Michel Gobat, Confronting the American Dream: Nicaragua Under U.S. Imperial Rule
The conflict and contradictions of the elites in Nicaragua are the most fascinating part of this history to me. That they ask for US intervention, then don’t want US intervention the way the US intervenes; that they have always looked the US for the definition of modernity and then reject the US versions of fashion and morals as being the antithesis of their beliefs; that they object to the US racism and then, as a defining measure, reject the whiteness they have always used to define themselves to embrace the mestizo category they always rejected; that they embraced the Sandinistas fight against the US imperial reach while undermining the Sandinistas fight for freedom for the peasantry—all of these contradictory impulses, particularly from the Conservative elites, highlight the conflicted nature of what Nicaragua is and wants to be. I was left thinking about the long term damage of US intervention: this nation (and probably many other areas the US interfered with) tries to define itself but is forced to perpetually redefine itself against the US, making an “authentic” identity nearly impossible because everything is tainted by both the influence of and reaction to US culture, government policies, and economic interventions. This key idea of US intervention constantly requiring the Latin American countries to see themselves the way the US sees them and to redefine themselves using that standard helps explain the cultural issues that countries like Nicaragua have with the US and how profoundly our politics, policies, and economic incursions have shaped and destabilized Nicaragua and the region.
I agree with your point about the US requiring Latin American countries to see themselves the way the US sees them -- and I don't see much evidence that the US attempted to understand or navigate differences in worldview from other perspectives. Nicaraguan elites who modeled their political, social, and economic goals after the US may have enabled that. Religious rejections of US societal norms, like the Catholic-centered fight against the "modern woman" outlined chapter 7, also struck me as an interesting contradiction considering social conservatives in the US also rejected "modern women" for some of the same supposedly moral reasons. It just goes to show that there are many nuances and contradictions in every country's identity.
It seems to me that when some Nicaraguans sought out US intervention, they were seeking out the intervention of the ideal of what the US proclaims itself to be, not the reality of what the US sadly often is as opposed to engaging in about-faces as if they wanted the type of intervention that happened and then just changed their minds. Clearly inviting William Walker in was an example of this. As Gobat writes near the beginning of Chapter 1: “[E]lite Liberals hoped that Walker’s men would settle down as agricultural colonists and help Nicaragua replicate the U.S. path to political and economic modernity.” Clearly that isn’t what Walker did — at all — but given the focus on colonists “settling the west” in American mythology, perhaps it was not so crazy that the elite Liberals thought this would happen when Walker was first invited.
I think the elites of Nicaragua were simply opportunists that wished to increase both their social and economic control of the country and they allowed for and embraced any program/movement that they perceived, sometimes wrongly, would facilitate those ends. This may seem a cynical response, however, it simply comes down to economics and how capitalism actual is designed to work. Everything outside of profit is an externality. As long as it does not infringe on ones ability to increase said profits/institutional power then it is acceptable. The control over culture, women's "liberation" and popular dress was about maintaining the hegemonic control of the greater worker population and the cultural milieu that had supported oligarchs initial rise to economic and institutional authority. I really think this is the only way to account for such contradictory responses to the various geopolitical/socioeconomic movements and events that take place through the course of the books narrative. Also I would argue that the creation of, and continued support of, the Monroe Doctrine is the mark of US intention/initiation towards a project of empire. Sadly, we are a racist, capital(ist)/ expansionist empire and we have the whole of US history to back that claim. Isn't history so uplifting!?
"I think the elites of Nicaragua were simply opportunists that wished to increase both their social and economic control of the country and they allowed for and embraced any program/movement that they perceived, sometimes wrongly, would facilitate those ends."
Jason, We couldn't agree anymore on this, man. I think most of us kind of knew this, but it became so much clearer after reading this book. They would have liked the "modern woman" and Protestantism as long as that had them with the better share of the economic pie.
I found Golbat's book to be particularly fascinating in terms of how he singles out Nicaragua's exceptional anti-American elite, and how that can be traced up to the Sandinista Revolution, which can then be extended to the current Sandinista government that has been in power since 2006. Among many arguments I believe he posits that exceptional circumstances lead to exceptional results, which, in the case of Nicaragua, occurs during the Filibuster regime, the increased scrutiny of ballot box elections, and the dollar diplomacy of the 1920's. Neither event occurred in a vacuum, and the country's elite began to develop an anti-Americanism that I have not read about in any other Latin American nation, where anti-Americanism is seen to be a popular class phenomenon. I find the epilogue to be a bit blurry, perhaps because of the history but perhaps because of how Gobat is attempting to tie it into the rest of his book. The Conservative oligarchy was supposed to remain aloof of this dictatorship that, at first, had popular support through the rural classes but held a corporatist model inspired by European fascism. Then, they broke off from him because of his support of the United States in World War II, and then they allied with the Marxist or Marxist-inspired Sandinistas when the Somoza sons pivoted the national agricultural sector against the country's rural classes. Thus, the Guardia's entrepreneurial class presented a greater threat to the Conservative oligarchs than Marxist rebels did? I understand that Gobat presents the Sandinista's idea of a "patriotic bourgeoisie" as an answer to my question, but nonetheless I felt that there must have been something missing in the Conservative Party oligarchy's relationship to the Somoza dynasty.
