|
Main articles: European colonization of the Americas, Spanish colonization of the Americas and Portuguese colonization of the Americas Romantic Painting of Christopher Columbus arriving to the Americas Primer desembarco de Cristóbal Colón en América, by Dióscoro Puebla (1862). Brazil, for having been a colony of Portugal, makes the Portuguese architecture a mark in the colonial era, as seen in the photo of a street in Paraty. With the arrival of the Europeans following Christopher Columbus' voyages, the indigenous elites, such as the Incas and Aztecs, lost power to the heavy European invasion. Hernándo Cortés seized the Aztec elite's power with the help of local groups who had favored the Aztec elite, and Francisco Pizarro eliminated the Incan rule in Western South America. The European powers of Spain and Portugal colonized the region, which along with the rest of the uncolonized world, was divided into areas of Spanish and Portuguese control by the line of demarcation in 1494, which gave Spain all areas to the west, and Portugal all areas to the east (the Portuguese lands in South America subsequently becoming Brazil). The Colonial city of Granada in Nicaragua, is one of the most visited sites in Central America. By the end of the sixteenth century Spain and Portugal had been joined by others, including France, in occupying large areas of North, Central and South America, ultimately extending from Alaska to the southern tips of the Patagonia. European culture, customs and government were introduced, with the Roman Catholic Church becoming the major economic and political power to overrule the traditional ways of the region, eventually becoming the only official religion of the Americas during this period. Epidemics of diseases brought by the Europeans, such as smallpox and measles, wiped out a large portion of the indigenous population. Historians cannot determine the number of natives who died due to European diseases, but some put the figures as high as 85% and as low as 25%. Due to the lack of written records, specific numbers are hard to verify. Many of the survivors were forced to work in European plantations and mines. Intermixing between the indigenous peoples and the European colonists was very common, and, by the end of the colonial period, people of mixed ancestry (mestizos) formed majorities in several colonies. Independence (1804–1825) Main articles: Latin American wars of independence, Spanish American wars of independence and Brazilian Declaration of Independence Don Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla is the Leader of the Mexican War of Independence. Simón Bolívar, Liberator of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru and Panama José de San Martín, The Liberator of Argentina, Chile and Peru. In 1804, Haiti became the first Latin American nation to gain independence, following a violent slave revolt led by Toussaint L'ouverture on the French colony of Saint-Domingue. The victors abolished slavery. Haitian independence inspired independence movements in Spanish America. By the end of the eighteenth century, Spanish and Portuguese power waned on the global scene as other European powers took their place, notably Britain and France. Resentment grew among the majority of the population in Latin America over the restrictions imposed by the Spanish government, as well as the dominance of native Spaniards (Iberian-born Peninsulares) in the major social and political institutions. Napoleon's invasion of Spain in 1808 marked a turning point, compelling Criollo elites to form juntas that advocated independence. Also, the newly independent Haiti, the second oldest nation in the New World after the United States, further fueled the independence movement by inspiring the leaders of the movement, such as Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla of Mexico, Simón Bolívar of Venezuela and José de San Martín of Argentina, and by providing them with considerable munitions and troops. Fighting soon broke out between juntas and the Spanish colonial authorities, with initial victories for the advocates of independence. Eventually these early movements were crushed by the royalist troops by 1810, including those of Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla in Mexico in the year 1810. Later on Francisco de Miranda in Venezuela by 1812. Under the leadership of a new generation of leaders, such as Simón Bolívar "The Liberator", José de San Martín of Argentina, and other Libertadores in South America, the independence movement regained strength, and by 1825, all Spanish America, except for Puerto Rico and Cuba, had gained independence from Spain. Brazil achieved independence with a constitutional monarchy established in 1822. In the same year in Mexico, a military officer, Agustín de Iturbide, led a coalition of conservatives and liberals who created a constitutional monarchy, with Iturbide as emperor. This First Mexican Empire was short-lived, and was followed by the creation of a republic in 1823. Consolidation and liberal-conservative conflicts (1818-1990) Conservative and liberal conflicts in Latin America in the 19th Century After the independence of many Latin American countries, there was conflict between the people and the government, much of which can be reduced to the contrasting ideologies between liberalism and conservatism.[23] Conservatism was the dominant system of government prior to the revolutions and it was founded on having social classes, including governing by kings. Liberalists wanted to see a change in the ruling systems, and to move away from monarchs and social classes in order to promote equality. When liberal Guadalupe Victoria became the first president of Mexico in 1824, conservatists relied on their belief that the state had been better off before the new government came into power, so, by comparison, the old government was better in the eyes of the Conservatives. Following this sentiment, the conservatives pushed to take control of the government, and they succeeded. General Santa Anna was elected president in 1833. The following decade, the Mexican-American war (1846-1848) caused Mexico to lose a significant amount of territory to the United States. This loss led to a rebellion by the enraged liberal forces against the conservative government. In 1837, conservative Rafael Carrera conquered Guatemala and separated from the Central American Union. The instability that followed the disintegration of the union led to the independence of the other Central American countries. In Brazil, rural aristocrats were in conflict with the urban conservatives. Portuguese control over Brazilian ports continued after Brazil's independence. Following the conservative idea that the old government was better, urbanites tended to support conservatism because more opportunities were available to them as a result of the Portuguese presence. Simón Bolívar became president of Gran Colombia in 1819 after the region gained independence from Spain. He led a military-controlled state. Citizens did not like the government's position under Bolívar: The people in the military were unhappy with their roles, and the civilians were of the opinion that the military had too much power. After the dissolution of Gran Colombia, New Grenada continued to have conflicts between conservatives and liberals. These conflicts were each concentrated in particular regions, with conservatives particularly in the southern mountains and the Valley of Cauca. In the mid-1840s some leaders in Caracas organized a liberal opposition. Antonio Leocadio Guzman was an active participant and journalist in this movement and gained much popularity among the people of Caracas.