America, América

1. Spanish Conquest Sparked a Unique Moral Reckoning

Así que todo linaje de los hombres es uno—All humanity is one.

Unprecedented brutality. The Spanish arrival in the New World unleashed a catastrophe of violence and disease, decimating indigenous populations by 85-95% within a century and a half. This scale of destruction, described by Bartolomé de las Casas as "a human disaster without precedent," forced a profound moral crisis within the Catholic realm. The sheer number of deaths, from massacres to epidemics like cocoliztli, challenged existing theological and legal frameworks.

A revolution in thought. Confronted with this immense suffering, figures like the Dominican priest Bartolomé de las Casas spearheaded a radical intellectual movement. He argued vehemently against the Aristotelian concept of "natural slaves," insisting that all indigenous peoples possessed reason and free will, and were made in God's image. This led to a fundamental re-evaluation of universalism, questioning whether European wisdom was truly universal or merely provincial.

Theological and legal debates. The Spanish Crown, despite its complicity, found itself embroiled in decades of intense debates among theologians and jurists. Questions arose about the legitimacy of conquest, the right to enslave, and the very humanity of New World peoples. While many defended Spanish rule, the dissenting voices, particularly from the Salamanca School (Francisco de Vitoria), laid the groundwork for modern international law by asserting:

• Reason, not divine revelation, as the basis of law.
• Indigenous peoples as true owners of their lands and lives.
• The illegitimacy of the Papal Donation and the doctrine of discovery.

2. English Colonization Relied on Evasion, Not Introspection

If God were not pleased with our inheriting these parts, why did he drive out the natives before us?

Providential emptiness. Unlike the Spanish, who grappled with the moral implications of conquering densely populated lands, English settlers in North America encountered a landscape largely emptied by devastating epidemics, such as leptospirosis. This "miraculous plague" was interpreted by Puritans as divine intervention, clearing the land for their arrival and justifying their claims to "vacuum domicilium" – empty houses or vacant land.

Justifying dispossession. The concept of "vacuum domicilium" became a cornerstone of English colonial legal thought. It asserted that uncultivated or unused land was open for settlement, even if inhabited, effectively denying indigenous claims to sovereignty. This contrasted sharply with the Spanish debates, which, despite their flaws, acknowledged the existence of indigenous societies and property rights. English justifications for taking land included:

• Divine will: God cleared the land for the chosen people.
• Lack of "improvement": Native Americans did not cultivate the land in a European manner.
• "Waste" land: Unenclosed or unworked land was available for the taking.

Absence of moral qualms. While the Spanish produced figures like Las Casas who fiercely condemned colonial atrocities, English colonization saw little comparable moral introspection regarding the dispossession of Native Americans or the brutal "Irish tactics" employed against indigenous populations. Instead, English intellectuals often focused on proving the inferiority of indigenous peoples, contributing to the rise of racial Anglo-Saxonism and a more rigid, less nuanced form of dehumanization.

3. Two Americas Emerged from Divergent Revolutionary Ideals

For us, the country is America.

Contrasting republican visions. The American Revolution, while championing individual liberty and self-governance, was deeply intertwined with territorial expansion and the perpetuation of chattel slavery. Its leaders, like Thomas Jefferson, envisioned a vast Anglo-Saxon republic stretching across the continent, often at the expense of Native Americans and enslaved Africans. This contrasted with the Spanish American revolutions, which, despite their internal contradictions, aimed for a more inclusive and socially oriented republicanism.

Bolívar's continental dream. Simón Bolívar and other Spanish American revolutionaries, heirs to centuries of debate over the Conquest, sought to create a "magnificent confederation" of republics. Their vision, often called "Colombiano," emphasized:

• Continental unity and solidarity.
• A balance between individual rights and the "common good of society."
• The eventual abolition of slavery and caste distinctions.
• A strong, activist state to overcome colonial legacies of inequality.

The burden of history. Spanish American independence leaders, unlike their U.S. counterparts, openly acknowledged the "black cloak of crime" of the Conquest and the stolen nature of their continent. They grappled with the persistence of racial hierarchies and economic exploitation, recognizing that true freedom required more than just political independence. This led to a more expansive definition of republicanism, one that included social rights and a commitment to collective well-being, even as they struggled to implement these ideals amidst internal strife and external pressures.

4. Latin America Forged a Distinct International Law of Peace

The law is one for all the human race by virtue of the unity itself of the human race.

A league of nations. Emerging from colonial rule as a community of independent republics, Spanish America faced the unique challenge of establishing peaceful coexistence on a crowded continent with fluid borders. Unlike the U.S., which expanded through conquest, these new nations needed a framework for cooperation, not competition. This led to the development of "American International Law," a body of principles designed to prevent interstate conflict.