Golbat appears to be chronicling the development of a particular form of anti-Americanism that is distinct to Nicaragua, which I think is successfully accomplished. I also noticed the development of a societal trend among the people of Nicaragua that relates to class distinctions. This trend appears throughout the chronology of the narrative and consists (basically) of elites allying with whatever vehicle will allow them to keep or gain more institutional and/or economic power. Whether that vehicle is anti-Americanism, the embracing of imperialist intervention, or popular will the elites (the same 10-12 families) of the society are opportunist to the extreme and never appear to promote any one single ideology aside from their maintenance of institutional authority and economic hegemony. I think this is where the contradictory relationship with US intervention comes from. While for the working poor the sentiment of anti-Americanism appears to come from a more visceral and experiential place, the bulk of the actions concerning the working poor ultimately come down to decisions of necessity. The necessity for food and security to be exact. Additionally, I found Golbat's narrative to also reveal the sensitive nature of Latin American self-determinacy in relation to US imperial authority. From the beginning of US intervention, to today, the direction the Nicaraguan government and society takes must be within the constructs of US doctrine, because without adherence to the principles of US "democracy" and US capitalism the right to self-determinacy is violently revoked. I think this explains the limitations on the Sandinista's to reform the government and society into a more egalitarian and democratically controlled society where making deals with elites becomes a necessity in order to avoid overt US "intervention." There are a myriad of examples in US/LA relations to exemplify the reality oft his assertion from filibusters, to1970's Chile and the US backed coup, to Venezuela today, like today as in right now as you read this.
When you're talking about the limitations on the Sandinista's collaboration with the elites in order to avoid overt US intervention, are you referring to the 1980's Sandinistas or the current government? What is interesting about reading the epilogue is that the Sandinistas collaborated with the elites in the 1980s, but the US intervened anyway.
Fun fact: the name Chamorro appears often in the book as one of the oligarchical families that has ruled the country since the 19th century. Violeta Chamorro, daughter of a landed family and the heiress of the national newspaper La Prensa, was the candidate who defeated Daniel Ortega in the 1990 elections, implementing free-market reforms which drove Nicaragua into an economic tailspin that made it the second poorest country in the region after Haiti by 1998.
Word! Thanks for the information Rafael! I was, albeit in a very essentialist way, referring to each instance. Basically, what I was attempting to posit is that during the periods covered by the book nothing is happening in a bubble and interference from the US is something that had to be considered by everyone from oligarchs, to rebels. I think that is why the Sandinista's of the 1980's and today had/have to operate very carefully always careful not to attract too much attention from the north. Even then, National Security Advisor John "The Warmonger" Bolton has mentioned Nicaragua as an issue in L.A. in conjunction with Venezuela and Bolivia. Additionally, for the oligarchs the alignment with the Sandinista movements was always a case of it being the best opportunity to maintain control over their interests and avoid the loss of their own personal power and economic station. I realize that this bite some of them in the ass, however, by the time that became apparent it was already too late to "switch teams" and reposition for better conditions. While I am afraid to come off like I am promoting exceptionalism, even though I consider myself a harsh critic and enemy of US Empire, the fact is that nothing that happens in the Western Hemisphere doesn't have the US's greedy finger prints on it, or at the very least the intention to. So I think it only fair to consider that reality when thinking about the how and why concerning peoples actions and intentions in these instances. And to your point about US intervention in the 1980's, I really think that comes down to the administration of the time. Reagan and his cadre of neoconservative Warhawks weren't going to let that situation alone regardless of how it turned out, the propaganda surrounding it, and the international machinations of the likes of Elliot Abrams and Dick Cheney had predetermined the fate of Nicaragua from the first minute the FSLN declared their intentions. I hate it, but the presence or thought of US imperialism appeared to be an almost constant in this narrative.Thanks for the reply and information.
"I think the elites of Nicaragua were simply opportunists that wished to increase both their social and economic control of the country and they allowed for and embraced any program/movement that they perceived, sometimes wrongly, would facilitate those ends."
Jason, We couldn't agree anymore on this, man. I think most of us kind of knew this, but it became so much clearer after reading this book. They would have liked the "modern woman" and Protestantism as long as that had them with the better share of the economic pie.
Their anti-Americanism emerged because they weren't invited to the "Dance of the Millions" party. Not because there was rooted, meaningful, nationalism.
In Gobat's book, Nicaragua was torn between wanting to remove US influence, wanting to emulate the US model of modernity, and embracing US political, economic, and social norms as their own. Much of Gobat's description of Nicaragua's search for its identity reminded me of the readings we did on 19th-20th century Japan in Professor Asen's class last semester: like Nicaragua, Japan used Western paradigms to measure its progress towards modernity. Even while rejecting the US, they also embraced the US worldview. This conflict drove the struggle before, during, and after US occupation and intervention in Nicaragua.
The conflict between liberal and conservative elites in Nicaragua arose over disagreements on how to respond to US intervention. Gobat dives into one of the unintended consequences of US intervention and elite conflict: the "democratization" of the peasant workers. The specific conditions of the economy during "dollar diplomacy" combined with increased opportunity for land ownership and expanded markets for peasants to sell their products was beneficial for them at a time when the elites were harmed by US economic interference. I'm about to finish reading, but I think Gobat is showing us how this economic shift would lead to strengthened anti-Americanism among the elite (perhaps uniting liberal and conservative again?) and mobilization of the Nicaraguan peasants because of their increased access to economic resources. I look forward to finishing up the book.