[24] In Argentina, the conflict manifested itself as a conflict between the centralists and federalists, which are equivalent to conservatives and liberals, respectively. Uruguay gained its independence in a war with Brazil, after which a central government was established in Argentina. After the first president of the centralized government in Argentina resigned, the civil war between the centralists and federalists continued. When the provinces became the Argentinian Federation with no head of state, Juan Manuel de Rosas was given the powers of debt payment and international relations. He refused to enact a national constitution which resulted in greater conflict and more civil war.[25] The differences in Uruguay were manifested as blancos and colorados, where the conservatives were represented by the blancos and the colorados represented the business interest in Montevideo. The conflicts between these two groups resulted in a civil war which is known as the Guerra Grande.[26] British influence in Latin America during 19th century Losing the North American colonies at the end of the 18th century left Great Britain in need of new markets to supply resources in the early 19th century.[27] In order to solve this problem, Great Britain turned to the Spanish colonies in South America for resources and markets. In 1806 a small British force surprise attacked the capitol of the viceroyalty in Río de la Plata.[28] As a result the local garrison protecting the capitol was destroyed in an attempt to defend against the British conquest. The British were able to capture numerous amounts of precious metals, before a French naval force intervened on behalf of the Spanish King and took down the invading force. However, this caused much turmoil in the area as militia took control of the area from the viceroy. The next year the British attacked once again with a much larger force attempting to reach and conquer Montevideo.[29] They failed to reach Montevideo but succeeded in establishing an alliance with the locals. As a result the British were able to take control of the Indian markets. This newly gained British dominance hindered the development of Latin American industries and strengthened the dependence on the world trade network.[30] Britain now replaced Spain as the region's largest trading partner.[31] Great Britain invested significant capital in Latin America in order to develop the area as a market for processed goods.[32] From the early 1820s to 1850, the post-independence economies of Latin American countries were lagging and stagnant.[27] Eventually, enhanced trade among Britain and Latin America led to state development such as infrastructure improvements. These improvements included roads and railroads which grew the trades between countries and outside nations such as Great Britain.[33] By 1870 exports dramatically increased attracting capital from abroad (including Europe and USA.)[34] French involvement in Latin America during the 19th century Between 1821 and 1910, Mexico battled through various civil wars between the established Conservative government and the Liberal reformists ("Mexico Timeline- Page 2)". On May 8, 1827 Baron Damas, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Sebastián Camacho, a Mexican diplomat, signed an agreement called "The Declarations" which contained provisions regarding commerce and navigation between France and Mexico. At this time the French government did not recognise Mexico as an independent entity.[35] It was not until 1861 that the liberalist rebels, led by Benito Juárez, took control of Mexico City, consolidating liberal rule. However, the constant state of warfare left Mexico with a tremendous amount of debt owed to Spain, England, and France, all of whom funded the Mexican war effort (Neeno). As newly appointed president, Benito Juárez suspended payment of debts for next two years, to focus on a rebuilding and stabilization initiative in Mexico under the new government. On December 8, 1861, Spain, England and France landed in Veracruz in order to seize unpaid debts from Mexico. However Napoleon III, with intentions of establishing a French client state to further push his economic interests, pressured the other two powers to withdraw in 1862 (Greenspan; "French Intervention in Mexico…"). France under Napoleon III remained and established Maximilian of Habsburg, Archduke of Austria, as Emperor of Mexico.[36] The march by the French to Mexico City enticed heavy resistance by the Mexican government, it resulted in open war-fare. The Battle of Puebla in 1862 in particular presented an important turning point in which Ignacio Zaragoza led the Mexican army to victory as they pushed back the French offensive ("Timeline of the Mexican Revolution"). The victory came to symbolize Mexico's power and national resolve against foreign occupancy and as a result delayed France's later attack on Mexico City for an entire year (Cinco de Mayo (Mexican History)). With heavy resistance by Mexican rebels and the fear of United States intervention against France, forced Napoleon III to withdraw from Mexico, leaving Maximilian to surrender, where he would be later executed by Mexican troops under the rule of Porfirio Díaz.[37] Napoleon III's desire to expand France's economic empire influenced the decision to seize territorial domain over the Central American region. The port city of Veracruz, Mexico and France's desire to construct a new canal were of particular interest. Bridging both New World and East Asian trade routes to the Atlantic were key to Napoleon III's economic goals to the mining of precious rocks and the expansion of France's textile industry. Napoleon's fear of the United States' economic influence over the Pacific trade region, and in turn all New World economic activity, pushed France to intervene in Mexico under the pretense of collecting on Mexico's debt. Eventually France began plans to build the Panama Canal in 1881 until 1904 when the United States took over and proceeded with its construction and implementation ("Read Our Story"). United States involvement in Latin America during the 19th Century Monroe Doctrine The Monroe Doctrine was included in President James Monroe's 1823 annual message to Congress. The doctrine warns European nations that the United States will no longer tolerate the colonization of Latin American countries. It was originally drafted to meet the present major concerns, but eventually became the precept of U.S. foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere. The doctrine was put into effect in 1865 when the U.S. government supported Mexican president, Benito Juárez, diplomatically and militarily. Some Latin American countries viewed the U.S. interventions, allowed by the Monroe Doctrine when the U.S. deems necessary, with suspicion.