Uti possidetis and sovereign equality. A cornerstone of this new legal order was the doctrine of uti possidetis de 1810 ("as you possess, so shall you possess"). This principle, adapted from Roman law, transformed a doctrine of conquest into a mechanism for peace, recognizing colonial administrative lines as the legitimate borders of newly independent states. This implicitly rejected the concept of terra nullius and affirmed:

• The absolute sovereignty of individual nations.
• The illegitimacy of conquest and territorial aggrandizement.
• The need for impartial arbitration to settle disputes.

Challenging great power norms. Latin American jurists, like Juan Bautista Alberdi and Carlos Calvo, consistently advocated for a global order based on the "absolute equality" of all nations, regardless of size or power. The Calvo Doctrine, for instance, asserted that foreign investors were subject to national laws and could not invoke their home governments for protection, directly challenging the interventionist practices of European and U.S. powers. This collective legal framework, though often undermined by internal conflicts and external pressures, provided a powerful ethical counter-narrative to traditional international law, which largely served the interests of imperial powers.

5. The Monroe Doctrine Transformed from Solidarity to Hegemony

The United States seem destined by Providence to plague America with torments in the name of liberty.

Initial promise of solidarity. When President James Monroe issued his doctrine in 1823, Latin American independence leaders, including Simón Bolívar, initially welcomed it as a declaration of New World solidarity against European reconquest. They interpreted it as a commitment to anticolonialism and republican ideals, hoping it would be "internationalized" into a mutual defense pact.

A tool for unilateralism. However, the Monroe Doctrine quickly evolved into a justification for U.S. unilateral intervention and territorial expansion. U.S. leaders, from John Quincy Adams to Andrew Jackson, used it to:

• Assert a "right of preemption" over indigenous lands.
• Block European influence while expanding U.S. own.
• Justify military actions and annexations in the hemisphere.
• Frame U.S. interests as synonymous with universal ideals.

Racialized justifications. The doctrine's application was often accompanied by racialized rhetoric, portraying Latin American nations as unstable, prone to "demagogic anarchy," and incapable of self-governance. This contrasted with the perceived stability and racial purity of the "Saxon" United States. The Jacksonian backlash against Bolívar's Panama Congress, fueled by fears of racial mixing and abolition, solidified the doctrine's role as a defense of white supremacy and expansion.

6. Mexico's Revolution Challenged Global Property Norms

The nation shall have at all times the right to impose on private property such limitations as the public interest may demand as well as the right to regulate the development of natural resources, which are eligible for expropriation in order to conserve them and equitably to distribute the public wealth.

A social revolution. The Mexican Revolution (1910-1940s) was the 20th century's first great social revolution, profoundly challenging the liberal capitalist order and its foundational principles of private property. It erupted against decades of concentrated wealth, low wages, and the dispossession of peasant lands, much of it owned by foreign, particularly U.S., interests. The revolution's radicalism forced a redefinition of national sovereignty.

Article 27 and subsoil socialism. The 1917 Mexican Constitution, particularly its Article 27, became a landmark document for social democracy globally. It asserted that:

• Property rights were not inherent but granted by the state, subject to public interest.
• All subsoil resources (minerals, oil, gas) belonged to the nation.
• The state had the right to expropriate private property for land reform and equitable wealth distribution.

Clash with U.S. interests. This "subsoil socialism" directly confronted U.S. corporate power, which had billions invested in Mexican mines, oil, and agriculture. U.S. officials, from Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson to Secretary of State Robert Lansing, vehemently opposed Article 27, viewing it as a violation of international law and a threat to "the very foundations of modern civilization." This struggle over property rights became a testing ground for U.S. foreign policy, forcing Washington to grapple with economic nationalism in a way it hadn't before.

7. FDR's Good Neighbor Policy Briefly Aligned Hemispheric Ideals

We offer hope for peace and a more abundant life to the peoples of the whole world.

A new approach to diplomacy. Faced with the Great Depression and the rise of fascism in Europe, Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated the Good Neighbor Policy, signaling a shift away from direct military intervention in Latin America. This policy, championed by Secretary of State Cordell Hull, aimed to build hemispheric unity through cooperation, non-intervention, and economic reciprocity.

Montevideo and the "so-called right of conquest." The 1933 Pan-American Conference in Montevideo became a pivotal moment. Hull, against initial White House reluctance, embraced Latin American demands for non-intervention and even renounced the "so-called right of conquest." This marked a significant, albeit temporary, alignment of U.S. policy with Latin American International Law, which had long advocated for:

• Absolute sovereign equality.
• Peaceful arbitration of disputes.
• Rejection of military force for debt collection (Drago Doctrine).

Hemispheric defense against fascism. The looming threat of World War II further solidified this cooperation. Latin America became crucial for U.S. defense, providing strategic resources and military bases. FDR presented Pan-Americanism as a model for a post-war world order, a "cornerstone in the world structure of the future," integrating Latin American ideals into the nascent vision of the United Nations. This period saw a genuine, if pragmatic, effort to foster social democracy and economic development in the region, exemplified by U.S. support for Mexico's land and oil reforms and aid for industrialization in Brazil.

