Essay: Rampant injustice in Latin American societies

Rampant injustice became a staple of Latin American societies. Citizens of Latin America viewed their present situations ridden by starvation, disease, and socio-economic oppression as being part of their destitute and poverty-stricken status. While it seemed that the odds of the majorities and developed nations were stacked against Latin America, a growing grassroots movement of liberation began to become prevalent. Instances of injustice, including economic disparity, dictatorial regimes, and the intervention of the military, became more apparent during the 19060’s and people sought to uplift themselves from this situation rather than remain a helpless victim. There were a variety of methods employed in order to achieve justice, but one of the most influential, and non-violent approaches, was a liberation theology. This paper looks to explore some of the early socio-economic injustices within Latin American countries, like Brazil, and reveal some of the contributions that these injustices had on a growing theological movement called liberation theology. Further, as a result of heightened repression throughout Latin American nations, the 1960’s witnessed shifting intellectual ideologies towards liberation.

 

There is a plethora of factors that affected the socio-economic disenfranchisement of the Latin American people. Much of this injustice, though, can be attributed to United States involvement within the region. Diplomacy between the United States and Latin America took a turn in 1961, under the John F. Kennedy administration, as the Alliance for Progress was manifested. The Alliance for Progress contended that it sought to “discourage rebellion and encourage private investment.” However, Latin America soon realized that the United States government was merely concerned with its protecting its own interests. Foreign policy regarding Latin America during this time, around the height of the Cold War, favored political stability and sought, “to maintain the status quo.” In many cases, political stability was synonymous with economic repression and social injustice for the citizens within Latin America. Rather than proliferate ubiquitous economic growth for all classes within society, U.S. diplomacy focused on private economic growth which merely lined the pockets of the people who were already affluent within Latin America, along with the developed first world nations.

Economically, Latin America became a victim of what is termed, “dependency theory.” Dependency theory is the ideology that as nations became increasingly dependent upon the imports and loans of developed countries, their economic stability became jeopardized and underdeveloped. The plan of the United States for Latin America was to push Latin America into industrialization. Latin America could only be industrialized if it could gain more machinery; this machinery had to be imported from more developed nations such as the United States. However, the arrival of this imported machinery had only made these underdeveloped countries more reliant on loans. Latin America not only needed to take out loans to pay for the equipment, but it also needed to take out loans to repay debts on previous loans. Through efforts to develop an industrialized economy tantamount to that of the United States, Latin American countries fell further into economic hardship. Dependency theory arose out of academic thought of the 1960’s and revealed that only a relatively diminutive proportion of Latin American people were benefitted from proliferated private investment. Dependency theory also highlighted the increased economic disparity between the upper and lower classes. Academic ideology which underlined economic injustice became a precursor to the inevitable liberation theology.

Furthermore, foreign policy of the United States strived to quell any and all instances of communism which were uprooted as a result of rebellions. David Tombs notes, “The militant anti-communism of U.S. foreign policy meant that the Alliance for Progress was unable to deliver meaningful social and economic changes.” As an example, one can refer to the United States’ interference in the Dominican Republican in 1965 under President Lyndon Johnson. The inhabitants of the Dominican Republican had suffered extremely under the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo; subsequently, the Dominican people elected Juan Bosch, a member of the Dominican Revolutionary Party as their President in 1963. Intending to maintain the status quo, political players contended that Bosch was too liberal, and Bosch was removed from power in 1963. Later in 1965, as the junta occupied power in the Dominican Republic, citizens strived to implement Bosch back as President. The country split into factions, either favoring Bosch or the current junta regime. The U.S. government, fearing destabilization and a communist uprising, sent the military into the Dominican Republic to cease the conflict. While it may seem that the United States’ motives stayed true, and aligned with the Alliance for Progress, there is evidence that the United States was purely motivated by the threat of losing the sugar fields to a Communist regime. “Not coincidentally, several of Johnson’s key foreign policy advisers, including Ellsworth Bunker and W. Averell Harriman, had close links to the sugar industry.” Moreover, the Unite States’ intervention in Latin American countries did not stop with the Dominican Republic. Again in 1965, the United States government helped facilitate the removal of another leader, Joao Goulart, the President of Brazil. Under President Lyndon Johnson still, the United States denounced Goulart’s land reforms and extensively severed economic funding to Brazil. Following Goulart, Brazil realized the tortures of a dictatorship. Once again supporting stability over democracy, the United States helped encourage the coup and reinvested economic aid into the Brazilian dictatorship. The subsequent oppression, that the lower class people faced in the eyes of U.S. supported dictatorships, forced people to search for an answer to this oppression; while brute force seemed to be a solution for some nations, as in the rebellion in Bolivia under Che Guevara, it only seemed to call for tighter restrictions and further injustice amongst the people. Consequently, people looked to a shift in the rhetoric and beliefs within theology to fight for the oppressed, and transform their present, truculent situations. This shift in theology as a result of the growing socio-economic hardships became known as liberation theology. Serving as a witness to the injustices that their people faced, religious leaders, “committed themselves to solidarity with the poor as a priority for the Latin American church.” The latter commitment, of the church, to the poor of Latin America provided for the beginnings of liberation theology. Specifically, referring back to Brazil, the writings of Dom Helder Camara can be used to reveal early ideology concerning liberation theology. In 1964, Camara was removed from office as secretary general and replaced by a more conservative regime. Though, this conservative regime was highly oppressive and religious leaders in Brazil realized the inequalities faced by their people firsthand. In 1964, Pope Paul VI named Camara as Archbishop; in this position, Camara was able to write and speak about the deteriorating conditions for the poor people of Brazil as well as the undeserved violence they faced. “Camara was determined to shift the church’s discussion of violence to what he saw as its root causes.” The church had originally rebuked anyone who practiced violence, yet Camara strived to show why people of Latin America protested with violence, and it was ultimately because of the violence that had been committed against them. The latter is evident when Camara writes: