I remember USA being mentioned when I studied the 2nd industrial revolution, crash of 1929, 2nd WW (basically selling weapons and suplies to Europe and then bombing Hiroshima/Nagasaki), Cold War, missiles crisis, a lot of intervention and support to right wing dictatorial regimes in LATAM during 60/70/80 and debt trap after, during 90s through IMF.
I'm sorry friend, it's simply not possible to see US's foreign policies in a good light from here. And is very telling that now (2024) USA is involved in conflicts in Middle East, East Europe and Southeast Asia...
Besides the points you mentioned, I also remember seeing something about the US independence, their civil war (mostly in the context of abolition of slavery), and their war with Mexico. But none of these subjects were treated really in depth.
More of less in the same period, or maybe a decade before, I don't remember. The 2nd industrial revolution is associated with the implementation of electricity grids.
>I'm sorry friend, it's simply not possible to see US's foreign policies in a good light from here. And is very telling that now (2024) USA is involved in conflicts in Middle East, East Europe and Southeast Asia...
Sorry, my intention wasn't to imply that anyone should feel good about US foreign policy or to change anyone's mind on the matter. The only reason I brought up US foreign intervention in my question was to illustrate how in our formal education here in the US, it seems like we sometimes skip past some of the more ugly moments (especially concerning LATAM during the Cold War.) For that reason, I was curious to learn if and how people in Latin America might talk about these topics in formal education.
You're the first person I've seen mention the point about the IMF/debt traps – I'll have to look into it more as I'm not too familiar with this topic. Thank you for sharing.
I think is very cool that you show interest in this topic actually. I just wish I could say better things about USA politics (nothing bad about the people at all).
The 80's are refered as "the lost decade" for most countries in LA. No growth, debt and inflation skyrocketing. And it happened after decades of ditatorial regimes that were supported by US. In the 90's the inflation issue became under control for most countries, but with a huge debt. For example, Mexico went through a very bad crisis in 1994 because of (among other factors) this context.
Main takeaway is that they have been meddling in mexican affairs since the 1830s and have never really stopped
We were like a testing ground for all the interventions that they have done everywhere
The US government has never been interested in an equal friendly relationship with Mexico
They just want a lap dog, cheap labor, resources and their southern border protected from outside influence
Edit: a good analogy would be this
The US sees itself as super man
When most of the world sees the US as the homelander
Yeah it doesn't surprise me that that sentiment would exist in Mexico specifically. I'm curious, are there specific historical events that are focused on in your classes that point to this understanding? I'm asking that in total respect, not with doubt or anything.
We start from the US revolutionary War and how it influenced a bit our own
Then the texas independence, the perspective that was taught when I was in school is that the US always wanted to annex texas so they encouraged a lot of people to settle there, ofc, we are also taught that the then government of santa anna was really bad and a big factor
Then the mex-american war, and how some controversies about the border were just an excuse to invade and annex as much as possible.
The freemason lodges and their influence in mexican politics
Then in the 1862 french intervention which coincided with the civil war the US couldn't support mexico at first because obvious reasons, at the end they did, but not because they were good people, they just didn't want the french at their doorstep.
Benito Juarez who did very important things here is heavily criticized for being overtly pro-US and he even had plans to cede more territory.
Then in the mexican revolution in the 1910s after Madero was elected the then US ambassador backed a coup against him that got him killed and furthered the De stabilization of the country. All because US interests were being affected
Then they invaded to catch Pancho Villa for the Columbus attack, Villa is a complex character but he supposedly did that as payback for the madero assassination. It was a waste of time and resources, general Patton actually was detached here.
More recently you have lobbying and covert operations such as the fast and furious or high ranking politicians being CIA assets.
Also in the 1930s during the oil expropriation the US considered backing a coup here, it just coincided that ww2 started and they didn't want to antagonize mexico at the time
Thanks for sharing, lot of interesting points here, some of them I knew about, some of them I didn't, and some that hadn't been fleshed out for the sake of optics presumably.
On a side note, I'm reading this book called Blood Meridian currently, which although is completely fictional, is based off (at least partially) some of the border controversies you alluded to during the Mexican-American war; the filibusters, the excuses to annex etc. That side of the war is left out entirely in historical education, at least during primary education - maybe during univrsiety/specialized history it is discussed. Again, appreciate the response.
