"In a nation pushing to claim its membership in the white world amid rising nonwhite immigration," Colby observes, "comments that placed Hispanics on a level equal to or lower than blacks hit a very raw nerve" (68). What surprised me about this passage was the use of the word "Hispanic," which is first used by Colby in the first sentence of this paragraph. To the best my knowledge, it is the first time this term has been used in the course and in course readings. It is especially interesting that this term is first used in the context of a discussion about Costa Rica's emphasis and privileging of whiteness. Although Colby uses other terms to distinguish nationality and race, such as "white American," "white foreigners (i.e., Americans), and "Costa Ricans," the term "Hispanic" is definitely used to refer to non-blacks and non-Americans. I am wondering if this term comes into the lexicon at this time, if Colby is just using it as a loose (contemporary) synonym, or if there is a new racialized/nationalized category under linguistic construction here. Since "Ladino" could refer to Latinized, Spanish-speaking "indiginos," European descendants, or African descendants, the emergence of this term - which disappears from Colby's text but then reappears in Chapter three - seems to reflect a shift in racial thinking and the extent to which whiteness had become central to Costa Ricans sense of national identity. Is this just a casual use of this modern term, or does it have linguistic and race-making roots in this period and context?
Jason M. Colby really highlights here the exploitative neocolonialism of U.S. business practices that extends from terrible wages to “importing” West Indians for labor in the United Fruit Company. Colby says, “by the late nineteenth century, many began to realize that private U.S. enterprises posed potential threats to national sovereignty and identity: not only could American business open the door to U.S. government interventions, but its reliance on black immigrant labor raised fears of racial degradation.” Ultimately many “Hispanic” nations would see United Fruit as a threat which leads to strikes and even a massacre in Colombia. That being said, I could see how during this time, communism could be a growing ideology in Latin American countries who will look at the captailist practices of United Fruit and begin to shift their political views towards communism. Do you guys think enough is said here about the rise of communism in Latin America? I think it’s very crucial since this is a story about business ideology and “national identity,” yet communism seems to take a very minimal role in that story.
Totally agree with the idea with the rise of Communism, with the rise of the "third world" movement, Latin America would try to champion the causes of trying to be against foreign presence in their nation. With the problem of American policy in Latin America, most of these countries could not escape American intervention.
Rather than other books we have discussed this one focused more on the implications and introduction of American businesses in Latin America and how this also introduced American Jim Crow versions of racial thinking. With the beginnings of these new corporations like United Fruit, which were not only introducing racial thinking within their own companies, they were exploiting the land and the people around them. This would intensify old racial rivalries in these countries, and were present very earlier, but heightened the divide much more. “By mid-1914, that displeasure was evident. Although anti-black xenophobia had a long history in Guatemala, the Quirigua incident marked a watershed in the state’s treatment of West Indians. News of the Jamaicans’ retaliation against the Hispanic residents galvanized many ladinos against black immigrants.” (138) So now with the influx of African American workers, as well as other migrants this pushed the racial divide much more. This system was deeply American and was on multiple fronts very damaging.
See, given what we've seen about race and labor in other books, I'm hesitant about recognizing the actions of United Fruit in Guatemala as an implementation of a deeply "American' system, mainly because I don't think that anything about the racial hierarchy and racial tension is exclusively American.
Since folks are tackling the larger issues presented in the book, I’ll offer a close reading of an excerpt from early in the book which raised a red flag for me. In reflecting on “who or what had made the [racial] hierarchy” of work sites like the Panama Canal, “‘customary’ and ‘traditional’”, it seemed to me that Colby gave a little too much credit to “private U.S. enterprise, which had been remaking the landscapes and labor systems of Central America for decades before the U.S. canal project broke ground.” (6).
Although I understand that the exportation of U.S. racialized labor ideas is part of what this book is about, this particular moment seemed to counter, or at least be in friction to, other historiographies we’ve read surrounding labor and race—The Work of Recognition, to be exact. After all, McGraw’s depiction of the bogas as a racialized labor force didn’t mention U.S. enterprise as a source for that racialization, but instead gestured towards Iberian influences, and the legacies of that brand of race-making. Does anyone else feel that there’s some friction between some of Colby’s thought process and other historiographies we’ve encountered?