[38] Another important aspect of United States involvement in Latin America is the case of William Walker. William Walker was known as a filibuster, a person who invades foreign countries with intentions of annexing them to the United States. In 1855, he traveled to Nicaragua in hopes of overthrowing the government and taking the land for the United States. With only the aid of 56 followers, William Walker was able to take over the city of Granada. He declared himself commander of the army and made Patricio Rivas president. However, Rivas presidency ended when he fled from Nicaragua and come election time, William Walker rigged it and ensured he became the newest president. His reign did not last long, however. He was met with much opposition from the political groups in Nicaragua and neighbouring countries. On May 1, 1857, Walker was forced to surrender by an American naval officer who forced him and his men to leave the country. Mexican–American War (1846–1848) The Mexican–American War, another instance of U.S involvement in Latin America, was a war between the United States and Mexico that started in April 1846 and lasted until February 1848. The main cause of the war was the United States' annexation of Texas in 1845 and a dispute afterwards about whether the border between Mexico and the United States ended where Mexico claimed, at the Nueces River, or ended where the United States claimed, at the Rio Grande. Peace was negotiated between the United States and Mexico with the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which stated that Mexico was to cede land which would later become part of California and New Mexico as well as give up all claims to Texas, for which the United States would pay $15,000,000. However, tensions between the two countries were still high and over the next six years things only got worse with raids along the border and attacks by Native Americans against Mexican citizens. To defuse the situation, the United States agreed to purchase 29,670 squares miles of land from Mexico for $10,000,000 so a southern railroad could be built to connect the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. This would become known as the Gadsden Purchase. A critical component of U.S. intervention in Latin American affairs took form in the Spanish-American War, which drastically affected the futures of Cuba and Puerto Rico in the Americas, as well as Guam and the Philippines, by dismantling some of the last remaining Spanish colonial possessions throughout the world. World wars (1914–1945) See also: Pan-Americanism Brazil's participation in World War II Carmen Miranda is the symbol of the Good Neighbor Policy, implemented by the United States in the 1940s. After World War I, in which Brazil was an ally of the United States, Great Britain, and France, the country realized it needed a more capable army but didn't have the technology to create it. In 1919, the French Military Mission was established by the French Commission in Brazil. Their main goal was to contain the inner rebellions in Brazil. They tried to assist the army by bringing them up to the European military standard but constant civil missions did not prepare them for World War II. Brazil President, Getúlio Vargas, wanted to industrialize Brazil, allowing it to be more competitive with other countries. He reached out to Germany, Italy, France, and the United States to act as trade allies. Many Italian and German people immigrated to Brazil many years before World War II began thus creating a Nazi influence. The immigrants held high positions in government and the armed forces. It was recently found that 9,000 war criminals escaped to South America, including Croats, Ukrainians, Russians and other western Europeans who aided the Nazi war machine. Most, perhaps as many as 5,000, went to Argentina; between 1,500 and 2,000 are thought to have made it to Brazil; around 500 to 1,000 to Chile; and the rest to Paraguay and Uruguay.[39] It was not a secret that Vargas had an admiration for Hitler's Nazi Germany and its Führer. He even let German Luftwaffe build secret air forces around Brazil, but he knew that he could never favor the Nazis because of their racism towards the large black population in Brazil. This alliance with Germany became Brazil's second best trade alliance behind the United States. Brazil continued to try to remain neutral to the United States and Germany because it was trying to make sure it could continue to be a place of interest for both opposing countries. Brazil attended continental meetings in Buenos Aires, Argentina (1936); Lima, Peru (1938); and Havana, Cuba (1940) that obligated them to agree to defend any part of the Americas if they were to be attacked. Eventually Brazil decided to stop trading with Germany once Germany started attacking offshore trading ships resulting in Germany declaring a blockade against the Americas in the Atlantic Ocean. Furthermore, Germany also ensured that they would be attacking the Americas soon. Once the German submarines attacked unarmed Brazilian trading ships, President Vargas met with United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt to discuss how they could retaliate. On January 22, 1942, Brazil officially ended all relations with Germany, Japan, and Italy, becoming a part of the Allies. The Brazilian Expeditionary Force was sent to Naples, Italy to fight for democracy. Brazil was the only Latin American country to send troops to Europe. Initially, Brazil wanted to only provide resources and shelter for the war to have a chance of gaining a high postwar status but ended up sending 25,000 men to fight.[40] After World War II, the United States and Latin America continued to have a close relationship. For example, USAID created family planning programs in Latin America combining the NGOs already in place, providing the women in largely Catholic areas access to contraception.[41] Involvement in World War II There was Nazi influence in certain parts of the country, but Jewish migration from Europe during the war continued. Only a small number of people recognized or knew about the Holocaust.[42] Furthermore, numerous military bases were built during the war by the United States, but some also by the Germans. Even now, unexploded bombs from the second world war that need to be made safe still remain.[43] Cold War (1946–1990) See also: Operation Condor, Organization of American States, Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance and Alliance for Progress Economy The Great Depression caused Latin America to grow at a slow rate, separating it from leading industrial democracies. The two world wars and U.S. Depression also made Latin American countries favor internal economic development, leading Latin America to adopt the policy of import substitution industrialization.