Katie, I love how you phrased the opening sentence here. The description in the book in places where you see that the Nicaraguans are perpetually seeing themselves the way America sees them while trying to maintain their own awareness of Nicaraguan identity reminds me of the double consciousness of racism that WEB DuBois wrote about. Thanks to the gifts of American imperialism, it seems that many parts of the world now get to struggle with identity issues based on beliefs about American perceptions. Given the US's history of racism towards anyone not easily identifiable as "entirely" white European descent (** like the "one drop rule" that is a nonsensical way to quantify heritage anywhere but the US), this almost certainly part of why these nations think the US sees them as inferior. What a legacy of US intervention.
Michel Gobat’s Confronting The American Dream: Nicaragua Under U.S. Imperial Rule is so far my favorite book we have read for class so far this semester. The birth and development of the different political factions in Nicaragua and how they banded together to oppose the United States Imperial on hold Nicaragua. It brought extreme skepticism/cynicism to the United States as the “Shining City On The Hill” and the phrase “Amecia comes as liberators not conquerors”. My favorite section was the economic section in which Gobat this proves that it was the American influence that helped the Nicaraguan economy, but rather it was the nicaraguans taking advantage of the ineptitude of the United States officials and how Nicaraguan agriculture and the need for cattle was one of the primary causes. Gobat also illustrates the complexity of politics at the time and the role ideology played as well as the Catholic Church and how the oligarchs obtained power. The constant turmoil and turnover in government between conservatives/right wing dictators and leftist groups proves the United States failed in its mission. Problem I did have with the book however one problem I did have with the book however was the lack of other Latin American nations.Maybe mentioning Honduras or Costa Rica to see how their governments specifically reacted to The United States involvement in Nicaragua. Or mention Soviet reaction and if Latin American nations became more aligned with the USSR. I know it mentioned Sandino was not a communist and it was mentioned he was exiled to El Salvador. It is nitpicking, but i would like to know why El Salvador was chosen.
Just want to preface this with the fact that I'm making this comment without having fully finished the book yet so I'm going to try and focus on what I know more of from the beginning but excuse me for seeming like I might be missing some details because I probably am. So, my initial reaction to the book so far was one of confusion as Gobat describes this sort of tug of war going on within Nicaragua from a very early time. This struggle being that there is essentially only two strategies debated over for how Nicaragua should modernize through the use of their relationship to the US. My confusion began to shrink as it seemed to become clear to me that Nicaragua had recognized US future intervention and influence as a definitive fact that they would have to work with no matter what. It is this recognition of their forced relationship with the US, whether they like it or not, that seems to make them unique from other Latin American countries we've read so far. To me, this recognition that any strategy they take going forward will have to account for the US seems like a fairly modern, albeit unfortunate, step already. Going forward, it was then easier to understand that Nicaragua had a vested interest in working with the US, whether it be through full cultural and economic embracement, or a loose following of the US model, acknowledgment of the US as a permanent factor in their future was necessary. Ever since the transit business and later with Walker, trying to pretend as if the US wasn't there and ignore there influence could never really be a serious option. I can already tell that this is not going to be an easy presumption to maintain and that conflicts over the implication of such an idea are going to arise as they seemingly already have with such issues over the cosmopolitan project and the refusal of the US to choose them for the canal.
Like Stephen, this was also my favorite book we read so far. I was particularly interested in the attempted alliances between the Conservative oligarchs and Sandino, and in thinking about what it means that the some of the Conservative oligarchs were willing to put aside class, cultural, economic, political, and governance differences — some of them extreme — in an attempt to unite around throwing off the last vestiges of U.S. imperialism including rejection of US culture and US cultural portrayals of Nicaragua and Nicaraguans. But then again, Sandino’s anti-democratic beliefs perhaps were not a terrible fit for Conservative oligarchs used to exerting power through influence, status, and wealth not to mention that Conservative beliefs in “rural sanctity” jibes well with Sandino’s focus on building an agricultural cooperative. Overall I was fascinated by this alliance, as well as more generally by the exploration of Nicaragua’s history, which is something I knew almost nothing about other than my junior high current events level knowledge of the Iran-Contra affair.
Hi Sarah, I also enjoyed the modern political message that was in this book. The message that people are complicated and waltzing into a sovereign just because you are the United States dosn't improve the situation. The Simon Bolivar quote at the end was humorous. Especially since George Bush has inadvertently quoted the Sith from Star Wars during his speeches during the Iraq War.
I just want to categorize Dalina's comment as the definitive and undisputed example of the BEST "reply" ever in any of our feeds so far. Its concise, fact based, perceptually aware, globally minded, and of course reference of Star Wars temporarily restored my faith in humanity. Amazing!🙌✊
Gobat's book gives us a window where we can see how elites responded, opportunistically, to the different socio-political/economic trends that will keep them in power. Take Los Caballeros Catolicos as an example, comprised of former anti-clerical, pro-cosmopolitan, pro-American, conservative elites who emerged in the 1920s with a nationalists, anti-American rhetoric. Los Caballeros attacked everything that the "modernity" of dollar diplomacy brought--the modern woman, Protestantism, etc-- just because the dollar diplomacy was beneficent for anybody but them in the only thing that mattered to this conservative elites-- economic power. By accident, the dollar diplomacy gave some peasants and small- and medium- scale producers social mobility that indirectly affected the oligarchs who lost enormous amount of economic power that consequently weakened their ruling status. Coincidentally, the emergence of Los Caballeros Catolicos came at the time where dollar diplomacy had taken full effect on Nicaragua where they were not the main beneficiaries. Of course, they were going to become anti-American because as I have said before in our class discussions, most elites did not buy the whole republican idea unless it was to serve their ends as the ruling class. In Nicaragua, conservative elites embraced U.S. political culture and economic institutions as "modern" long as that kept them in power, disregarding their fellow Nicaraguans; when this policies didn't meet their needs, they switched "modernity" from a concept coming from outside to the once-called "backward" Nicaraguan culture.
