thus, the economic interests of imperialistic US corporations made the US government's opposition to Goulart inevitable.
Specifically, Pereira mentions two main factors drove a wedge between these two nations. Firstly, the US was engaged in the process of preventive counter‐revolution on a world scale that made a clash with Goulart inevitable. This is because Goulart's ideologies were primarily influenced by communist ideas. For example, the US objected to his left-wing tendencies, and his willingness to seek closer relations with Communist countries. Secondly, Pereira states that Goulart's nationalist policies such as the agrarian reform and the nationalization of oil caused the US support for the coup as stemming inevitably from US capitalists' desire to stifle autonomous economic development in Brazil.
Second Source: Smith, R. (1980). Intervention, Revolution, and Politics in Cuba, 1913-1921. doi:10.2307/981068
This book analyzes eight years of international relations between the US and Cuba. Smith proposes a study on the various economic, political, and diplomatic methods used by the United States government to exert hegemony over Cuba from 1913-1921. In this book, I was particularly moved by Smith's chapter eight, in which he talks about the economic conditions of US-Cuban relations during this time. Specifically, Smith states that the World War curtailed sugar production in Europe, resulting in a boom in sugar production in Cuba and a boom in Cuba's economy. Many Caribbean islands were put into sugar production, and numerous new sugar mills were built, some of them funded by US investors. Smith stipulates very clearly how Cuba's economic well-being and the conditions of these sugar mills were increasingly important for US businesses. So much so, that whenever Cuban politics curtailed the production of sugar, the US did not doubt to intervene in the Cuban political landscape to assure the production of this valuable resource. Thus came the "Sugar Intervention."
The Sugar Intervention refers to the events in Cuba between 1917 and 1922 when the United States Marine Corps was situated on the island. As Smith details, an increase in banditry and illegal sacking of the sugar mills prompted the US to intervene. In August 1917, the US Marines sent the first contingent, consisting of under 1000 American Marines. During the first year of arrival, the US Marines assumed responsibility for the objects of infrastructure related to sugar plantations. This presence of American troops caused anti-American protests, and so, in December 1917, another thousand Marines arrived. The primary focus of these troops was to perform patrols of the Cuban sugar mills to ensure their safety and make sure that these sugar production sites are safe to operate. As Smith argues, these measures imposed by the Marines worked since, in 1918, partially as a result of the actions undertaken, Cuba produced a record sugar harvest. Although disturbances continued in the cities throughout 1918, the US's answer to these protests was to simply send more marine troops to the island. By the end of the 1920s, there were around 8,000 naval troops in Cuba.
read full post >>
This article talks about the 1964 coup in Brazil against the elected President João Goulart. As the article stipulates, the role of the US in the coup is well known. There are important books about this, for example, by Parker (2011), and Dreifuss (2006). However, the difference between these books and the article I chose is that Pereira sees the US role in the coup as stemming from the interest of the US capitalist class in inhibiting autonomous, nationalist industrialization in Brazil. In this reading, the clash between the US and the Goulart government was inevitable and driven by the increasing lack of complementarity between the two national economies, once Brazil began to industrialize in the mid‐twentieth century. For Pereira, the Kennedy administration joined the opposition and showed a predisposition to depose, Goulart well before 1963. Thus, the economic interests of imperialistic US corporations made the US government's opposition to Goulart inevitable.
Specifically, Pereira mentions two main factors drove a wedge between these two nations. Firstly, the US was engaged in the process of preventive counter‐revolution on a world scale that made a clash with Goulart inevitable. This is because Goulart's ideologies were primarily influenced by communist ideas. For example, the US objected to his left-wing tendencies, and his willingness to seek closer relations with Communist countries. Secondly, Pereira states that Goulart's nationalist policies such as the agrarian reform and the nationalization of oil caused the US support for the coup as stemming inevitably from US capitalists' desire to stifle autonomous economic development in Brazil.