[44] Countries also renewed emphasis on exports. Brazil began selling automobiles to other countries, and some Latin American countries set up plants to assemble imported parts, letting other countries take advantage of Latin America's low labor costs. Colombia began to export flowers, emeralds and coffee grains and gold, becoming the world's second leading flower exporter. Economic integration was called for, to attain economies that could compete with the economies of the United States or Europe. Starting in the 1960s with the Latin American Free Trade Association and Central American Common Market, Latin American countries worked toward economic integration.[44] Reforms Large countries like Argentina called for reforms to lessen the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, which has been a long problem in Latin America that stunted economic growth.[45] Advances in public health caused an explosion of population growth, making it difficult to provide social services. Education expanded, and social security systems introduced, but benefits usually went to the middle class, not the poor. As a result, disparity of wealth increased. Increasing inflation and other factors caused countries to be unwilling to fund social development programs to help the poor. Bureaucratic authoritarianism Bureaucratic authoritarianism was practiced in Brazil after 1964, in Argentina, and in Chile under Augusto Pinochet, in a response to harsh economic conditions. It rested on the conviction that no democracy could take the harsh measures to curb inflation, reassure investors, and quicken economic growth quickly and effectively. Though inflation fell sharply, industrial production dropped with the decline of official protection.[45] US relations After World War II and the beginning of a Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, US diplomats became interested in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and frequently[vague] waged proxy wars against the Soviet Union in these countries. The US sought to stop the spread of communism. Latin American countries generally sided with the US in the Cold War period, even though they complained of being neglected since the US's concern with communism were focused in Europe and Asia, not Latin America. Some Latin American governments also complained of the US support in the overthrow of some nationalist governments, and intervention through the CIA. In 1947, the US Congress passed the National Security Act, which created the National Security Council in response to the United States's growing obsession with anti-communism.[46] In 1954, when Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala accepted the support of communists and attacked holdings of the United Fruit Company, the US decided to assist Guatemalan counter-revolutionaries in overthrowing Arbenz.[47] These interventionist tactics featured use of the CIA rather than the military, which was used in Latin America for the majority of the Cold War in events including the overthrow of Salvador Allende. Latin America was more concerned with issues of economic development, while the United States focused on fighting communism, even though the presence of communism was small in Latin America.[46] Cuban Revolution By 1959, Cuba was afflicted with a corrupt dictatorship under Batista, and Fidel Castro ousted Batista that year and set up the first communist state in the hemisphere. The United States imposed a trade embargo on Cuba, and combined with Castro's expropriation of private enterprises, this was detrimental to the Cuban economy.[44] Around Latin America, rural guerrilla conflict and urban terrorism increased, inspired by the Cuban example. The United States put down these rebellions by supporting Latin American countries in their counter guerrilla operations through the Alliance for Progress launched by President John F. Kennedy. This thrust appeared to be successful. A Marxist, Salvador Allende, became president of Chile in 1970, but was overthrown three years later in a military coup backed by the United States. Despite civil war, high crime and political instability, most Latin American countries eventually adopted democracies besides Cuba. Bay of Pigs Invasion Encouraged by the success of Guatemala in the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état,[48] in 1960, the U.S. decided to support an attack on Cuba by anti-Castro rebels. The Bay of Pigs invasion was an unsuccessful invasion of Cuba in 1961, financed by the U.S. through the CIA, to overthrow Fidel Castro. The incident proved to be very embarrassing for the new Kennedy administration.[49] Alliance for Progress President John F. Kennedy initiated the Alliance for Progress in 1961, to establish economic cooperation between the U.S. and Latin America. The Alliance would provide $20 billion for reform in Latin America, and counterinsurgency measures. Instead, the reform failed because of the simplistic theory that guided it and the lack of experienced American experts who could understand Latin American customs. Nicaraguan Revolution Following the American occupation of Nicaragua in 1912, as part of the Banana Wars, the Somoza family political dynasty came to power, and would rule Nicaragua until their ouster in 1979 during the Nicaraguan Revolution. The era of Somoza family rule was characterized by strong U.S. support for the government and its military[15] as well as a heavy reliance on U.S. based multi-national corporations. The Nicaraguan Revolution (Spanish: Revolución Nicaragüense or Revolución Popular Sandinista) encompassed the rising opposition to the Somoza dictatorship in the 1960s and 1970s, the campaign led by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) to violently oust the dictatorship in 1978-79, the subsequent efforts of the FSLN to govern Nicaragua from 1979 until 1990 and the Contra War which was waged between the FSLN and the Contras from 1981-1990. The Revolution marked a significant period in Nicaraguan history and revealed the country as one of the major proxy war battlegrounds of the Cold War with the events in the country rising to international attention. Although the initial overthrow of the Somoza regime in 1978–79 was a bloody affair, the Contra War of the 1980s took the lives of tens of thousands of Nicaraguans and was the subject of fierce international debate.