Search for:

Posted on March 17th, 2013, by

The author lets the reader realize that the main effect is the political and social change can be probably only with help of the desperate political revolutions, with the help of the coups in order to transfer power within the ruling class or with the help of the real social revolutions in order to aim of the reconstruction of society. As the USA were the guarantor of the status quo, the whole attempts of the actual revolution or even rather temperate levels of reform within these societies were at bottom Anti-American. Added to this inflammable mixture there were the troubles of the Cold War with the sad tendency of Washington tactics to accept all attacks on the status quo as displays of the Soviet revolutionary political course. This brought to the higher military succor for almost Central American states, often changing the common armed forces of these countries to more professional but often independent and very destructive political forces

“Dulles noted in early 1958, “We might win the military race and yet lose great areas of the world that are vital to our own national security”¯.(Inevitable Revolutions. Maintaining the System, 141)Ā Walter LaFeber in the last 2 chapters gives the cutting and caustic characteristics and analysis of the Reagan and Bush years. He shows the ideological blindness of both Presidents, Their crude convictions in the value of military power as the Presidents indicate their simple stupidity. Lefeber points out that the US actions had the effect of conspicuously provoking the conflicts in Central America. The effects were awful. “In El Salvador in the early 1980s the client government may have been responsible for as many as 50,000 deaths. Since El Salvador had a population of about 4.5 million, this would be the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of deaths in the USA.”¯(Walter LaFeber,Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America)

In fact the Reagan era demonstrated to be worse than any other eras, the revolutions and their consequences lastly came to their logical end. LaFeber shows that if the administration of Reagan had not considered Central America as a playground, there could have been gaugeable progress.

To some readers’ ways of thinking it is very clear that this book is just the register of the history or left-wing propaganda and this book has nothing in common with the real analysis of the history. LaFeber’s politics and obvious dislike of certain Presidents has beclouded the story. And some readers would like to read a more neutral history of the issue rather than a book that is biased. They say: “the author is very selective in the quotes and other references he uses to back his book. We supported some bad people in Latin America at times, the US certainly made mistakes”¦ but if you are writing a “history”¯ book you should be fair and objective and not so obviously political. The author felt he would have been the best President or Secretary of State as opposed to the people who actually had those jobs. He would have done everything great as opposed to all the people who actually had those jobs and did not have the benefit of historical 20/20 hindsight.”¯(A Critical View on Dr. Walter LaFeber’s Inevitable Revolutions). The readers think that it is easy to sit in Cornell and write how horrible Kissinger or Reagan when you know how events turned out. But as a matter of fact, I do not agree with these readers.

It is clear that there are a lot of different kinds of minds about LaFeber’s book. They use the common “mistake”¯ defense: if America causes the atrocity, it is a “mistake”¯.
And this is the typical, preprogrammed; ideological response just shows the people of these kinds of view have never read the book. Lafeber carefully goes through the whole history of Central America and shows that America’s supporting of dictators and the dense American is not a “mistake”¯. The Americas foreign policy instead is very successful and profitable policy interference for American business interests and for small Latin American elite. And some of the readers think that this book is very long but they can see the history of the interactions between the United States and the Latin American Countries, so the book can’t be short.

From my point of view this “Inevitable Revolutions”¯ by Walter LaFeber is the best history book. It’s detailed and sufficiently comprehensive. I can advise people to read this real historical book and to think over the reading.

“Inevitable Revolutions”¯ by Walter LaFeber is the book about the history of the policy of the USA in the relation to Central America from the end of 19th century to Reagan and Bush. Like in any historical book the author gives the rich analysis and reporting of the relations between the USA and the Central American countries. The author tries to give the realistic assay about the reason why the people in those countries were uneducated and violent and why these countries were overpopulated. Walter LaFeber explains why the government in the USA with its economic and military security tried to keep under its control the system of the Central American dependency. And I quite agree with some people who consider this book by Walter LaFeber as an actual historical one.

I think a fundamental point raised by this book is the implicit, and often explicit, assertion that traditional United States approaches to Latin America are in serious trouble. The decline of United States power in the region is quite obvious. The author tells credible facts and everyone who is interested in the history can use this book as the benefit and the historical guide.

 

References
Walter LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America.
A Critical View on Dr. Walter LaFeber’s Inevitable Revolutions: The historical objectives of the United States towards the Central American Nations.

Posted in Term paper writing | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *





0 Comments