“...The United States were more interested in unquestioning allies than democratic ones...” (254).
This week's readings were very interesting, however, the cyclical nature of recent history in Guatemala made it so that by the end, things were getting confusing. Many of the 'changes' of power seemed to be replaying the previous regime, only worse. It reminded me of the whole 'dream within a dream within a dream' idea, although it was clearly a nightmare for all involved. Except, apparently, the CIA. They seemed to have faired pretty good by the end, growing their reputation for their.... intelligence assessment?
Not quite.
Here are some of the things that jumped at me. I feel as though some go with a theme that I’ve explored in previous blogs of ‘things that remind me of the the contemporary U.S.’ The first chapter, however, reminds me of a different theme that I have also noticed in previous class readings: that is, the way in which certain individuals, strong personalities, ‘crazies’ even, have had huge effects on the history of millions of people. We saw it in A Memory of Fire , for example. Here we see it with Banana Sam. Also of great interest in this chapter was learning of the connection between New England and Central America.
The fist instance of my U.S. theme came with the bogus Czech shipment in ‘the final countdown’. I could not help but feeling as though it was the day’s Iraqi WMDs scenario. The second instance was the fact that at the time, the U.S. was acting under an idea that the Cold War meant a different set of rules for ‘the game’, which seems to parallel the paradigm under which the war on terror is ran.
The part with Che was very interesting in that it implied that U.S. actions somehow, by further radicalizing Guevara, had a direct role of causation in the way the Cuban Revolution developed. As the fight against Arbenz developed, the opening of the caches by the American-supported army connected with my U.S. theme again, as it mirrored what happened in Iraq at the beginning of the occupation.
I found of interest the many hands that came to the Guatemalan pot. From the UFC (not the Ultimate fighting Championship, but the company that brought us the lovely term ‘Banana Republic’, which by the way, how offensive of a brand name is it?) to Time magazine writers called to draft constitutions, to the bizarre way in which the diplomats behaved (even getting assassinated in the dubious line of duty).
The entire post-‘liberation’ period just stinks of a Guatemala with zero point zero sovereignty, which is a sad picture. The way in which Castillo-Armas (can you get a better name for that job? What is this, a Dickens-written telenovela?) was ‘built up’ as a Libertador made me wonder how much of the alleged predilection for caudillos in Latin America is fabricated.
The end of the story was part sad part ‘karma’s a bitch’, except of course, as I mentioned before, for the CIA. It is interesting to see all this in the current context of Guatemala, as the old story seems to be shaping the current one: we have an outgoing Colom, nephew of the one in our story, and an incoming School of the Americas gradute, General Perez-Molina. Just makes you wonder... who’s hands are in the pie now?
Un Abrazo, Guatemala.
Peace.
Interesting commentary. I was curious to who coined the term ‘banana republic’ and found that it was O. Henry, an American writer in 1896-97 who first used the term as a political descriptor while hiding in Honduras to avoid his bank embezzlement charges back at home. The Central American countries and their comfy connection with United Fruit undeniably fit the definition.
ReplyDeleteThe latest Guatemalan elections were awash in Mexican drug money. Official reports could not account as to where all the fund-raising money came from (according to an article in The Economist I had to read for class). Running on a platform of security (and jobs), let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself under President Pérez-Molina.