I am curious to know, if possible, how close did Germany get to the Caribbean? And ( I know it might be a dumb question) what was the German's agenda in the Caribbean?
Johnny, I am presuming that the Germans were interested in the Caribbean just like the other European states that went to build empires in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. They all wanted markets to sell their goods and take the resources that they cannot get or make in Europe. I like to say that imperialism was a first attempt to globalization. Both are different from each other, but sine qua non is exploitation. The world was become connected in part of imperialism, and that is true with globalization. The economic exploitation still exists with globalization, as African nations are saddled with loans from the World Bank and other organizations whose motives are not as altruistic as they might be.
In your analysis of the elites I wouldn't overlook what I took as one of the key insights of this book: that they were divided rather than monolithic. At times different factions took precedence but those divides were one of the primary reasons that one faction or the other "invited" American interventions.
As for the Germans it should be remembered that this time period encompasses both WWI and the rise of Nazi Germany in the lead-up to WWII. In that context the Germans would be looking to secure resource imports rather than to open export markets. Germany would also have been planning their naval strategy and the possibility of being able to resupply near Panama and threaten the trade of the Allies would have been highly appealing.
I found the weeks book by Gobat very interesting as a follow-up to the last two week's readings. Michael Gobat continues the observation that many of the Latin white elites of central america dominated the government and the country's finances. Unlike the other readings the Nicaraguans invited the Americans within their borders under the guise that the US government would save them from the internal war between the peasants and the dictators /rich warlords. Just as quickly Gobat introduces the US military's real objective which was to acquire Nicaragua for its gold and accessible routes. He further details the movements of the Nicaraguan militants.
This book showed the three main players in the battle to control of the country. The liberals, Conservative, and the US all vied for the a stake at the financial picking which is Nicaragua.
The book by Gobat was the unofficial sequel to his essay "The Invention of Latin America: A Transnational History of Anti-Imperialism, Democracy, and Race" that we read a couple of weeks ago. However, they are two different discussions with the same theme. That theme is United States imperialism. Gobat turns inward into Nicaragua and discusses the long history of American intervention by first filibusters such as William Walker in 1856. The history of Walker appears in both Gobat's writings. However, "Comforting the American Dream" shows the reader how Walker's intervention would be remodeled by the United States to economically control Nicaragua from 1912 to 1933, which was when the last remaining American soldiers withdrew as part of the new policies that would be drafted by the then-incoming FDR Administration. It was the end of "dollar diplomacy" and the start of the Good Neighbors policy. Having both Gobat's writings can be placed into a larger conversation about America and the World, and to bring up questions about how the United States and Nicaragua have interacted with the legacy of imperialism and filibustering.
I found this a convincing piece of scholarship for two reasons. The first is that the author is mining a new source of archival material which should have to effect of disrupting previous histories. The second is that it is a history of complex interrelationships, mistaken assumptions, and contradictions. Those features resonate with me as an attempt to accurately portray the complexities of history rather than to reduce them to a single paradigm. Although I will admit that such paradigms can be useful on the macroscale of world history they are certainly insufficient for a deeper understanding of a particular time and place. Although I feel that the focus on the elites does minimize a major part of the story I also appreciate how it brings into focus the disunity of elites and their fallibility. I perceived at least three elite camps operating at any given time, two from Nicaragua and the US imperial project, with a shifting web of alliances and motivations. I found the number of unintended consequences (the rise of medium and small landholders as a consequence of the pressures of dollar diplomacy, legitimate elections forced by occupation and acting as a step-stone to dictatorship) a valuable demonstration of the limits of elite planning.
Gobat’s book shows the ways in which the elite of Nicaragua went from trying to emulate the American way of life through their economics and political discourse, while at the same time repelling direct American influence on the country. From what I understood, this was done because of the conflict between the messages pushed by the US to promote modernity and how this message could impact their control over the peasant population. This anti-Americanism movement was primarily led by the elite to secure their place in Nicaraguan society, as increased economic activity from the lower class could destabilize existing social and political structures. I find a lot of similarities with this reading in comparison to last week’s, where there is an obvious opportunistic shift in the way the elite use these imperial powers for their own benefit.
I found fascinating Gobat’s level of dedication to nuance, which is precisely his argument - that the history is more nuanced than is traditionally accepted. This isn’t a new mode of thinking, but it certainly demonstrates a unique example in Nicaragua. I think on the surface the Nicaraguan elites’ experience can seem to be simply opportunist, much like other elites around the world, but what’s interesting here is that the Nicaraguans were quite particular about their political, economic, and cultural goals. This led them to be either pro- or anti-American in any specific situation. But the lower classes were relatively consistent in their negative view of American intervention and imperialism. I think that’s very meaningful.
