Emergence and Autonomy

Latin America’s Journey from Colonialism to Economic Independence”

In The Emergence of Latin America in the Nineteenth Century, David Bushnell and Neill Macaulay examine the foundation and causes of Latin America’s emergence from colonialism. While the book focuses on the overarching theme of Latin America's emergence, the authors present an additional thesis. They argue that Latin America is not constrained by the dependency theory but is instead a contender within a free market economy. Bushnell and Macaulay successfully balance narrative and analysis by incorporating statistics, archived material, and firsthand accounts in their discussion of the rise of Latin American countries. The book contains an introduction, followed by twelve chapters that cover topics ranging from the consolidation of independence in the Andes to the "Caribbean Vortex" of Cuba and Central America. Each chapter can be read independently, as Bushnell and Macaulay provide a simple overarching theme that is consistent throughout the book: the emergence of Latin America from colonialism. They write history from social, political, geographical, and economic perspectives, broadening the book's appeal.

Following the main chapters, the book includes a section of notes explaining the writing process for each chapter, an appendix listing population and economic statistics, a chronology, and a Further Reading section to help readers understand the history. Finally, an index allows quick reference to specific topics. The well-organized structure of the book successfully enables readers to understand the foundation of how and why Latin America emerged from colonialism during the nineteenth century. One of the drawbacks of this book is the enormous amount of material covered in only three hundred pages. Readers might view this in one of two ways: as a successful synthesis of narrative and history that covers the most important topics of nineteenth-century Latin America, or as a collection of unrelated chapters with no transition between sections. Bushnell and Macaulay provide a substantial amount of historical information throughout, much of which is factual.

For instance, their introduction offers a considerable amount of historical background, giving readers a basic foundation in Latin American history before delving into the more in-depth chapters. Explaining Latin American colonial history and independence in just twelve pages sufficiently prepares readers for the remaining chapters. However, the transitions between chapters are sometimes lacking, if not nonexistent, which can make it difficult for readers to understand the purpose of each chapter.

For example, the end of chapter eleven discusses the Saraiva-Cotegipe Law and the impending collapse of the Brazilian empire, while the beginning of chapter twelve shifts to the liquidation of the Spanish empire in the Caribbean in 1785, reverting back a hundred years to a topic unrelated to chapter eleven. Although this is an accepted way to structure the book, it can often confuse readers without a strong foundation in Latin American history. Many experts have attributed the unstable governments in contemporary Latin America to the post-colonial period when South American countries adopted Enlightenment ideology. They claim that these Latin American countries were unprepared for the foreign and liberal ideology and lacked the experience to manage such a drastic change. Bushnell takes a position similar to Glen Dealy regarding Latin America’s political ideology, dismissing these two beliefs as limited in their effect. He asserts that the foreign institutions were vague and unfamiliar to a continent subjected to monarchy and absolutist rule.

For instance, Bushnell uses the example of strongmen caudillos to illustrate how Latin America’s view of government differs from the liberal ideologies in France and the United States, which stress freedom and equal rights. He argues against the belief that Latin Americans were unprepared for their independence by explaining that most of the jobs that did the real work in government were held by locals who had lived their entire lives on the continent. With independence, they only lost their upper leadership, and in many cases were better off without the largely corrupt higher officials. Both Bushnell and Glen Dealy dismiss the opinions of Latin American experts on why Latin American politics are unstable, but they offer differing views on which factors are most responsible for the instability. Bushnell believes that the problem lies in the "general unfamiliarity of the type of institutions adopted," rather than any other factors. In contrast, Dealy contends that Latin American governments never fully instituted foreign ideals. Instead, they adapted the new ideals to their traditional forms of government, creating a hybrid political structure that they were familiar with but could not control.

In his article, Prolegomena on the Spanish American Political Tradition, Dealy writes, "Spanish Americans in 1810 did not sever themselves from the ideals and practices of their colonial past or reject three hundred years of Spanish colonial institutions. The assumption that the patriot leaders borrowed the bulk of their ideological concepts is subject to question." One of the key topics in the study of Latin American history is the dependency theory, which posits that wealthy nations need a group of poor peripheral countries to maintain their wealth. According to this theory, first-world countries not only exploit poorer ones for raw materials, but the way in which they incorporate third-world countries into the global economy perpetuates their dependent status. This ensures an everlasting supply of cheap labor and materials.

An example of this would be the argument that the United States could not maintain its economic strength without exploiting poor nations rich in natural resources, such as those in Africa and Latin America. Even if these poor countries work hard to improve their standing within the global community, their ability to change their situation is limited by perpetual economic dependency. Bushnell and Macaulay are strong opponents of the dependency theory, instead stressing that capitalism and trade within a global free market economy provide equal opportunities to all nations, even former colonies. While dependency theorists argue that other countries used Latin America as a source of raw materials, Bushnell and Macaulay discuss how Latin America was, and still is, in control of its economic destiny. They state, "Three more decades would pass before fundamental economic and social change got underway. Internal factors, not external ones, were largely responsible for this stability – or stagnation."

Bushnell argues that in the post-independence era, Latin America was not providing the rest of the world with materials they needed, or materials that the rich countries could not obtain from their colonies in Africa or Southeast Asia. They were not taken advantage of by richer countries but rather failed to provide goods that these countries needed. Bushnell and Macaulay write: The fact is, however, that the rich countries bought little from Latin America in the post-independence period. Latin America produced almost nothing that the Europeans and North Americans did not produce in abundance among themselves and their colonies, and the rich countries found it easier and more profitable to do business with one another. Bushnell does not discount the dependency theory for other parts of the world, but he disagrees with the experts who claim that Latin America is limited by other, more powerful countries. In their opinion, Latin America failed to make itself a viable contender in a free market economy during the post-independence era and was not unduly limited by the more powerful industrial nations.

Bushnell and Macaulay write an interesting book that successfully provides the reader with a fluid synthesis of Latin America’s emergence from the colonial era. While their overarching theme is Latin America’s emergence, they strongly support the idea that Latin America is not part of the dependency theory, and its shortcomings in the post-independence era were due to internal, not external, problems. They balance the economic, social, geographical, and political issues that faced Latin America during their emergence but lack an overall thesis. Granted, there is the overall theme of Latin America’s emergence, but they seem to shy away from making one bold statement that generalizes the entire continent, perhaps because their topic is so broad and such a statement would be untenable. Their ability to combine narrative and historical fact ensures that readers of any level can learn from this book while at the same time stimulating the ideas of experts on Latin America.