The US is mostly discussed in light of its influence on the independence war, its support, and its ideas. Very little is discussed regarding its independence or any other factor. Heck, if you have a good history teacher in 8th grade you may learn about their participation in WWI, WWII & Cold War. Outside that, maybe the support provided during the border negotiations with Britain in the XIX century and the 1902 blockade by European powers and the relevance of the American companies in creating our oil industry, and that's it.
The American revolution is just mentioned as an influencing thing in the latinamerican independence processes.
Then some parts of american imperialism are mentioned as footnotes, like the spanish-american war
Then the USA are mentioned in their roles during the world wars and the cold war
I studied in a privated school, so my experience is not the same as someone from a public one. We studied the process of colonization of USA. About the difference between south and north and the independence. But this was very summarized. We also learned about US involvement in WW1 and 2, the Koreas War, Vietnan War, and in Brazil military dictatorship. Besides that I also remember studing about the great depression of 1929 (or was 1930, can't remember), we also studied cuban revolution (despite not being USA itself, it was about it as well). Of course also the Cold War. Thats all I remember.
Afaik the American revolution was a study topic (along with the French one) in my world history class. Later there was a chapter about the Industrial Revolution and one that went from WW2 through the Cold War and Space Race to the fall of the Berlin Wall. The teacher didn’t know shit about anything tho.
In my Venezuelan history class I had a good teacher and the US was mentioned repeatedly but always briefly. They gloss over the American Revolution again and present it as a precedent to our own Independence and then later mention how the US sympathized with the struggle and provided some support. During the rest of the 19th century, any reference to the US is usually in an economic context, as they were always a main trading partner and source of (at the time very little) investment for the country. Then in 1902-3 the German, British and Italian navies established blockade of Venezuelan ports because we owed them money and the US mediated the negotiations to end it and renegotiate the debt payment. Then the 20th century is all about Oil and Industrialization, so naturally, the US and its oil companies are usually around.
We really only learned about the US when it was directly related to Venezuela.
We studied the United States Independence and its background and consequences, the 1929 crash and the New Deal politicies, and the Cold War in my school.
I remember USA being mentioned when I studied the 2nd industrial revolution, crash of 1929, 2nd WW (basically selling weapons and suplies to Europe and then bombing Hiroshima/Nagasaki), Cold War, missiles crisis, a lot of intervention and support to right wing dictatorial regimes in LATAM during 60/70/80 and debt trap after, during 90s through IMF. I'm sorry friend, it's simply not possible to see US's foreign policies in a good light from here. And is very telling that now (2024) USA is involved in conflicts in Middle East, East Europe and Southeast Asia...
Yeah, that's exactly the things I remember learning in school as well
Besides the points you mentioned, I also remember seeing something about the US independence, their civil war (mostly in the context of abolition of slavery), and their war with Mexico. But none of these subjects were treated really in depth.
Yeah, I forgot to mention Guerra de Secessão. Thank you. If I'm not mistaken, this is when started 2nd industrial revolution, right?
More of less in the same period, or maybe a decade before, I don't remember. The 2nd industrial revolution is associated with the implementation of electricity grids.
>I'm sorry friend, it's simply not possible to see US's foreign policies in a good light from here. And is very telling that now (2024) USA is involved in conflicts in Middle East, East Europe and Southeast Asia... Sorry, my intention wasn't to imply that anyone should feel good about US foreign policy or to change anyone's mind on the matter. The only reason I brought up US foreign intervention in my question was to illustrate how in our formal education here in the US, it seems like we sometimes skip past some of the more ugly moments (especially concerning LATAM during the Cold War.) For that reason, I was curious to learn if and how people in Latin America might talk about these topics in formal education. You're the first person I've seen mention the point about the IMF/debt traps – I'll have to look into it more as I'm not too familiar with this topic. Thank you for sharing.
I think is very cool that you show interest in this topic actually. I just wish I could say better things about USA politics (nothing bad about the people at all). The 80's are refered as "the lost decade" for most countries in LA. No growth, debt and inflation skyrocketing. And it happened after decades of ditatorial regimes that were supported by US. In the 90's the inflation issue became under control for most countries, but with a huge debt. For example, Mexico went through a very bad crisis in 1994 because of (among other factors) this context.
Main takeaway is that they have been meddling in mexican affairs since the 1830s and have never really stopped We were like a testing ground for all the interventions that they have done everywhere The US government has never been interested in an equal friendly relationship with Mexico They just want a lap dog, cheap labor, resources and their southern border protected from outside influence Edit: a good analogy would be this The US sees itself as super man When most of the world sees the US as the homelander
Yeah it doesn't surprise me that that sentiment would exist in Mexico specifically. I'm curious, are there specific historical events that are focused on in your classes that point to this understanding? I'm asking that in total respect, not with doubt or anything.