Second Source: Smith, R. (1980). Intervention, Revolution, and Politics in Cuba, 1913-1921. doi:10.2307/981068
This book analyzes eight years of international relations between the US and Cuba. Smith proposes a study on the various economic, political, and diplomatic methods used by the United States government to exert hegemony over Cuba from 1913-1921. In this book, I was particularly moved by Smith's chapter eight, in which he talks about the economic conditions of US-Cuban relations during this time. Specifically, Smith states that the World War curtailed sugar production in Europe, resulting in a boom in sugar production in Cuba and a boom in Cuba's economy. Many Caribbean islands were put into sugar production, and numerous new sugar mills were built, some of them funded by US investors. Smith stipulates very clearly how Cuba's economic well-being and the conditions of these sugar mills were increasingly important for US businesses. So much so, that whenever Cuban politics curtailed the production of sugar, the US did not doubt to intervene in the Cuban political landscape to assure the production of this valuable resource. Thus came the "Sugar Intervention."
The Sugar Intervention refers to the events in Cuba between 1917 and 1922 when the United States Marine Corps was situated on the island. As Smith details, an increase in banditry and illegal sacking of the sugar mills prompted the US to intervene. In August 1917, the US Marines sent the first contingent, consisting of under 1000 American Marines. During the first year of arrival, the US Marines assumed responsibility for the objects of infrastructure related to sugar plantations. This presence of American troops caused anti-American protests, and so, in December 1917, another thousand Marines arrived. The primary focus of these troops was to perform patrols of the Cuban sugar mills to ensure their safety and make sure that these sugar production sites are safe to operate. As Smith argues, these measures imposed by the Marines worked since, in 1918, partially as a result of the actions undertaken, Cuba produced a record sugar harvest. Although disturbances continued in the cities throughout 1918, the US's answer to these protests was to simply send more marine troops to the island. By the end of the 1920s, there were around 8,000 naval troops in Cuba.
read full post >>
Short Research and Writing Assignment
Posted by: feedwordpress
First Source: Pereira, A. W. (2018), The US Role in the 1964 Coup in Brazil: A Reassessment. Bull Lat Am Res, 37: 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/blar.12518
This article talks about the 1964 coup in Brazil against the elected President João Goulart. As the article stipulates, the role of the US in the coup is well known. There are important books about this, for example, by Parker (2011), and Dreifuss (2006). However, the difference between these books and the article I chose is that Pereira sees the US role in the coup as stemming from the interest of the US capitalist class in inhibiting autonomous, nationalist industrialization in Brazil. In this reading, the clash between the US and the Goulart government was inevitable and driven by the increasing lack of complementarity between the two national economies, once Brazil began to industrialize in the mid‐twentieth century. For Pereira, the Kennedy administration joined the opposition and showed a predisposition to depose, Goulart well before 1963. Thus, the economic interests of imperialistic US corporations made the US government's opposition to Goulart inevitable.
Specifically, Pereira mentions two main factors drove a wedge between these two nations. Firstly, the US was engaged in the process of preventive counter‐revolution on a world scale that made a clash with Goulart inevitable. This is because Goulart's ideologies were primarily influenced by communist ideas. For example, the US objected to his left-wing tendencies, and his willingness to seek closer relations with Communist countries. Secondly, Pereira states that Goulart's nationalist policies such as the agrarian reform and the nationalization of oil caused the US support for the coup as stemming inevitably from US capitalists' desire to stifle autonomous economic development in Brazil.
Second Source: Smith, R. (1980). Intervention, Revolution, and Politics in Cuba, 1913-1921. doi:10.2307/981068
This book analyzes eight years of international relations between the US and Cuba. Smith proposes a study on the various economic, political, and diplomatic methods used by the United States government to exert hegemony over Cuba from 1913-1921. In this book, I was particularly moved by Smith's chapter eight, in which he talks about the economic conditions of US-Cuban relations during this time. Specifically, Smith states that the World War curtailed sugar production in Europe, resulting in a boom in sugar production in Cuba and a boom in Cuba's economy. Many Caribbean islands were put into sugar production, and numerous new sugar mills were built, some of them funded by US investors. Smith stipulates very clearly how Cuba's economic well-being and the conditions of these sugar mills were increasingly important for US businesses. So much so, that whenever Cuban politics curtailed the production of sugar, the US did not doubt to intervene in the Cuban political landscape to assure the production of this valuable resource. Thus came the "Sugar Intervention."