[50] During the 1980s both the FSLN (a Leftist collection of political parties) and the Contras (a rightist collection of counter-revolutionary groups) received large amounts of aid from the Cold War super-powers (respectively, the Soviet Union and the United States). Washington Consensus Main article: Washington Consensus See also: Free Trade Area of the Americas The set of specific economic policy prescriptions that were considered the "standard" reform package were promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the US Treasury Department during the 1980s and 1990s. In recent years, several Latin American countries led by socialist or other left wing governments – including Argentina and Venezuela – have campaigned for (and to some degree adopted) policies contrary to the Washington Consensus set of policies. (Other Latin countries with governments of the left, including Brazil, Chile and Peru, have in practice adopted the bulk of the policies.) Also critical of the policies as actually promoted by the International Monetary Fund have been some US economists, such as Joseph Stiglitz and Dani Rodrik, who have challenged what are sometimes described as the "fundamentalist" policies of the International Monetary Fund and the US Treasury for what Stiglitz calls a "one size fits all" treatment of individual economies. The term has become associated with neoliberal policies in general and drawn into the broader debate over the expanding role of the free market, constraints upon the state, and US influence on other countries' national sovereignty. This politico-economical initiative was institutionalized in North America by the 1994 NAFTA, and elsewhere in the Americas through a series of like agreements. The comprehensive Free Trade Area of the Americas project, however, was rejected by most South American countries at the 2005 4th Summit of the Americas. Turn to the left See also: Pink tide UNASUR summit in the Palacio de la Moneda, Santiago de Chile. Due to the São Paulo Forum, in most countries, since the 2000s left-wing political parties have risen to power. The presidencies of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Ricardo Lagos and Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, Néstor Kirchner and his wife Cristina Fernández in Argentina, Tabaré Vázquez and José Mujica in Uruguay, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, Manuel Zelaya in Honduras (removed from power by a coup d'état), Mauricio Funes and Salvador Sánchez Cerén in El Salvador are all part of this wave of left-wing politicians who often declare themselves socialists, Latin Americanists, or anti-imperialists (often implying opposition to US policies towards the region). A development of this has been the creation of the eight-member ALBA alliance, or "The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America" (Spanish: Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América) by some of the countries already mentioned. By June 2014, Honduras (Juan Orlando Hernández), Guatemala (Otto Pérez Molina), Colombia (Juan Manuel Santos) and Panama (Ricardo Martinelli) had right-wing governments. The return of social movements In 1982, Mexico announced that it could not meet its foreign debt payment obligations, inaugurating a debt crisis that would "discredit" Latin American economies throughout the decade.[51] This debt crisis would lead to neoliberal reforms that would instigate many social movements in the region. A "reversal of development" reigned over Latin America, seen through negative economic growth, declines in industrial production, and thus, falling living standards for the middle and lower classes.[52] Governments made financial security their primary policy goal over social security, enacting new neoliberal economic policies that implemented privatization of previously national industries and informalization of labor.[51] In an effort to bring more investors to these industries, these governments also embraced globalization through more open interactions with the international economy. Significantly, as democracy spread across much of Latin America, the realm of government more inclusive (a trend that proved conductive to social movements), the economic ventures remained exclusive to a few elite groups within society. Neoliberal restructuring consistently redistributed income upward while denying political responsibility to provide social welfare rights, and though development projects took place throughout the region, both inequality and poverty increased.[51] Feeling excluded from these new projects, the lower classes took ownership of their own democracy through a revitalization of social movements in Latin America. Both urban and rural populations had serious grievances as a result of the above economic and global trends and have voiced them in mass demonstrations. Some of the largest and most violent of these have been protests against cuts in urban services, such as the Caracazo in Venezuela and the Argentinazo in Argentina.[53] Children singing the Internationale, 20th Anniversary of MST. Rural movements have made diverse demands related to unequal land distribution, displacement at the hands of development projects and dams, environmental and indigenous concerns, neoliberal agricultural restructuring, and insufficient means of livelihood. These movements have benefited considerably from transnational support from conservationists and INGOs. The Movement of Rural Landless Workers (MST), is perhaps the largest contemporary Latin American social movement.[53] As indigenous populations are primarily rural, indigenous movements account for a large portion of rural social movements, including the Zapatista rebellion in Mexico, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), indigenous organizations in the Amazon region of Ecuador and Bolivia, pan-Mayan communities in Guatemala, and mobilization by the indigenous groups of Yanomami peoples in the Amazon, Kuna peoples in Panama, and Altiplano Aymara and Quechua peoples in Bolivia.[53] Other significant types of social movements include labor struggles and strikes, such as recovered factories in Argentina, as well as gender-based movements such as the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo in Argentina and protests against maquila production, which is largely a women's issue because of how it draws on women for cheap labor.[53] Commodity boom and increasing relations with China The 2000s commodities boom caused positive effects for many Latin American economies. Another trend is the rapidly increasing importance of the relations with China.[54] Demographics Historical populations Year Pop. ±% 1750 16,000,000 — 1800 24,000,000 +50.0% 1850 38,000,000 +58.3% 1900 74,000,000 +94.7% 1950 167,000,000 +125.7% 1999 511,000,000 +206.0% 2013 603,191,486 +18.0% Source: "UN report 2004 data" (PDF). Main article: Latin Americans Largest cities The following is a list of the ten largest metropolitan areas in Latin America.[2] City Country Metropolitan population (2012) Gross Domestic Product (USD, 2012) GDP per capita (USD, 2012) Global economic ranking by GDP (2012) 1. Mexico City Mexico Mexico 20,631,353 $411.4 billion $19,940 15th 2. São Paulo Brazil Brazil 19,953,698 $473 billion $23,704 11th 3. Buenos Aires Argentina Argentina 13,333,912 $348.4 billion $26,129 20th 4. Rio de Janeiro Brazil Brazil 11,968,886 $194.9 billion $16,282 51st 5. Lima Peru Peru 10,231,678 $177.4 billion $17,340 62nd 6. Bogotá Colombia Colombia 8,868,395 $140.9 billion $15,891 86th 7. Santiago Chile Chile 7,023,767 $150.3 billion $21,393 79th 8. Belo Horizonte Brazil Brazil 5,504,729 $94.9 billion $17,239 123rd 9. Caracas Venezuela Venezuela 5,297,026 $69 billion $24,000[55] N/A 10. Guadalajara Mexico Mexico 4,593,444 $77.4 billion $16,855 142nd Ethnic groups Main article: Ethnic groups in Latin America Jean-Jacques Dessalines was a Haitian of African ancestry. The inhabitants of Latin America are of a variety of ancestries, ethnic groups, and races, making the region one of the most diverse in the world. The specific composition varies from country to country: many have a predominance of European-Amerindian or more commonly referred to as Mestizo or Castizo depending on the admixture, population; in others, Amerindians are a majority; some are dominated by inhabitants of European ancestry; and some countries' populations are primarily Mulatto, in Latin America the only Black majority nation is Haiti and the only Pardo majority is Brazil. Asian and Afro-Amerindian (historically sometimes called Zambo) minorities are also identified regularly. People with European ancestry are the largest single group, and along with people of part-European ancestry, they combine to make up approximately 80% of the population,[56] or even more.