By Alfredo Toro Hardy
Latin America, as a notion, is made up of those non Anglo or Dutch components of the Americas formed in the common mould of the Catholic religion, the Latin cultural heritage and the Romance languages. Iberian America and Haiti would naturally fit into this description. The first of them because of its Spanish and Portuguese heritage, the latter because of its French one.
However, if we were to take this argument to its logical conclusion, French speaking Quebec and France itself would have to be included within this notion as well. The former seems clear enough, but why France as well? Because its overseas territories in the Americas are considered to be integral parts of the French State.
Nonetheless, when the term Latin America is used its meaning is more restricted. It just covers the Iberian American countries. That is, that part of the Americas that was colonized by Spain and Portugal, two nations that share the European Iberian Peninsula. This translates into Brazil and Hispanic America. The latter includes countries in North America (Mexico); Central America (Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Nicaragua); the so called Isthmus (Panama); the Caribbean Sea (Cuba and Dominican Republic) and South America (Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay). Nineteen republics, in total.
Latin America and the Caribbean
As it happens, though, the denomination Latin America is frequently associated with the notion of the Caribbean. As a result, the combined term of Latin America and the Caribbean. More than being a cultural or historical notion, this is a geographical expression derived from the contiguity of these two areas. Provided, however, that these two regions have as a common denominator the fact of being developing economies within the same Western Hemisphere, this lax expression took hold.
The non-Iberian American Caribbean countries can be divided in three groups, according to their mother tongue. There is an English speaking Caribbean, which is integrated by Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Guyana, Belize, Saint Lucia, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Dominica, Montserrat, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and, finally, Antigua and Barbuda. There is a Dutch speaking Caribbean, formed by Suriname, Curaçao and Aruba (these last two are autonomous associated countries to the Netherlands). There is also a French speaking Caribbean made by the country of Haiti. These three groups of Caribbean nations have distinct cultural and historical backgrounds and traits.
With the exception of Belize, Guyana and Suriname, located in Central or South America, the rest are island nations. Curiously enough, the continental countries of Guyana and Suriname are not even within the Caribbean basin. On the contrary, they have an Atlantic Oceanfront. Hence, they are not properly Caribbean nations.
Except for Haiti which obtained its independence at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when most of Latin America did as well, the rest are recent countries. They accessed Statehood as a result of the decolonization process that took place in the second half of the twentieth century. When compared to the Latin American countries, these nations tend to have much smaller GDP and population, although some of them have a larger GDP per capita.
When these Caribbean countries became independent states, they began to interact with Latin American nations within the framework of hemispheric and regional organizations. A good example of it was the Organization of American States, of which the United States and Canada are also part. During the XXI Summit of the so-called Group of Rio, held in February of 2010, the chief of states and government of Latin American and Caribbean countries, agreed to create a new association integrating in a systematic way these two regions. That gave birth to the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, which was formally launched in December of 2011 in Caracas, Venezuela.
This organization is integrated by 33 states. This is tantamount to all of the Western Hemisphere, with the exception of the United States and Canada. This group aims at promoting a concerted Latin American and Caribbean position in the fundamental global issues of the day, while searching for strengthening the economic links among its members.
However, the term Latin American and the Caribbean, even if practical as it joins together two contiguous regions that have in common their developing condition, has no sufficient identity glue. The members of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States have different cultural and historical backgrounds. One of these identities is the Iberian American one, which holds together Spanish America and Brazil. That is, Iberian America.
The latter is a reasonably distinctive identity. Although differences exist not only between Brazil and Hispanic American countries, but between Hispanic American countries themselves, there are sufficient common denominators among them all. Not only Spain and Portugal are the two most similar countries in Europe, having shared the same civilizational experiences throughout the centuries, but the independent countries that emerged from their colonization also shared similar historical and cultural patterns. Through their independent history, they have been closely interlinked.
Why Latin America?
But then why, if we can talk of a distinctive Iberian American identity, the more diffuse and even confusing term of Latin America is the one used? The answer to this question goes back in time to 1861. Latin America was a term coined that year in an article published by French scholar L.M. Tisserand in the magazine Revues des Races Latines. Neither the article, which referred to the Iberian countries of the Americas as an integral part of the Latin civilization, nor the term itself were neutral in content.
Much to the contrary, they subscribed to the so-called Pan-Latin thesis, whose aim was French power projection on the other side of the Atlantic. Moreover, its immediate objective was to provide intellectual legitimacy to Emperor Napoleon III’s imperial ambitions over Mexico and other parts of Hispanic America. Actually, his forces briefly conquered Mexico and imposed the puppet regime of Emperor Maximilian.
Oddly enough, the term Latin America would survive the defeats of the Maximilian monarchy in Mexico and of the Napoleonic Empire in France itself. Moreover, it would end up being accepted as a sign of identity by the same people upon which it aimed to be used as part of an imperialistic design.
Given indeed its tributary connotations, how to explain the easy assimilation of the term by Iberian Americans themselves? At first glance, it could be assumed that the reason responded to the anti-U.S. stand of the Pan-Latin thesis. Indeed, the same emphasized that France had the historic mission of restoring the strength and prestige of the Latin race of the Americas, counterbalancing the growing Anglo Protestant power of the North. Paris would become instrumental in developing a strong Latin-Catholic sphere. Adhering the notion for those reasons, could have had much sense. Especially so, as a few decades earlier the United States had taken by force half of the Mexican territory.
Nonetheless, that was not the reason. Admiration towards the United States political system and entrepreneurial ingenuity remained high at the time within the Iberian American elites. Even in Mexico itself, Justo Sierra, a leading member of the so called positivist movement that prevailed at the time, talked about making Mexicans, the “Yankees of the South”.
Courting France, bashing Spain
The reason for so easily accepting the term Latin America, to the contrary, was to be found in the rejection of Spain and everything Spanish. Indeed, within the Hispanic American intelligentsia of the day, where the positivist movement reigned supreme, there was a strong repudiation of the Spanish heritage. A heritage identified with the shortcomings of their countries. To that, it should be added that the region’s positivists were totally fascinated by French culture and civilization. This was the reason why Brazilian elites, not having a Spanish heritage to react to, were equally responsive to the term Latin America. Indeed, after the coup d’état that dethroned its monarchical regime in 1889, positivism became its leading school of thought.
A breathless desire existed among the cultivated people of the region to imitate the French. To follow their fashions. To paint, write and compose music like them. To follow its architectural tastes. To conform to their concept of civilized life.
As a result, a term like Latin America, which established a direct line of parentage with the matrixes of Western Civilization skirting round Spain, was warmly welcomed by Hispanic American elites. It was equally well received by all of those who were delighted with this new kinship with France. Being considered as the transatlantic cousins of the French was certainly flattering for positivists all around the region. After all Auguste Comte, the towering figure of the Positivist philosophy, was a Frenchman.
Hence, instead of referring to a Iberian America, as would have been more correct, we talk of a Latin America. And, by geographical extension, we talk about Latin America and the Caribbean.
Author: Alfredo Toro Hardy, PhD – Retired Venezuelan career diplomat, scholar and author. Former Ambassador to the U.S., U.K., Spain, Brazil, Ireland, Chile and Singapore. Author or co-author of thirty-six books on international affairs. Former Fulbright Scholar and Visiting Professor at Princeton and Brasilia universities. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations and a member of the Review Panel of the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center.
Image Source: Britannica