Michel Gobat, Confronting the American Dream: Nicaragua Under U.S. Imperial Rule
ReplyDeleteThe conflict and contradictions of the elites in Nicaragua are the most fascinating part of this history to me. That they ask for US intervention, then don’t want US intervention the way the US intervenes; that they have always looked the US for the definition of modernity and then reject the US versions of fashion and morals as being the antithesis of their beliefs; that they object to the US racism and then, as a defining measure, reject the whiteness they have always used to define themselves to embrace the mestizo category they always rejected; that they embraced the Sandinistas fight against the US imperial reach while undermining the Sandinistas fight for freedom for the peasantry—all of these contradictory impulses, particularly from the Conservative elites, highlight the conflicted nature of what Nicaragua is and wants to be. I was left thinking about the long term damage of US intervention: this nation (and probably many other areas the US interfered with) tries to define itself but is forced to perpetually redefine itself against the US, making an “authentic” identity nearly impossible because everything is tainted by both the influence of and reaction to US culture, government policies, and economic interventions. This key idea of US intervention constantly requiring the Latin American countries to see themselves the way the US sees them and to redefine themselves using that standard helps explain the cultural issues that countries like Nicaragua have with the US and how profoundly our politics, policies, and economic incursions have shaped and destabilized Nicaragua and the region.
I agree with your point about the US requiring Latin American countries to see themselves the way the US sees them -- and I don't see much evidence that the US attempted to understand or navigate differences in worldview from other perspectives. Nicaraguan elites who modeled their political, social, and economic goals after the US may have enabled that. Religious rejections of US societal norms, like the Catholic-centered fight against the "modern woman" outlined chapter 7, also struck me as an interesting contradiction considering social conservatives in the US also rejected "modern women" for some of the same supposedly moral reasons. It just goes to show that there are many nuances and contradictions in every country's identity.
DeleteIt seems to me that when some Nicaraguans sought out US intervention, they were seeking out the intervention of the ideal of what the US proclaims itself to be, not the reality of what the US sadly often is as opposed to engaging in about-faces as if they wanted the type of intervention that happened and then just changed their minds. Clearly inviting William Walker in was an example of this. As Gobat writes near the beginning of Chapter 1: “[E]lite Liberals hoped that Walker’s men would settle down as agricultural colonists and help Nicaragua replicate the U.S. path to political and economic modernity.” Clearly that isn’t what Walker did — at all — but given the focus on colonists “settling the west” in American mythology, perhaps it was not so crazy that the elite Liberals thought this would happen when Walker was first invited.
DeleteI think the elites of Nicaragua were simply opportunists that wished to increase both their social and economic control of the country and they allowed for and embraced any program/movement that they perceived, sometimes wrongly, would facilitate those ends. This may seem a cynical response, however, it simply comes down to economics and how capitalism actual is designed to work. Everything outside of profit is an externality. As long as it does not infringe on ones ability to increase said profits/institutional power then it is acceptable. The control over culture, women's "liberation" and popular dress was about maintaining the hegemonic control of the greater worker population and the cultural milieu that had supported oligarchs initial rise to economic and institutional authority. I really think this is the only way to account for such contradictory responses to the various geopolitical/socioeconomic movements and events that take place through the course of the books narrative. Also I would argue that the creation of, and continued support of, the Monroe Doctrine is the mark of US intention/initiation towards a project of empire. Sadly, we are a racist, capital(ist)/ expansionist empire and we have the whole of US history to back that claim. Isn't history so uplifting!?
Delete"I think the elites of Nicaragua were simply opportunists that wished to increase both their social and economic control of the country and they allowed for and embraced any program/movement that they perceived, sometimes wrongly, would facilitate those ends."
DeleteJason, We couldn't agree anymore on this, man. I think most of us kind of knew this, but it became so much clearer after reading this book. They would have liked the "modern woman" and Protestantism as long as that had them with the better share of the economic pie.
I found Golbat's book to be particularly fascinating in terms of how he singles out Nicaragua's exceptional anti-American elite, and how that can be traced up to the Sandinista Revolution, which can then be extended to the current Sandinista government that has been in power since 2006. Among many arguments I believe he posits that exceptional circumstances lead to exceptional results, which, in the case of Nicaragua, occurs during the Filibuster regime, the increased scrutiny of ballot box elections, and the dollar diplomacy of the 1920's. Neither event occurred in a vacuum, and the country's elite began to develop an anti-Americanism that I have not read about in any other Latin American nation, where anti-Americanism is seen to be a popular class phenomenon. I find the epilogue to be a bit blurry, perhaps because of the history but perhaps because of how Gobat is attempting to tie it into the rest of his book. The Conservative oligarchy was supposed to remain aloof of this dictatorship that, at first, had popular support through the rural classes but held a corporatist model inspired by European fascism. Then, they broke off from him because of his support of the United States in World War II, and then they allied with the Marxist or Marxist-inspired Sandinistas when the Somoza sons pivoted the national agricultural sector against the country's rural classes. Thus, the Guardia's entrepreneurial class presented a greater threat to the Conservative oligarchs than Marxist rebels did? I understand that Gobat presents the Sandinista's idea of a "patriotic bourgeoisie" as an answer to my question, but nonetheless I felt that there must have been something missing in the Conservative Party oligarchy's relationship to the Somoza dynasty.