[57] Language Linguistic map of Latin America. Spanish in green, Portuguese in orange, and French in blue. Spanish and Portuguese are the predominant languages of Latin America. Spanish is spoken as first language by about 60% of the population, Portuguese is spoken by about 34% of the population and about 6% of the population speak other languages such as Quechua, Mayan languages, Guaraní, Aymara, Nahuatl, English, French, Dutch and Italian. Portuguese is spoken only in Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese), the biggest and most populous country in the region. Spanish is the official language of most of the rest of the countries on the Latin American mainland (Spanish language in the Americas), as well as in Cuba, Puerto Rico (where it is co-official with English), and the Dominican Republic. French is spoken in Haiti and in the French overseas departments of Guadeloupe, Martinique and Guiana, and the French overseas collectivity of Saint Pierre and Miquelon; it is also spoken by some Panamanians of Afro-Antillean descent. Dutch is the official language in Suriname, Aruba, and the Netherlands Antilles. (As Dutch is a Germanic language, these territories are not necessarily considered part of Latin America.) Native American languages are widely spoken in Peru, Guatemala, Bolivia, Paraguay and Mexico, and to a lesser degree, in Panama, Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina, and Chile amongst other countries. In Latin American countries not named above, the population of speakers of indigenous languages tend to be very small or even non-existent (e.g. Uruguay). Mexico is possibly the only country that contains a wider variety of indigenous languages than any Latin American country, but the most spoken language is Nahuatl. In Peru, Quechua is an official language, alongside Spanish and any other indigenous language in the areas where they predominate. In Ecuador, while holding no official status, the closely related Quichua is a recognized language of the indigenous people under the country's constitution; however, it is only spoken by a few groups in the country's highlands. In Bolivia, Aymara, Quechua and Guaraní hold official status alongside Spanish. Guaraní, along with Spanish, is an official language of Paraguay, and is spoken by a majority of the population (who are, for the most part, bilingual), and it is co-official with Spanish in the Argentine province of Corrientes. In Nicaragua, Spanish is the official language, but on the country's Caribbean coast English and indigenous languages such as Miskito, Sumo, and Rama also hold official status. Colombia recognizes all indigenous languages spoken within its territory as official, though fewer than 1% of its population are native speakers of these languages. Nahuatl is one of the 62 native languages spoken by indigenous people in Mexico, which are officially recognized by the government as "national languages" along with Spanish. Other European languages spoken in Latin America include: English, by some groups in Puerto Rico, as well as in nearby countries that may or may not be considered Latin American, like Belize and Guyana; German, in southern Brazil, southern Chile portions of Argentina and Paraguay; Italian, in Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay; and Welsh, in southern Argentina.[58][59][60][61][62][63] In several nations, especially in the Caribbean region, creole languages are spoken. The most widely spoken creole language in Latin America and the Caribbean is Haitian Creole, the predominant language of Haiti; it is derived primarily from French and certain West African tongues with Amerindian, English, Portuguese and Spanish influences as well. Creole languages of mainland Latin America, similarly, are derived from European languages and various African tongues. The Garifuna language is spoken along the Caribbean coast in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Belize mostly by the Garifuna people a mixed race Zambo people who were the result of mixing between Indigenous Caribbeans and escaped Black slaves. Primarily an Arawakan language, it has influences from Caribbean and European languages. Religion Main article: Religion in Latin America Basilica of Our Lady of the Angels located in Cartago, Costa Rica. The vast majority of Latin Americans are Christians, mostly Roman Catholics belonging to the Latin Rite.[64] About 70% of the Latin American population consider themselves Catholic.[65] Migration Due to economic, social and security developments that are affecting the region in recent decades, the focus is now the change from net immigration to net emigration. About 10 million Mexicans live in the United States.[66] 28.3 million Americans listed their ancestry as Mexican as of 2006.[67] According to the 2005 Colombian census or DANE, about 3,331,107 Colombians currently live abroad.[68] The number of Brazilians living overseas is estimated at about 2 million people.[69] An estimated 1.5 to two million Salvadorans reside in the United States.[70] At least 1.5 million Ecuadorians have gone abroad, mainly to the United States and Spain.[71] Approximately 1.5 million Dominicans live abroad, mostly in the United States.[72] More than 1.3 million Cubans live abroad, most of them in the United States.[73] It is estimated that over 800,000 Chileans live abroad, mainly in Argentina, the United States, Canada, Australia and Sweden.[74] An estimated 700,000 Bolivians were living in Argentina as of 2006 and another 33,000 in the United States.[75] Central Americans living abroad in 2005 were 3,314,300,[76] of which 1,128,701 were Salvadorans,[77] 685,713 were Guatemalans,[78] 683,520 were Nicaraguans,[79] 414,955 were Hondurans,[80] 215,240 were Panamanians,[81] 127,061 were Costa Ricans[82] and 59,110 were Belizeans. For the period 2000–2005, Chile, Costa Rica, Panama, and Venezuela were the only countries with global positive migration rates, in terms of their yearly averages.