The Sugar Intervention refers to the events in Cuba between 1917 and 1922 when the United States Marine Corps was situated on the island. As Smith details, an increase in banditry and illegal sacking of the sugar mills prompted the US to intervene. In August 1917, the US Marines sent the first contingent, consisting of under 1000 American Marines. During the first year of arrival, the US Marines assumed responsibility for the objects of infrastructure related to sugar plantations. This presence of American troops caused anti-American protests, and so, in December 1917, another thousand Marines arrived. The primary focus of these troops was to perform patrols of the Cuban sugar mills to ensure their safety and make sure that these sugar production sites are safe to operate. As Smith argues, these measures imposed by the Marines worked since, in 1918, partially as a result of the actions undertaken, Cuba produced a record sugar harvest. Although disturbances continued in the cities throughout 1918, the US's answer to these protests was to simply send more marine troops to the island. By the end of the 1920s, there were around 8,000 naval troops in Cuba.
read full post >>
This article talks about the 1964 coup in Brazil against the elected President João Goulart. As the article stipulates, the role of the US in the coup is well known. There are important books about this, for example, by Parker (2011), and Dreifuss (2006). However, the difference between these books and the article I chose is that Pereira sees the US role in the coup as stemming from the interest of the US capitalist class in inhibiting autonomous, nationalist industrialization in Brazil. In this reading, the clash between the US and the Goulart government was inevitable and driven by the increasing lack of complementarity between the two national economies, once Brazil began to industrialize in the mid‐twentieth century. For Pereira, the Kennedy administration joined the opposition and showed a predisposition to depose, Goulart well before 1963. Thus, the economic interests of imperialistic US corporations made the US government's opposition to Goulart inevitable.
Specifically, Pereira mentions two main factors drove a wedge between these two nations. Firstly, the US was engaged in the process of preventive counter‐revolution on a world scale that made a clash with Goulart inevitable. This is because Goulart's ideologies were primarily influenced by communist ideas. For example, the US objected to his left-wing tendencies, and his willingness to seek closer relations with Communist countries. Secondly, Pereira states that Goulart's nationalist policies such as the agrarian reform and the nationalization of oil caused the US support for the coup as stemming inevitably from US capitalists' desire to stifle autonomous economic development in Brazil.
Second Source: Smith, R. (1980). Intervention, Revolution, and Politics in Cuba, 1913-1921. doi:10.2307/981068
This book analyzes eight years of international relations between the US and Cuba. Smith proposes a study on the various economic, political, and diplomatic methods used by the United States government to exert hegemony over Cuba from 1913-1921. In this book, I was particularly moved by Smith's chapter eight, in which he talks about the economic conditions of US-Cuban relations during this time. Specifically, Smith states that the World War curtailed sugar production in Europe, resulting in a boom in sugar production in Cuba and a boom in Cuba's economy. Many Caribbean islands were put into sugar production, and numerous new sugar mills were built, some of them funded by US investors. Smith stipulates very clearly how Cuba's economic well-being and the conditions of these sugar mills were increasingly important for US businesses. So much so, that whenever Cuban politics curtailed the production of sugar, the US did not doubt to intervene in the Cuban political landscape to assure the production of this valuable resource. Thus came the "Sugar Intervention."
The Sugar Intervention refers to the events in Cuba between 1917 and 1922 when the United States Marine Corps was situated on the island. As Smith details, an increase in banditry and illegal sacking of the sugar mills prompted the US to intervene. In August 1917, the US Marines sent the first contingent, consisting of under 1000 American Marines. During the first year of arrival, the US Marines assumed responsibility for the objects of infrastructure related to sugar plantations. This presence of American troops caused anti-American protests, and so, in December 1917, another thousand Marines arrived. The primary focus of these troops was to perform patrols of the Cuban sugar mills to ensure their safety and make sure that these sugar production sites are safe to operate. As Smith argues, these measures imposed by the Marines worked since, in 1918, partially as a result of the actions undertaken, Cuba produced a record sugar harvest. Although disturbances continued in the cities throughout 1918, the US's answer to these protests was to simply send more marine troops to the island. By the end of the 1920s, there were around 8,000 naval troops in Cuba.
read full post >>