I agree with you. I also think at times Colby is in contradiction with himself as he argues at times that race relations in Central America have a hierarchy of their own, but then he also gives examples of American influence and manipulation of the racial hierarchy. I think both versions rob certain groups of the agency within the situation, even if it may be a small amount.
Ricardo, I thought your comparison between the Colby and McGraw texts really interesting. It sounds like you are questioning the extent to which the racial ideologies Colby described are products of 19th century American imperialism or the larger products of European Colonialism. I really find that a difficult thing to tease out. Colby does make a solid case for the extent to which American (Jim Crow) racial attitudes had a direct bearing on race relations in these Central American contexts. At the same time, these did not adhere to a strict black-white racial binary. He references cases wherein blacks were put in superior, supervisory positions over native Costa Ricans and other Central Americans, for example. Though this is typical of American "divide and conquer" racial strategies, it is more complex and involves new forms of racialization, namely the racialization of Latin Americans. Also, we have seen enough examples of racial hierarchies operating within the various Latin American contexts we have studied, McGraw's book being no exception. So, Latin Americans were more than capable of creating their own racism. At the same time, it seems likely that Jim Crow white supremacy and a newly imagined American national identity constructed around an imperial world view helped shape attitudes in Central America as well.
Throughout Colby's work the theme of racial hierarchy and race in general take different forms. He argues that American enclaves and those surrounding American investments try to “establish familiar racial order in the U.S. enclaves partly reflected domestic American anxieties” (pg. 83) This seems contradictory to his argument that the racial hierarchy is not solely an American influence. A question that I found myself continually asked was, if American interests abroad tried, at least in part, to pit races against one another to create a racial hierarchy like that of the United States, how did they not see that the same issues would arise? Issues such as the call for the restriction on immigration that United Fruit would eventually have to deal with and that of an increasing nationalism that solidified a specific racial desire. Colby writes that “United Fruit’s enclaves were marked by racial hierarchy segregation, and violence—ostensible features of the Jim Crow South” (pg. 2) but people were not unaware of the issues that plagued Jim Crow South even if they disagreed on the causes and potential fixes. I am not sure if it is the way Colby presents the information or the history itself, but I am amazed that United Fruit did not see that their use of “racialized labor division and social segregation” (pg. 117), would in the future cause them to have issues between races that have been pit against one another as well as maintaining their position of power in a positive light.
Costa Rica envisioned a white homogeneous nation with the darker populations on their Caribbean coast invisible or even threatening. Therefore, they feared an invasion of the black West Indian migratory workers that, in their view, would darken their people. While Guatemala’s Hispanicized Ladinos reinforced sharp divisions between themselves and the large Indian population and practiced harsh discipline of racialized workforces. These cultures weren’t waiting for American imperialism under the guise of American corporate investment, to develop their own sense of racialized labor relations. American Fruit, brought with it American cultural labor practices, and social racial views, that were not intended to define a perspective that would be interpreted as benevolent nor egalitarian; the bottom line was making money, at anyone’s expense. Really not far from local Central American governments who invited American investment to help develop their backward economies through investments. Colby may have been awkward in presenting his point, however, he does not confound nor confuse the reader when it comes to issues of shared cultural traits and labor practices.
Colby combines "top-down" and "bottom-up" approaches to providing insights into the role of transnational capital, labor migration, and racial nationalism in shaping U.S. expansion into Central America. United Fruit, which would become, at the time, the largest company in the world, and who commanded a significant amount of power given the direct support of the U.S. government and military, places corporate power within a local context (Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Panama) at the heart of U.S. imperial history. Is this book just about United Fruit, or about U.S. Imperialism veiled by corporate actors. What do you all think?
I agree. I think this racial divide / split was used as a way to implement control of labor management. The way that US business created a “flavor of the month” laborer. This causes tension among the laborers. The increase in anti-Black ideas among “Hispanics” and vis versa, the grouping of South Americans as Hispanic which was separate from Indian labor. This is the putting together I think you described.