[83] Education See also: Education in Latin America World map indicating literacy by country (2011 Human Development Report) Grey = no data Despite significant progress, education access and school completion remains unequal in Latin America. The region has made great progress in educational coverage; almost all children attend primary school and access to secondary education has increased considerably. Quality issues such as poor teaching methods, lack of appropriate equipment and overcrowding exist throughout the region. These issues lead to adolescents dropping out of the educational system early.[84] Most educational systems in the region have implemented various types of administrative and institutional reforms that have enabled reach for places and communities that had no access to education services in the early 1990s. Compared to prior generations, Latin American youth have seen an increase in their levels of education. On average, they have completed two years schooling more than their parents.[84] However, there are still 23 million children in the region between the ages of 4 and 17 outside of the formal education system. Estimates indicate that 30% of preschool age children (ages 4–5) do not attend school, and for the most vulnerable populations, the poor and rural, this calculation exceeds 40 percent. Among primary school age children (ages 6 to 12), coverage is almost universal; however there is still a need to incorporate 5 million children in the primary education system. These children live mostly in remote areas, are indigenous or Afro-descendants and live in extreme poverty.[85] Among people between the ages of 13 and 17 years, only 80% are full-time students in the education system; among them only 66% advance to secondary school. These percentages are lower among vulnerable population groups: only 75% of the poorest youth between the ages of 13 and 17 years attend school. Tertiary education has the lowest coverage, with only 70% of people between the ages of 18 and 25 years outside of the education system. Currently, more than half of low income children or living in rural areas fail to complete nine years of education.[85] Crime and violence Main article: Crime and violence in Latin America Latin America and the Caribbean have been cited by numerous sources to be the most dangerous regions in the world.[86][87] Studies have shown that Latin America contains the majority of the world's most dangerous cities. Many analysts attribute the reason to why the region has such an alarming crime rate and criminal culture is largely due to social and income inequality within the region, they say that growing social inequality is fueling crime in the region.[88] Many agree that the prison crisis will not be resolved until the gap between the rich and the poor is addressed. Crime and violence prevention and public security are now important issues for governments and citizens in Latin America and the Caribbean region. Homicide rates in Latin America are the highest in the world. From the early 1980s through the mid-1990s, homicide rates increased by 50 percent. The major victims of such homicides are young men, 69 percent of whom are between the ages of 15 and 19 years old. Countries with the highest homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants were: Honduras 91.6, El Salvador 69.2, Venezuela 45.1, Belize 41.4, Guatemala 38.5, Puerto Rico 26.2, Dominican Republic 25, Mexico 23.7, and Ecuador 18.2.[89] Compared to the world average homicide rating of 6.9, the country with the highest rating in Latin America is more than 13x's the world average. The top 10 highest homicide rates per 100,000 inhabitants ever recorded since 1995 were entirely made up of countries from Latin America and they were El Salvador, Honduras, and Colombia with El Salvador scoring the highest homicide rate ever recorded at 139.1 back in 1995.[90] In Colombia alone, one person was murdered every 10 minutes in 2005.[91] Amnesty International has even named Latin America as the most dangerous region in the world for journalists to work.[92] Crime-related violence in Latin America represents the most threat to public health, striking more victims than HIV/AIDS or other infectious diseases.[93] Countries with low crime rates in Latin America are Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Uruguay.[94] Economy Size According to Goldman Sachs' BRIC review of emerging economies, by 2050 the largest economies in the world will be as follows: China, United States, India, Brazil, and Mexico.[95] Population and economy size for Latin American countries Country Population[96] (2010) Millions GDP (nominal)[97] (2012) Millions of US$ GDP (PPP)[98] (2012) Millions of US$ Argentina 40.4 472,815 726,226 Bolivia 9.9 27,012 54,134 Brazil 201 2,395,968 2,393,954 Chile 17.1 272,119 316,516 Colombia 45 378,713 500,576 Costa Rica 4.7 44,313 57,955 Cuba 11.3 N/A N/A Dominican Republic 9.9 59,429 98,835 Ecuador 14.5 88,186 134,805 El Salvador 6.2 24,421 46,050 Guatemala 15.5 50,303 79,970 Haiti 10.0 8,335 13,501 Honduras 7.6 18,320 37,408 Mexico 113.4 1,207,820 1,743,474 Nicaragua 5.8 7,695 19,827 Panama 3.5 34,517 55,124 Paraguay 6.5 22,363 35,262 Peru 29.1 184,962 322,675 Puerto Rico 3.7 101,500 64,840 (2010 estimate) Uruguay 3.4 52,349 53,365 Venezuela 29.0 337,433 396,848 Total 577.8 5,725,145 7,114,547 Standard of living The following table lists all the countries in Latin America indicating a valuation of the country's Human Development Index, GDP at purchasing power parity per capita, measurement of inequality through the Gini index, measurement of poverty through the Human Poverty Index, measurement of extreme poverty based on people living under 1.25 dollars a day, life expectancy, murder rates and a measurement of safety through the Global Peace Index. Green cells indicate the best performance in each category while red indicates the lowest. Social and economic indicators for Latin American countries Country Human development[99] (2012) HDI GDP (PPP)[100] (2012) US$ per capita Real GDP growth[101] (2011) % Income inequality[102] (2011) Gini Poverty[103] (2009) HPI-1 % Extreme poverty[104] (2011) <1.25 US$ % Literacy[105] (2010) % Life expectancy[99] (2011) Years Murder[106] (2012) Rate per 100,000 Peace[107] (2014) GPI Argentina 0.811 18,709 8.9 45.8 3.7 0.9 98 76 3.4 1.789 Bolivia 0.675 5,330 5.1 57.3 11.6 14.0 91 67 8.9 1.969 Brazil 0.730 12,340 2.7 53.9 8.6 0.3 90 74 21.0 2.073 Chile 0.819 19,474 5.9 52.1 3.2 0.8 99 79 3.2 1.591 Colombia 0.719 11,284 5.9 53.9[108] 7.6 8.2 93 74 31[109] 2.701 Costa Rica 0.773 13,205 4.2 50.3 3.7 0.7 96 79 11.3 1.781 Cuba 0.780 N/A N/A N/A 4.6 N/A 100 79 5.0 1.986 Dominican Republic 0.702 9,845 4.5 48.4 9.1 4.3 90 73 25.0 2.093 Ecuador 0.724 10,517 7.8 49.0 7.9 5.1 92 76 15.2 2.042 El Salvador 0.680 7,648 1.4 46.9 14.6 5.1 84 72 69.2 2.280 Guatemala 0.628 5,335 3.8 53.7 19.7 16.9 75 71 38.5 2.248 Haiti 0.456 1,358 5.6 59.5 31.5 54.9 49 62 6.9 2.127 Honduras 0.632 4,741 3.6 57.7 13.7 23.3 85 73 91.6 2.281 Mexico 0.775 15,931 4.0 51.7 5.9 8.4 93 77 22.7 2.500 Nicaragua 0.599 4,641 4.7 52.3 17.0 15.8 78 74 13.6 1.882 Panama 0.780 16,993 10.6 52.3 6.7 9.5 94 76 21.6 1.877 Paraguay 0.669 6,787 3.8 52.0 10.5 5.1 94 73 11.5 1.976 Peru 0.741 11,403 6.9 48.0 10.2 5.9 90 74 10.3 2.304 Uruguay 0.792 16,728 5.7 42.4 3.0 0.0 99 77 5.9 1.565 Venezuela 0.748 13,633 4.2 43.5 6.6 3.5 96 74 45.1 2.410 Environment Environmental indicators for Latin American countries Country Environmental performance[110] (2012) EPI CO2 emissions[111] (2009) (tons of CO2 per capita) Argentina 56.48 4.14 Bolivia 54.57 1.31 Brazil 60.90 1.74 Chile 55.34 3.84 Colombia 62.33 1.33 Costa Rica 69.03 1.37 Cuba 56.48 2.40 Dominican Republic 52.44 1.79 Ecuador 60.55 2.09 El Salvador 52.08 1.10 Guatemala 51.88 1.03 Haiti 41.15 0.24 Honduras 52.54 0.96 Mexico 49.11 3.72 Nicaragua 59.23 0.73 Panama 57.94 2.10 Paraguay 52.40 0.64 Peru 50.29 1.32 Uruguay 57.06 2.31 Venezuela 55.62 5.45 Inequality Main articles: Casta, Gente de Razon and Race and ethnicity in Latin America Slums on the outskirts of a wealthy urban area in São Paulo, Brazil are an example of poverty and inequality common in Latin America. Expensive homes and apartments surrounding a poor marginal zone are an example of the stark difference in incomes among Mexico City inhabitants. Poverty continues to be one of the region's main challenges; according to the ECLAC, Latin America is the most unequal region in the world.