ReplyDeleteGolbat appears to be chronicling the development of a particular form of anti-Americanism that is distinct to Nicaragua, which I think is successfully accomplished. I also noticed the development of a societal trend among the people of Nicaragua that relates to class distinctions. This trend appears throughout the chronology of the narrative and consists (basically) of elites allying with whatever vehicle will allow them to keep or gain more institutional and/or economic power. Whether that vehicle is anti-Americanism, the embracing of imperialist intervention, or popular will the elites (the same 10-12 families) of the society are opportunist to the extreme and never appear to promote any one single ideology aside from their maintenance of institutional authority and economic hegemony. I think this is where the contradictory relationship with US intervention comes from. While for the working poor the sentiment of anti-Americanism appears to come from a more visceral and experiential place, the bulk of the actions concerning the working poor ultimately come down to decisions of necessity. The necessity for food and security to be exact. Additionally, I found Golbat's narrative to also reveal the sensitive nature of Latin American self-determinacy in relation to US imperial authority. From the beginning of US intervention, to today, the direction the Nicaraguan government and society takes must be within the constructs of US doctrine, because without adherence to the principles of US "democracy" and US capitalism the right to self-determinacy is violently revoked. I think this explains the limitations on the Sandinista's to reform the government and society into a more egalitarian and democratically controlled society where making deals with elites becomes a necessity in order to avoid overt US "intervention." There are a myriad of examples in US/LA relations to exemplify the reality oft his assertion from filibusters, to1970's Chile and the US backed coup, to Venezuela today, like today as in right now as you read this.
ReplyDeleteHey Jason,
DeleteWhen you're talking about the limitations on the Sandinista's collaboration with the elites in order to avoid overt US intervention, are you referring to the 1980's Sandinistas or the current government? What is interesting about reading the epilogue is that the Sandinistas collaborated with the elites in the 1980s, but the US intervened anyway.
Fun fact: the name Chamorro appears often in the book as one of the oligarchical families that has ruled the country since the 19th century. Violeta Chamorro, daughter of a landed family and the heiress of the national newspaper La Prensa, was the candidate who defeated Daniel Ortega in the 1990 elections, implementing free-market reforms which drove Nicaragua into an economic tailspin that made it the second poorest country in the region after Haiti by 1998.
Word! Thanks for the information Rafael! I was, albeit in a very essentialist way, referring to each instance. Basically, what I was attempting to posit is that during the periods covered by the book nothing is happening in a bubble and interference from the US is something that had to be considered by everyone from oligarchs, to rebels. I think that is why the Sandinista's of the 1980's and today had/have to operate very carefully always careful not to attract too much attention from the north. Even then, National Security Advisor John "The Warmonger" Bolton has mentioned Nicaragua as an issue in L.A. in conjunction with Venezuela and Bolivia. Additionally, for the oligarchs the alignment with the Sandinista movements was always a case of it being the best opportunity to maintain control over their interests and avoid the loss of their own personal power and economic station. I realize that this bite some of them in the ass, however, by the time that became apparent it was already too late to "switch teams" and reposition for better conditions. While I am afraid to come off like I am promoting exceptionalism, even though I consider myself a harsh critic and enemy of US Empire, the fact is that nothing that happens in the Western Hemisphere doesn't have the US's greedy finger prints on it, or at the very least the intention to. So I think it only fair to consider that reality when thinking about the how and why concerning peoples actions and intentions in these instances. And to your point about US intervention in the 1980's, I really think that comes down to the administration of the time. Reagan and his cadre of neoconservative Warhawks weren't going to let that situation alone regardless of how it turned out, the propaganda surrounding it, and the international machinations of the likes of Elliot Abrams and Dick Cheney had predetermined the fate of Nicaragua from the first minute the FSLN declared their intentions. I hate it, but the presence or thought of US imperialism appeared to be an almost constant in this narrative.Thanks for the reply and information.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"I think the elites of Nicaragua were simply opportunists that wished to increase both their social and economic control of the country and they allowed for and embraced any program/movement that they perceived, sometimes wrongly, would facilitate those ends."
DeleteJason, We couldn't agree anymore on this, man. I think most of us kind of knew this, but it became so much clearer after reading this book. They would have liked the "modern woman" and Protestantism as long as that had them with the better share of the economic pie.
Their anti-Americanism emerged because they weren't invited to the "Dance of the Millions" party. Not because there was rooted, meaningful, nationalism.
DeleteIn Gobat's book, Nicaragua was torn between wanting to remove US influence, wanting to emulate the US model of modernity, and embracing US political, economic, and social norms as their own. Much of Gobat's description of Nicaragua's search for its identity reminded me of the readings we did on 19th-20th century Japan in Professor Asen's class last semester: like Nicaragua, Japan used Western paradigms to measure its progress towards modernity. Even while rejecting the US, they also embraced the US worldview. This conflict drove the struggle before, during, and after US occupation and intervention in Nicaragua.
ReplyDeleteThe conflict between liberal and conservative elites in Nicaragua arose over disagreements on how to respond to US intervention. Gobat dives into one of the unintended consequences of US intervention and elite conflict: the "democratization" of the peasant workers. The specific conditions of the economy during "dollar diplomacy" combined with increased opportunity for land ownership and expanded markets for peasants to sell their products was beneficial for them at a time when the elites were harmed by US economic interference. I'm about to finish reading, but I think Gobat is showing us how this economic shift would lead to strengthened anti-Americanism among the elite (perhaps uniting liberal and conservative again?) and mobilization of the Nicaraguan peasants because of their increased access to economic resources. I look forward to finishing up the book.