8. The Cold War Undermined Latin American Social Democracy

There has been a Latin American Marshall plan for the Western Hemisphere for a century and a half and known as the Monroe Doctrine.

Shift from anti-fascism to anti-communism. The end of World War II brought a brief period of social democratic expansion in Latin America, with many nations adopting progressive constitutions and expanding welfare states. However, the onset of the Cold War rapidly shifted U.S. foreign policy priorities from promoting democracy and social reform to ensuring anti-communist stability. This meant abandoning the "Good Neighbor" ethos and actively suppressing leftist movements.

The Marshall Plan's exclusion. The exclusion of Latin America from the Marshall Plan, explicitly designed for European recovery, was a stark signal. U.S. policymakers, like Secretary of State George Marshall, argued that Latin America should rely on private capital and "self-help," effectively subordinating its economic development to Europe's needs. This policy reinforced existing inequalities, leading to:

• Increased reliance on raw material exports.
• Stifled industrialization and economic diversification.
• Deepened poverty and social unrest.

Intervention and repression. The U.S. actively supported right-wing military regimes and covert operations to counter perceived communist threats, even when local communist parties had little influence. The 1948 Bogotazo, following the assassination of Colombian populist leader Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, was quickly framed by Washington as a "red masterpiece," justifying a continent-wide crackdown. This era saw:

• The rise of brutal dictatorships (Trujillo, Somoza, Pinochet).
• Widespread human rights abuses, torture, and disappearances.
• The systematic dismantling of social democratic reforms and labor movements.

9. Latin American Humanism Persisted Despite Repression

The revolutionary desire to realize the kingdom of God on earth... is the elastic point of progressive civilization and the beginning of modern history.

A resilient intellectual tradition. Despite decades of U.S.-backed repression and the rise of authoritarian regimes, Latin American intellectuals and social movements continued to champion a humanist, social-democratic vision. Building on the legacies of Las Casas, Bolívar, and the Mexican Revolution, they developed powerful critiques of global inequality and political oppression.

Key intellectual movements:

• Dependency Theory: Scholars like Raúl Prebisch argued that the prosperity of the "core" (industrialized nations) depended on the "underdevelopment" of the "periphery" (resource-exporting nations), challenging the notion that free trade would lead to equitable development.
• Liberation Theology: Catholic priests and activists, like Camilo Torres and Gustavo Gutiérrez, reinterpreted Christian doctrine to advocate for social justice, economic equality, and the empowerment of the poor. They saw Christ's suffering reflected in the exploitation of the marginalized.
• Magic Realism and Social Science: Artists and writers, such as Gabriel García Márquez, used literary forms like magic realism to expose the "subterranean reality" of power and mystification, while sociologists developed critical methods to study the "realidad social" of their societies.

The "irruption of the poor into history." These movements fostered a deep commitment to a panoramic conception of citizenship, encompassing not just individual rights but also social and economic rights like healthcare, education, and dignified labor. They challenged the idea that capitalism was inherently democratic, arguing that true democracy required addressing systemic inequalities. This persistent humanism, often expressed through grassroots organizing and Christian Base Communities, became a powerful force for change, even in the face of brutal state violence.

10. The U.S. Risks "Latin Americanization" by Abandoning its Moral Ground

We but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return.

The boomerang effect of intervention. The book concludes with a stark warning: by abandoning its moral restraints and embracing aggressive unilateralism and economic inequality, the United States risks mirroring the instability and social problems it once projected onto Latin America. The pivot from the Panama invasion to the Persian Gulf War symbolized a shift where the Monroe Doctrine, once a regional constraint, became a global policing mandate.

Internal decay and external aggression. Senator Frank Church's warning of the "Latin Americanization of the United States" highlighted concerns about:

• Rising economic inequality and the concentration of wealth.
• The erosion of democratic control over corporations.
• The militarization of domestic life and increased police spending.
• A pervasive "epistemic fog" of distrust and misinformation.

A path to omnicide. The U.S.'s post-Cold War embrace of neoliberalism, deindustrialization, and endless wars has led to a "de-pacification of everyday life" at home, characterized by social breakdown, rising suicides, and a loss of faith in institutions. Abroad, a new era of militarized economic competition and proxy wars, fueled by out-of-control technologies and private mercenaries, threatens a "descent into hell." Latin American leaders, like Colombia's Gustavo Petro, warn that this path leads to "omnicide," the death of everything.

Latin America's enduring lesson. Despite its own struggles, Latin America continues to offer an alternative vision: a commitment to persistent diplomacy, arbitration, de-escalation, and social democracy. Its leaders advocate for a world where property rights do not supersede human dignity, where migration is treated humanely, and where the global order is reformed to address systemic inequalities. This enduring humanism, forged through centuries of struggle against domination, stands as a powerful counterpoint to the U.S.'s current trajectory, reminding us that "backwardism is useless" and that a better future demands a fundamental shift in values.