"In a nation pushing to claim its membership in the white world amid rising nonwhite immigration," Colby observes, "comments that placed Hispanics on a level equal to or lower than blacks hit a very raw nerve" (68). What surprised me about this passage was the use of the word "Hispanic," which is first used by Colby in the first sentence of this paragraph. To the best my knowledge, it is the first time this term has been used in the course and in course readings. It is especially interesting that this term is first used in the context of a discussion about Costa Rica's emphasis and privileging of whiteness. Although Colby uses other terms to distinguish nationality and race, such as "white American," "white foreigners (i.e., Americans), and "Costa Ricans," the term "Hispanic" is definitely used to refer to non-blacks and non-Americans. I am wondering if this term comes into the lexicon at this time, if Colby is just using it as a loose (contemporary) synonym, or if there is a new racialized/nationalized category under linguistic construction here. Since "Ladino" could refer to Latinized, Spanish-speaking "indiginos," European descendants, or African descendants, the emergence of this term - which disappears from Colby's text but then reappears in Chapter three - seems to reflect a shift in racial thinking and the extent to which whiteness had become central to Costa Ricans sense of national identity. Is this just a casual use of this modern term, or does it have linguistic and race-making roots in this period and context?
ReplyDeleteJason M. Colby really highlights here the exploitative neocolonialism of U.S. business practices that extends from terrible wages to “importing” West Indians for labor in the United Fruit Company. Colby says, “by the late nineteenth century, many began to realize that private U.S. enterprises posed potential threats to national sovereignty and identity: not only could American business open the door to U.S. government interventions, but its reliance on black immigrant labor raised fears of racial degradation.” Ultimately many “Hispanic” nations would see United Fruit as a threat which leads to strikes and even a massacre in Colombia. That being said, I could see how during this time, communism could be a growing ideology in Latin American countries who will look at the captailist practices of United Fruit and begin to shift their political views towards communism. Do you guys think enough is said here about the rise of communism in Latin America? I think it’s very crucial since this is a story about business ideology and “national identity,” yet communism seems to take a very minimal role in that story.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with the idea with the rise of Communism, with the rise of the "third world" movement, Latin America would try to champion the causes of trying to be against foreign presence in their nation. With the problem of American policy in Latin America, most of these countries could not escape American intervention.
DeleteRather than other books we have discussed this one focused more on the implications and introduction of American businesses in Latin America and how this also introduced American Jim Crow versions of racial thinking. With the beginnings of these new corporations like United Fruit, which were not only introducing racial thinking within their own companies, they were exploiting the land and the people around them. This would intensify old racial rivalries in these countries, and were present very earlier, but heightened the divide much more. “By mid-1914, that displeasure was evident. Although anti-black xenophobia had a long history in Guatemala, the Quirigua incident marked a watershed in the state’s treatment of West Indians. News of the Jamaicans’ retaliation against the Hispanic residents galvanized many ladinos against black immigrants.” (138) So now with the influx of African American workers, as well as other migrants this pushed the racial divide much more. This system was deeply American and was on multiple fronts very damaging.
ReplyDeleteSee, given what we've seen about race and labor in other books, I'm hesitant about recognizing the actions of United Fruit in Guatemala as an implementation of a deeply "American' system, mainly because I don't think that anything about the racial hierarchy and racial tension is exclusively American.
DeleteHi all,
ReplyDeleteSince folks are tackling the larger issues presented in the book, I’ll offer a close reading of an excerpt from early in the book which raised a red flag for me. In reflecting on “who or what had made the [racial] hierarchy” of work sites like the Panama Canal, “‘customary’ and ‘traditional’”, it seemed to me that Colby gave a little too much credit to “private U.S. enterprise, which had been remaking the landscapes and labor systems of Central America for decades before the U.S. canal project broke ground.” (6).
Although I understand that the exportation of U.S. racialized labor ideas is part of what this book is about, this particular moment seemed to counter, or at least be in friction to, other historiographies we’ve read surrounding labor and race—The Work of Recognition, to be exact. After all, McGraw’s depiction of the bogas as a racialized labor force didn’t mention U.S. enterprise as a source for that racialization, but instead gestured towards Iberian influences, and the legacies of that brand of race-making. Does anyone else feel that there’s some friction between some of Colby’s thought process and other historiographies we’ve encountered?
