Historiography

Officially, Latin America isn’t a colony. It’s made up of independent countries, each with their own system of government and economy. And yet, unofficially, it can be argued that the countries of Latin America, particularly Mexico, are colonies of the United States. Although there is no legal documentation claiming them as colonies, looking at the way that the economy operates between the United States and Latin America makes it very clear that this argument is grounded in solid observations and theories. Several scholars and journalists have also explored the idea that Latin America is really just operating under a form of neo-colonialism in relation to the United States. In this essay, the works of one scholar, Margaret Ngai, and one journalist, Jeff Abbott, will be explored in order to further flesh-out, and prove, the supposition that Latin America is effectively a United States colony.

To begin, let’s establish some historical context. The various countries of Latin America were all initially colonized by the Spanish. While in charge, the Spanish set up a system called encomienda that, despite being marketed as a tribute system, under which the native populations of Latin America were still free agents, was, in essence, glorified slave labor. Scholar Avis Mysyk, in an article on the successful attempts by the people of Huaquechula, Mexico to defend their land from Spanish invaders, refers to the encomienda system as not a tribute system but a system of “land encroachment and excessive demands for labor by Spaniards from their arrival in 1521 to… 1633.”¹ By the time this system ended, millions of Latinx natives were dead; what remained began to marry those of Spanish descent, or the black slaves brought over to replace the dying native labor force. Because of this, it is hard to fully compare the neo-colonization of Latin America with the initial Spanish colonization – the populations being colonized are entirely different. This is also a difficult comparison because the colonizers are different as well – the Spanish of the 15 and 16 hundreds are very far removed from the Americans of the 20th and 21st centuries. However, this level of historical background is necessary: it establishes that there is precedence for the colonization and exploitation of Latin America.

One of the major instances that scholars point to as a sign of neo-colonization in Latin America is the Bracero program. Created in 1942, this was an imported labor system; Mexican laborers were paid meager amounts to cross the border and work on American farms. Thousands used the bracero system to cross the border, subjecting themselves to inhumane treatments in order to make money for their families back in Mexico. According to scholar Mae Ngai, this was, and still is, “America’s largest experiment with a ‘guest-worker program,’ today’s euphimism for federally sponsored importation of contract labor.”² On paper, the program sounds like something that is mutually beneficial to both the people of Mexico and the people of America. In practice, however, the inhumane way that the braceros were treated built a system of abuse and exploitation. It also helped to boost the flow of illegal immigration into the United States; many workers who couldn’t afford to survive on the wages of the bracero program would re-enter the U.S. as illegal migrant workers.

All of this combined together to develop into a system of what Ngai calls “imported colonialism.”³  She argues that imported colonialism is not a structured system of subjugation the way that classic examples of colonialism, like the colonization of Africa, often are. Instead, imported colonialism is what she describes as “a de facto socio-legal condition,” wherein a society as a whole subconsciously follows a set of rules or conventions which are embedded in the normal way of life.⁴ This often occurs between countries who have not previously had a colonizer/colonized relationship with each other; for example, Mexico and the United States.

This de facto condition is not, however, merely relegated to individual people. Individual people make up all of the businesses that function in society, and that is where the arguments of journalist Jeff Abbott come into play. Abott, a renowned journalist based in Guatemala, wrote an article in 2016 called “The Neo-Colonization of Central America” in which he discusses how corporations play a part in modern-day colonization. The biggest factor in neo-colonialism, he argues, is the existence of “transnational companies… grounded in the continued exploitation of natural resources… the force [of which] is strengthened by free-trade agreements and development plans that guarantee a company’s right to investment above the rights of the citizenry.”⁵ The main driving factor behind classic colonialism was the benefit of the mother country – something called mercantilism. Abbott argues that this is still the case, except now instead of working solely for the benefit of one’s homeland, all of the benefits go to big businesses. There is an extra layer here, of course, one that mostly comes into play in American politics: lobbyists.

Lobbying is a practice in the United States government where large corporations or interest groups, organizations with massive amounts of money, attempt to influence legislators to create political policy. These policies are designed to benefit the lobbyists and the groups they represent.⁶ Frequently, big businesses use tactics such as large monetary donations to a politician’s campaigns to get the legislators to work in their favor. These corporations are often the ones benefiting from neo-colonialism. With this in mind, it is obvious why governments pass free-trade agreements – in the end, the people making the laws are benefitting from this new form of colonialism as much as the corporations are. Although it can’t be claimed that every free-trade agreement was made with ill-intentions, it is impossible to ignore the negative side effects that plague millions of people.

Looking at the work of both Ngai and Abbott, it becomes clear that, as Abbott says, “the colonization of Latin America never ended, it merely changed forms.”⁷ Corporations, free-trade agreements, and guest-worker programs all come together to create a society that has never let go of the legal systems that led to the oppression and brutalization of millions of people. Although the Spanish are no longer the colonizers, and although the encomienda system is no longer in place, it can be argued that the system never ended – it just transformed to better fit a more modern, liberal, social justice-oriented society. 

Sources

Avis Mysyk, “Land, Labor, and Indigenous Response: Huaquechula (Mexico), 1521–1633,” Colonial Latin American Review 24, no. 3 (September 2015): 336–55, https://doi.org/10.1080/10609164.2015.1086595. 

Jeff Abbott, “The Neo-Colonization of Central America,” New Politics 16, no. 1 (20160601): 41–48, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ijh&AN=67.4962&site=ehost-live

Mae Ngai, Impossible Subjects, Ch. 4, 2014, https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691160825/impossible-subjects.

“Lobbying | Definition & Facts | Britannica,” accessed May 3, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/lobbying.