Katie, I love how you phrased the opening sentence here. The description in the book in places where you see that the Nicaraguans are perpetually seeing themselves the way America sees them while trying to maintain their own awareness of Nicaraguan identity reminds me of the double consciousness of racism that WEB DuBois wrote about. Thanks to the gifts of American imperialism, it seems that many parts of the world now get to struggle with identity issues based on beliefs about American perceptions. Given the US's history of racism towards anyone not easily identifiable as "entirely" white European descent (** like the "one drop rule" that is a nonsensical way to quantify heritage anywhere but the US), this almost certainly part of why these nations think the US sees them as inferior. What a legacy of US intervention.
DeleteMichel Gobat’s Confronting The American Dream: Nicaragua Under U.S. Imperial Rule is so far my favorite book we have read for class so far this semester. The birth and development of the different political factions in Nicaragua and how they banded together to oppose the United States Imperial on hold Nicaragua. It brought extreme skepticism/cynicism to the United States as the “Shining City On The Hill” and the phrase “Amecia comes as liberators not conquerors”. My favorite section was the economic section in which Gobat this proves that it was the American influence that helped the Nicaraguan economy, but rather it was the nicaraguans taking advantage of the ineptitude of the United States officials and how Nicaraguan agriculture and the need for cattle was one of the primary causes. Gobat also illustrates the complexity of politics at the time and the role ideology played as well as the Catholic Church and how the oligarchs obtained power. The constant turmoil and turnover in government between conservatives/right wing dictators and leftist groups proves the United States failed in its mission. Problem I did have with the book however one problem I did have with the book however was the lack of other Latin American nations.Maybe mentioning Honduras or Costa Rica to see how their governments specifically reacted to The United States involvement in Nicaragua. Or mention Soviet reaction and if Latin American nations became more aligned with the USSR. I know it mentioned Sandino was not a communist and it was mentioned he was exiled to El Salvador. It is nitpicking, but i would like to know why El Salvador was chosen.
ReplyDeleteJust want to preface this with the fact that I'm making this comment without having fully finished the book yet so I'm going to try and focus on what I know more of from the beginning but excuse me for seeming like I might be missing some details because I probably am. So, my initial reaction to the book so far was one of confusion as Gobat describes this sort of tug of war going on within Nicaragua from a very early time. This struggle being that there is essentially only two strategies debated over for how Nicaragua should modernize through the use of their relationship to the US. My confusion began to shrink as it seemed to become clear to me that Nicaragua had recognized US future intervention and influence as a definitive fact that they would have to work with no matter what. It is this recognition of their forced relationship with the US, whether they like it or not, that seems to make them unique from other Latin American countries we've read so far. To me, this recognition that any strategy they take going forward will have to account for the US seems like a fairly modern, albeit unfortunate, step already. Going forward, it was then easier to understand that Nicaragua had a vested interest in working with the US, whether it be through full cultural and economic embracement, or a loose following of the US model, acknowledgment of the US as a permanent factor in their future was necessary. Ever since the transit business and later with Walker, trying to pretend as if the US wasn't there and ignore there influence could never really be a serious option. I can already tell that this is not going to be an easy presumption to maintain and that conflicts over the implication of such an idea are going to arise as they seemingly already have with such issues over the cosmopolitan project and the refusal of the US to choose them for the canal.
ReplyDeleteLike Stephen, this was also my favorite book we read so far. I was particularly interested in the attempted alliances between the Conservative oligarchs and Sandino, and in thinking about what it means that the some of the Conservative oligarchs were willing to put aside class, cultural, economic, political, and governance differences — some of them extreme — in an attempt to unite around throwing off the last vestiges of U.S. imperialism including rejection of US culture and US cultural portrayals of Nicaragua and Nicaraguans. But then again, Sandino’s anti-democratic beliefs perhaps were not a terrible fit for Conservative oligarchs used to exerting power through influence, status, and wealth not to mention that Conservative beliefs in “rural sanctity” jibes well with Sandino’s focus on building an agricultural cooperative. Overall I was fascinated by this alliance, as well as more generally by the exploration of Nicaragua’s history, which is something I knew almost nothing about other than my junior high current events level knowledge of the Iran-Contra affair.
ReplyDeleteHi Sarah,
DeleteI also enjoyed the modern political message that was in this book. The message that people are complicated and waltzing into a sovereign just because you are the United States dosn't improve the situation. The Simon Bolivar quote at the end was humorous. Especially since George Bush has inadvertently quoted the Sith from Star Wars during his speeches during the Iraq War.
I just want to categorize Dalina's comment as the definitive and undisputed example of the BEST "reply" ever in any of our feeds so far. Its concise, fact based, perceptually aware, globally minded, and of course reference of Star Wars temporarily restored my faith in humanity. Amazing!🙌✊
DeleteGobat's book gives us a window where we can see how elites responded, opportunistically, to the different socio-political/economic trends that will keep them in power. Take Los Caballeros Catolicos as an example, comprised of former anti-clerical, pro-cosmopolitan, pro-American, conservative elites who emerged in the 1920s with a nationalists, anti-American rhetoric. Los Caballeros attacked everything that the "modernity" of dollar diplomacy brought--the modern woman, Protestantism, etc-- just because the dollar diplomacy was beneficent for anybody but them in the only thing that mattered to this conservative elites-- economic power. By accident, the dollar diplomacy gave some peasants and small- and medium- scale producers social mobility that indirectly affected the oligarchs who lost enormous amount of economic power that consequently weakened their ruling status. Coincidentally, the emergence of Los Caballeros Catolicos came at the time where dollar diplomacy had taken full effect on Nicaragua where they were not the main beneficiaries. Of course, they were going to become anti-American because as I have said before in our class discussions, most elites did not buy the whole republican idea unless it was to serve their ends as the ruling class. In Nicaragua, conservative elites embraced U.S. political culture and economic institutions as "modern" long as that kept them in power, disregarding their fellow Nicaraguans; when this policies didn't meet their needs, they switched "modernity" from a concept coming from outside to the once-called "backward" Nicaraguan culture.