I agree with you. I also think at times Colby is in contradiction with himself as he argues at times that race relations in Central America have a hierarchy of their own, but then he also gives examples of American influence and manipulation of the racial hierarchy. I think both versions rob certain groups of the agency within the situation, even if it may be a small amount.
DeleteRicardo, I thought your comparison between the Colby and McGraw texts really interesting. It sounds like you are questioning the extent to which the racial ideologies Colby described are products of 19th century American imperialism or the larger products of European Colonialism. I really find that a difficult thing to tease out. Colby does make a solid case for the extent to which American (Jim Crow) racial attitudes had a direct bearing on race relations in these Central American contexts. At the same time, these did not adhere to a strict black-white racial binary. He references cases wherein blacks were put in superior, supervisory positions over native Costa Ricans and other Central Americans, for example. Though this is typical of American "divide and conquer" racial strategies, it is more complex and involves new forms of racialization, namely the racialization of Latin Americans. Also, we have seen enough examples of racial hierarchies operating within the various Latin American contexts we have studied, McGraw's book being no exception. So, Latin Americans were more than capable of creating their own racism. At the same time, it seems likely that Jim Crow white supremacy and a newly imagined American national identity constructed around an imperial world view helped shape attitudes in Central America as well.
DeleteThroughout Colby's work the theme of racial hierarchy and race in general take different forms. He argues that American enclaves and those surrounding American investments try to “establish familiar racial order in the U.S. enclaves partly reflected domestic American anxieties” (pg. 83) This seems contradictory to his argument that the racial hierarchy is not solely an American influence. A question that I found myself continually asked was, if American interests abroad tried, at least in part, to pit races against one another to create a racial hierarchy like that of the United States, how did they not see that the same issues would arise?
ReplyDeleteIssues such as the call for the restriction on immigration that United Fruit would eventually have to deal with and that of an increasing nationalism that solidified a specific racial desire. Colby writes that “United Fruit’s enclaves were marked by racial hierarchy segregation, and violence—ostensible features of the Jim Crow South” (pg. 2) but people were not unaware of the issues that plagued Jim Crow South even if they disagreed on the causes and potential fixes. I am not sure if it is the way Colby presents the information or the history itself, but I am amazed that United Fruit did not see that their use of “racialized labor division and social segregation” (pg. 117), would in the future cause them to have issues between races that have been pit against one another as well as maintaining their position of power in a positive light.
Costa Rica envisioned a white homogeneous nation with the darker populations on their Caribbean coast invisible or even threatening. Therefore, they feared an invasion of the black West Indian migratory workers that, in their view, would darken their people. While Guatemala’s Hispanicized Ladinos reinforced sharp divisions between themselves and the large Indian population and practiced harsh discipline of racialized workforces. These cultures weren’t waiting for American imperialism under the guise of American corporate investment, to develop their own sense of racialized labor relations. American Fruit, brought with it American cultural labor practices, and social racial views, that were not intended to define a perspective that would be interpreted as benevolent nor egalitarian; the bottom line was making money, at anyone’s expense. Really not far from local Central American governments who invited American investment to help develop their backward economies through investments. Colby may have been awkward in presenting his point, however, he does not confound nor confuse the reader when it comes to issues of shared cultural traits and labor practices.
DeleteColby combines "top-down" and "bottom-up" approaches to providing insights into the role of transnational capital, labor migration, and racial nationalism in shaping U.S. expansion into Central America. United Fruit, which would become, at the time, the largest company in the world, and who commanded a significant amount of power given the direct support of the U.S. government and military, places corporate power within a local context (Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Panama) at the heart of U.S. imperial history. Is this book just about United Fruit, or about U.S. Imperialism veiled by corporate actors. What do you all think?
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think this racial divide / split was used as a way to implement control of labor management. The way that US business created a “flavor of the month” laborer. This causes tension among the laborers. The increase in anti-Black ideas among “Hispanics” and vis versa, the grouping of South Americans as Hispanic which was separate from Indian labor. This is the putting together I think you described.
ReplyDelete