[112] Inequality is undermining the region's economic potential and the well-being of its population, since it increases poverty and reduces the impact of economic development on poverty reduction.[113] Children in Latin America are often forced to seek work on the streets when their families can no longer afford to support them, leading to a substantial population of street children in Latin America.[114] According to some estimates, there are 40 million street children in Latin America.[115] Inequality in Latin America has deep historical roots in the Latin European racially based Casta system[116][117][118][119][120][121][122] instituted in Latin America in colonial times that have been difficult to eradicate since the differences between initial endowments and opportunities among social groups have constrained the poorest's social mobility, thus making poverty to be transmitted from generation to generation, becoming a vicious cycle. High inequality is rooted in the deepest exclusionary institutions of the Casta system[123][124][125] that have been perpetuated ever since colonial times and that have survived different political and economic regimes. Inequality has been reproduced and transmitted through generations because Latin American political systems allow a differentiated access on the influence that social groups have in the decision making process, and it responds in different ways to the least favored groups that have less political representation and capacity of pressure.[126] Recent economic liberalisation also plays a role as not everyone is equally capable of taking advantage of its benefits.[127] Differences in opportunities and endowments tend to be based on race, ethnicity, rurality and gender. Because inequality in gender and location are near universal, race and ethnicity play a larger, more integral role in the unequal discriminatory practices in Latin America. These differences have a strong impact on the distribution of income, capital and political standing. In 2008, According to UNICEF, Latin America and the Caribbean region had the highest combined income inequality in the world with a measured net Gini coefficient of 48.3, an unweighted average which is considerably higher than the world's Gini coefficient average of 39.7. Gini is the statistical measurement used to measure income distribution across entire nations and their populations and their income inequality. The other regional averages were: sub-Saharan Africa (44.2), Asia (40.4), Middle East and North Africa (39.2), Eastern Europe and Central Asia (35.4), and high-income nations (30.9).[128] According to a study by the World Bank,the richest decile of the population of Latin America earn[129] 48% of the total income, while the poorest 10% of the population earn only 1.6% of the income. In contrast, in developed countries, the top decile receives 29% of the total income, while the bottom decile earns 2.5%. The countries with the highest inequality in the region (as measured with the Gini index in the UN Development Report[130]) in 2007 were Haiti (59.5), Colombia (58.5), Bolivia (58.2), Honduras (55.3), Brazil (55.0), and Panama (54.9), while the countries with the lowest inequality in the region were Venezuela (43.4), Uruguay (46.4) and Costa Rica (47.2). Trends on income inequality 1998-2010 in 7 Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela). Source of the data: World Bank. According to the World Bank, the poorest countries in the region were (as of 2008):[131] Haiti, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Honduras. Undernourishment affects to 47% of Haitians, 27% of Nicaraguans, 23% of Bolivians and 22% of Hondurans. Many countries in Latin America have responded to high levels of poverty by implementing new, or altering old, social assistance programs such as conditional cash transfers. These include Mexico's Progresa Oportunidades, Brazil's Bolsa Escola and Bolsa Familia, Panama's Red de Oportunidades and Chile's Chile Solidario.[132] In general, these programs provide money to poor families under the condition that those transfers are used as an investment on their children's human capital, such as regular school attendance and basic preventive health care. The purpose of these programs is to address the inter-generational transmission of poverty and to foster social inclusion by explicitly targeting the poor, focusing on children, delivering transfers to women, and changing social accountability relationships between beneficiaries, service providers and governments.[133] These programs have helped to increase school enrollment and attendance and they also have shown improvements in children's health conditions.[134] Most of these transfer schemes are now benefiting around 110 million people in the region and are considered relatively cheap, costing around 0.5% of their GDP.[135] In some countries e.g. in Peru decentralisation is hoped to help addressing social justice and poverty better. NGOs which addressed those problems on the local level before could help with that.[136] The idea that a part of the Americas has a linguistic affinity with the Romance cultures as a whole can be traced back to the 1830s, in the writing of the French Saint-Simonian Michel Chevalier, who postulated that this part of the Americas was inhabited by people of a "Latin race", and that it could, therefore, ally itself with "Latin Europe" in a struggle with "Teutonic Europe", "Anglo-Saxon America" and "Slavic Europe".[8] The idea was later taken up by Latin American intellectuals and political leaders of the mid- and late-nineteenth century, who no longer looked to Spain or Portugal as cultural models, but rather to France.[9] The term was first used in Paris in an 1856 conference by the Chilean politician Francisco Bilbao[10] and the same year by the Colombian writer José María Torres Caicedo in his poem "Two Americas".[11] The t |
About us|Jobs|Help|Disclaimer|Advertising services|Contact us|Sign in|Website map|Search|
GMT+8, 2015-9-11 20:27 , Processed in 0.124505 second(s), 16 queries .