ReplyDeleteI am curious to know, if possible, how close did Germany get to the Caribbean? And ( I know it might be a dumb question) what was the German's agenda in the Caribbean?
Johnny, I am presuming that the Germans were interested in the Caribbean just like the other European states that went to build empires in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. They all wanted markets to sell their goods and take the resources that they cannot get or make in Europe. I like to say that imperialism was a first attempt to globalization. Both are different from each other, but sine qua non is exploitation. The world was become connected in part of imperialism, and that is true with globalization. The economic exploitation still exists with globalization, as African nations are saddled with loans from the World Bank and other organizations whose motives are not as altruistic as they might be.
DeleteIn your analysis of the elites I wouldn't overlook what I took as one of the key insights of this book: that they were divided rather than monolithic. At times different factions took precedence but those divides were one of the primary reasons that one faction or the other "invited" American interventions.
DeleteAs for the Germans it should be remembered that this time period encompasses both WWI and the rise of Nazi Germany in the lead-up to WWII. In that context the Germans would be looking to secure resource imports rather than to open export markets. Germany would also have been planning their naval strategy and the possibility of being able to resupply near Panama and threaten the trade of the Allies would have been highly appealing.
I found the weeks book by Gobat very interesting as a follow-up to the last two week's readings. Michael Gobat continues the observation that many of the Latin white elites of central america dominated the government and the country's finances. Unlike the other readings the Nicaraguans invited the Americans within their borders under the guise that the US government would save them from the internal war between the peasants and the dictators /rich warlords. Just as quickly Gobat introduces the US military's real objective which was to acquire Nicaragua for its gold and accessible routes. He further details the movements of the Nicaraguan militants.
ReplyDeleteThis book showed the three main players in the battle to control of the country. The liberals, Conservative, and the US all vied for the a stake at the financial picking which is Nicaragua.
Hi Natasha,
DeleteI agree that this book was an interesting addition to our readings specially inn relation to the last two book we've read.
The book by Gobat was the unofficial sequel to his essay "The Invention of Latin America: A Transnational History of Anti-Imperialism, Democracy, and Race" that we read a couple of weeks ago. However, they are two different discussions with the same theme. That theme is United States imperialism. Gobat turns inward into Nicaragua and discusses the long history of American intervention by first filibusters such as William Walker in 1856. The history of Walker appears in both Gobat's writings. However, "Comforting the American Dream" shows the reader how Walker's intervention would be remodeled by the United States to economically control Nicaragua from 1912 to 1933, which was when the last remaining American soldiers withdrew as part of the new policies that would be drafted by the then-incoming FDR Administration. It was the end of "dollar diplomacy" and the start of the Good Neighbors policy. Having both Gobat's writings can be placed into a larger conversation about America and the World, and to bring up questions about how the United States and Nicaragua have interacted with the legacy of imperialism and filibustering.
ReplyDeleteI found this a convincing piece of scholarship for two reasons. The first is that the author is mining a new source of archival material which should have to effect of disrupting previous histories. The second is that it is a history of complex interrelationships, mistaken assumptions, and contradictions. Those features resonate with me as an attempt to accurately portray the complexities of history rather than to reduce them to a single paradigm. Although I will admit that such paradigms can be useful on the macroscale of world history they are certainly insufficient for a deeper understanding of a particular time and place. Although I feel that the focus on the elites does minimize a major part of the story I also appreciate how it brings into focus the disunity of elites and their fallibility. I perceived at least three elite camps operating at any given time, two from Nicaragua and the US imperial project, with a shifting web of alliances and motivations. I found the number of unintended consequences (the rise of medium and small landholders as a consequence of the pressures of dollar diplomacy, legitimate elections forced by occupation and acting as a step-stone to dictatorship) a valuable demonstration of the limits of elite planning.
ReplyDeleteGobat’s book shows the ways in which the elite of Nicaragua went from trying to emulate the American way of life through their economics and political discourse, while at the same time repelling direct American influence on the country. From what I understood, this was done because of the conflict between the messages pushed by the US to promote modernity and how this message could impact their control over the peasant population. This anti-Americanism movement was primarily led by the elite to secure their place in Nicaraguan society, as increased economic activity from the lower class could destabilize existing social and political structures. I find a lot of similarities with this reading in comparison to last week’s, where there is an obvious opportunistic shift in the way the elite use these imperial powers for their own benefit.
ReplyDelete-Alexandra
ReplyDeleteFrom Kyle:
I found fascinating Gobat’s level of dedication to nuance, which is precisely his argument - that the history is more nuanced than is traditionally accepted. This isn’t a new mode of thinking, but it certainly demonstrates a unique example in Nicaragua. I think on the surface the Nicaraguan elites’ experience can seem to be simply opportunist, much like other elites around the world, but what’s interesting here is that the Nicaraguans were quite particular about their political, economic, and cultural goals. This led them to be either pro- or anti-American in any specific situation. But the lower classes were relatively consistent in their negative view of American intervention and imperialism. I think that’s very meaningful.