Richard Nixon as Catalyst for Venezuelan Anti-Americanism
Beginning his book with the brutal and unexpected attack on Richard Nixon during a 1958 visit to Caracas, Alan McPherson sets the stage for his analysis of anti-Americanism across Venezuela, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Panama during the roughly ten years following the incident. Defining anti-Americanism as “the expression of a disposition against U.S. influence abroad” (p.5), the author argues that the term has been traditionally ill-defined, especially in its often arbitrary use after Sep. 11, 2001.
How is Latin American Anti-Americanism Unique?
McPherson seeks to detail exactly what constituted this uniquely anti-American sentiment among Latin Americans, thereby filling a gap in a historiography that he claims is more focused on anti-imperialism in general. By claiming that, regardless of the facts, U.S. planners and officials mostly denied having an empire during the 1950s and 60s, the author establishes the confusion inherent in U.S. – Latin American relations. McPherson also chooses to approach the term from a broad perspective, and rather than getting bogged down in semantics, he launches into a detailed exploration of protests, films, newspapers, U.S. and Latin American governmental meetings, and popular movements, in a bold attempt to trace themes of anti-Americanism throughout the 1950s and 60s.
How can we explain Anti-Americanism?
Quick to dispel notions that anti-Americanism is one-sided and ideologically pure, McPhereson argues early on that it has often existed side by side with pro-U.S. sentiment. Beginning with the Caracas incident, the author clearly shows the long paths leading up to the violent protests, claiming that anti-U.S. feelings were due largely to the United States’ constant incursions into Latin-American political and cultural spheres during the 20th century. With a young, literate population organized around socialist and communist universities, the conditions in 1958 were perfect for an outcry against U.S. influence.
Government Documents Shed Light on Inherent Problems of U.S. - Latin American Foreign Relations
Deftly balancing cultural and political concerns on the part of Latin Americans, McPherson also handles the decisions of the U.S. State Department commendably. A close review of internal documents from the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations shows the stubborn, paternalistic and naïve nature of many U.S. officials during the various anti-American protests of their times. As the author claims, most U.S. leaders believed that “not only were U.S. influences good for foreigners but that these foreigners wanted them” (p.21).
Anti-Americanism as Ambivalent
McPherson is careful to handle the complexity of anti-Americanism by showing its ambivalence; regarding Anti-Americanism, the author defines ambivalence as the “relatively clear-headed espousal of contradictory feelings or beliefs” (p.7) In detailing ambivalence, McPherson’s portrayal of Cuban national identity explains it well; most Cubans depended largely on U.S. imports and U.S. sponsored jobs in the pre-Castro years, and while they were largely grateful for the opportunities promised by the United States, they grew disenchanted as their expectations went unfulfilled. This led to many an identity crisis for the nation, as many Cubans genuinely upheld the United State’s ideals while protesting its actions.
U.S. Historically Conflated any Leftist Regimes with Soviet Communism
Noting that anti-Americanism is both unique to its parent country or even to a region within that country, and that its tenets are never one-sided, McPherson probes deeper than most studies in revealing both its erratic nature and U.S. officials’ often simple conflation of communism with anti-U.S. sentiment. As his study spans 1958-1966, the Cold War mentality of officials like John Foster Dulles is crucial to understanding Washington’s fear of popular uprisings, and McPherson’s ample use of correspondences, minutes from meetings, and national security briefings all display this pervasive concern. Tracing the evolution of presidential attitudes and approaches to U.S. Latin – American policy, McPherson displays the various approaches, from Eisenhower’s complacence toward Latin American in general, to Johnson’s frustration over the Dominican Republic’s uprisings against U.S. military intervention.
Yankee No! is a perfect place to approach the subject of Latin American Anti-Americanism
Always careful to avoid stereotypes, Yankee No! stands out as a finely balanced analysis of popular and governmental responses to U.S. cultural, diplomatic, and military influence in Latin America. By showing the complexity and often unpredictable nature of anti-U.S. sentiments, from Venezuela’s student protests to Panama’s oligarchy supporting the U.S. for their own gains in private while publicly denouncing certain policies, McPherson supports his thesis that, “the interconnectedness of anti-Americanism suggests that is has been an idealistic but confused resistance to idealistic but confused U.S. foreign policies” (p.6). This book is a welcome advance in this growing field of inquiry, and its balanced analysis allows for a thoughtful, critical glimpse into a topic as controversial as anti-Americanism.
References: Alan McPherson, Yankee No! Anti-Americanism in U.S. - Latin American Relations (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003).
 |
