Geographer Robert Kent, a specialist in Latin America at the University of Akron in Ohio, goes to great lengths in this extensive question-and-answer series to explain to North Americans how Latin Americans tend to view issues of mutual concern. For example, he discusses why many Brazilians regard international proposals to conserve the Amazon rain forest as interference in their internal affairs, and why Latin Americans in general tend to have greater respect than North Americans for Cuba’s Fidel Castro. Kent offers information useful to tourists, such as descriptions of archaeological sites in Mexico and Peru, ecotourism in Latin America, and travel opportunities to Cuba for United States citizens. Kent provides extensive background on current political issues in Latin American, including rebel movements in Colombia and the Mexican state of Chiapas.

Questions and Answers About Latin America

Q: Why doesn’t the Brazilian government ban all activities that damage the Amazon rain forest?

Also on Encarta •  7 tips for funding an online degree •  How to succeed in the fashion industry without being a top designer •  Alternatives to the M.B.A. •  GPS for students •  Saving for college •  Presidential Myths Quiz •  Coffee break: Recharge your brain

A: There are many reasons. Without getting too philosophical, it is pertinent to note that what is meant by “damaging” is a matter of considerable dispute. When it comes to the environment and the impact of various human activities on it, differences of opinion abound in Brazil as in most nations.

Brazilians feel that the Amazon rain forest is Brazilian. As a matter of sovereign right and national pride, Brazilians resent efforts by foreign governments, international organizations, and international conservation groups to influence and direct environmental legislation affecting the Amazon. Brazilians accuse these groups of being somewhat hypocritical. They note, for instance, that the clear-cutting of immense forest reserves in the Pacific Northwest, western Canada, and Alaska continues. And they ask why the governments of the United States and of countries in Europe do so little to limit the use of fossil fuels, although their small proportion of the world’s population uses nearly one-half of all fossil fuels. They note that the burning of these fuels is the principal cause of atmospheric pollution and global warming.

Brazilians also feel that the Amazon represents a vast natural resource that can promote national economic development. They believe they have every right to develop it as they see fit. The mineral, forest, and agricultural resources are needed to contribute to the nation’s development.

Also on MSN •  See the world in a new light with Discovery Atlas •  MSN Shopping: Best books for the season •  MSN Careers: Nail that job interview •  Today's news on MSNBC

Even if there were some agreement as to what is damaging and what is not among the various organizations and national governments, including Brazil’s, it would be extremely difficult to legislate and enforce conservation measures. The portion of the Amazon Basin within Brazilian territory is immense, approximately the same size as the conterminous United States (the “lower 48”). At the same time, numerous individuals and groups are exploiting the Amazon’s resources—miners, poor farmers, loggers, and industrialists. While some of them have relatively little political power, others wield tremendous political influence and can hinder most efforts to limit their use of the region’s natural resources.

Q: How has the Amazon River shaped Brazil’s economic and political development?

A: The short answer is “not much.” For most of Brazil’s history—that is, since the arrival of Europeans and the effective colonization by the Portuguese—the Amazon River has been largely peripheral to the country’s development.

Early settlement during the 16th and 17th centuries in Brazil concentrated initially along the northeastern coast near the cities of Fortaleza, Recife, and Bahia (Salvador). The subsequent discovery of gold in the interior highlands of Minas Gerais contributed to a major shift of political and economic power to the south. The designation of Rio de Janeiro as the colonial capital in the latter half of the 18th century underscored this shifting focus of power. The rise of coffee as a major economic force in the country in the 19th century created an economic boom in the more southerly states of Sao Paulo and Parana. This agricultural boom provided the capital that helped transform this region into the industrial, commercial, and political center of Brazil by the middle of the 20th century.