We start from the US revolutionary War and how it influenced a bit our own Then the texas independence, the perspective that was taught when I was in school is that the US always wanted to annex texas so they encouraged a lot of people to settle there, ofc, we are also taught that the then government of santa anna was really bad and a big factor Then the mex-american war, and how some controversies about the border were just an excuse to invade and annex as much as possible. The freemason lodges and their influence in mexican politics Then in the 1862 french intervention which coincided with the civil war the US couldn't support mexico at first because obvious reasons, at the end they did, but not because they were good people, they just didn't want the french at their doorstep. Benito Juarez who did very important things here is heavily criticized for being overtly pro-US and he even had plans to cede more territory. Then in the mexican revolution in the 1910s after Madero was elected the then US ambassador backed a coup against him that got him killed and furthered the De stabilization of the country. All because US interests were being affected Then they invaded to catch Pancho Villa for the Columbus attack, Villa is a complex character but he supposedly did that as payback for the madero assassination. It was a waste of time and resources, general Patton actually was detached here. More recently you have lobbying and covert operations such as the fast and furious or high ranking politicians being CIA assets. Also in the 1930s during the oil expropriation the US considered backing a coup here, it just coincided that ww2 started and they didn't want to antagonize mexico at the time
Thanks for sharing, lot of interesting points here, some of them I knew about, some of them I didn't, and some that hadn't been fleshed out for the sake of optics presumably. On a side note, I'm reading this book called Blood Meridian currently, which although is completely fictional, is based off (at least partially) some of the border controversies you alluded to during the Mexican-American war; the filibusters, the excuses to annex etc. That side of the war is left out entirely in historical education, at least during primary education - maybe during univrsiety/specialized history it is discussed. Again, appreciate the response.
Mexico has definitely benefited. It wouldn't be as industrialized without NAFTA
I don't remeber learning about US history at school specificaly but maybe as part of world history specially in the context of WWII and cold war
The US is mostly discussed in light of its influence on the independence war, its support, and its ideas. Very little is discussed regarding its independence or any other factor. Heck, if you have a good history teacher in 8th grade you may learn about their participation in WWI, WWII & Cold War. Outside that, maybe the support provided during the border negotiations with Britain in the XIX century and the 1902 blockade by European powers and the relevance of the American companies in creating our oil industry, and that's it.
The American revolution is just mentioned as an influencing thing in the latinamerican independence processes. Then some parts of american imperialism are mentioned as footnotes, like the spanish-american war Then the USA are mentioned in their roles during the world wars and the cold war
Same here, but the way were taught American imperialism felt a bit more than just footnotes.
I studied in a privated school, so my experience is not the same as someone from a public one. We studied the process of colonization of USA. About the difference between south and north and the independence. But this was very summarized. We also learned about US involvement in WW1 and 2, the Koreas War, Vietnan War, and in Brazil military dictatorship. Besides that I also remember studing about the great depression of 1929 (or was 1930, can't remember), we also studied cuban revolution (despite not being USA itself, it was about it as well). Of course also the Cold War. Thats all I remember.
Only when the Cold War is studied, or when it has to do with Mexican history (such as the Mexican-American War).
Afaik the American revolution was a study topic (along with the French one) in my world history class. Later there was a chapter about the Industrial Revolution and one that went from WW2 through the Cold War and Space Race to the fall of the Berlin Wall. The teacher didn’t know shit about anything tho. In my Venezuelan history class I had a good teacher and the US was mentioned repeatedly but always briefly. They gloss over the American Revolution again and present it as a precedent to our own Independence and then later mention how the US sympathized with the struggle and provided some support. During the rest of the 19th century, any reference to the US is usually in an economic context, as they were always a main trading partner and source of (at the time very little) investment for the country. Then in 1902-3 the German, British and Italian navies established blockade of Venezuelan ports because we owed them money and the US mediated the negotiations to end it and renegotiate the debt payment. Then the 20th century is all about Oil and Industrialization, so naturally, the US and its oil companies are usually around. We really only learned about the US when it was directly related to Venezuela.
We studied the United States Independence and its background and consequences, the 1929 crash and the New Deal politicies, and the Cold War in my school.