The Amazon Basin remained largely outside any significant economic or political developments in Brazil until the latter half of the 20th century. Until that time, the Amazon Basin was a sparsely populated frontier with little economic or political importance. In the closing decades of the 19th century, a short-lived worldwide demand for natural rubber fostered a rubber boom in the upper reaches of the basin and promoted some economic development. Various extractive activities provided some economic development to the region after that, including placer mining for gold, logging, fishing, and subsistence farming, but the Amazon Basin still remained a backwater.

By the mid-20th century Brazilians began to view the Amazon Basin as a great untapped resource, and political leaders embarked on an ambitious plan to open the region to development. The transfer of the national capital from Rio de Janeiro to Brasilia in 1960 symbolized that increased awareness of the need to develop the country’s interior. Since then the government has invested great sums in road-building projects, agricultural colonization, and industrial development projects throughout the region and has encouraged private entrepreneurs to do the same. Nevertheless, the Amazon’s economic and political significance in modern Brazil is still minimal.

Q: How has the Andes mountain range shaped South America economically and politically?

A: The Andes have figured as a significant force in the economic and political development of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, which are sometimes called the Andean republics. The Andes also run through both Argentina and Chile and form the international boundary between the two nations, but the impact of the mountain range on their development has been minor. It is worth noting that the Andes run along South America’s northern and western coasts and are not included in the territory of several South American republics.

The cool, pleasant climate of the Andes Mountains has long attracted human settlement, as has the lack of many of the infectious diseases that plagued people living in the warm and humid tropical climate of the lowlands. Pre-Columbian settlement was concentrated in the Andes, and population densities among indigenous peoples here was very high, especially in mountain valleys (Urubamba, Mantaro, and Cuenca de Quito) and high-elevation plateaus (Sabana de Bogotá and the Altiplano of Peru and Bolivia). After the Spanish conquest in the early 1500s, the mountainous regions continued to be a major focus of economic and political activity.

The terrain itself has significantly impacted the peoples of this region. Differences in elevation (affecting temperature) and aspect (orientation with respect to the prevailing winds) create widely differing microclimates within short distances of one another. This has permitted Andean peoples to cultivate a significant range of food crops within small geographical areas, diversifying and enriching their diet and greatly increasing their productivity.

The mountains also have been a source of natural resources, providing rich mineral reserves, silver, and to a much lesser extent gold during the colonial period, and the industrial metals lead, copper, and zinc during more recent times.

On the other hand, the mountainous terrain has been a major impediment to economic development because it poses difficulties in transportation and communication. While these difficulties were more acute during the 19th and early 20th centuries, they continue to be significant factors influencing (and largely retarding) regional development. The mountainous terrain also imposes a kind of geographic isolation on mountain communities and subregions, a factor that has at times promoted narrow regional interests at the expense of a wider national view.

Q: Which archaeological sites in Mexico are the most interesting and easy to visit?

A: For most foreign tourists the most accessible archaeological sites in Mexico are those located in the immediate vicinity of Mexico City. Of these, Teotihuacán is clearly the most impressive and most accessible. This site is located within about a one-hour drive of downtown Mexico City and can be visited on your own or through a tour provided by one of the innumerable tour companies and operators. Teotihuacán is one of the largest archaeological sites in Mexico, with the ruins lying within an area measuring about 2 km by 1 km (about 1.2 mi by 0.6 mi). Two spectacular pyramids—the Pyramids of the Sun and the Moon—dominate the site. At its peak of development in about the 6th century ad, the city was home to nearly 200,000 inhabitants.

Many foreign tourists visit the international beach resort of Cancún on the Yucatán Peninsula. Two major sites, as well as many minor ones, can be visited with comparative ease from Cancún, again either as part of package tours or on your own. Perhaps the most impressive site in the Yucatán is Chichén Itzá which lies about 150 km (about 90 mi) to the west of Cancún. This Maya site, dating from around the 10th century ad, includes among its ruins a massive pyramid, a huge ball court, and an observatory. Tulum, a somewhat smaller Maya site, sits on the Caribbean coast about 100 km (about 60 mi) south of Cancún.

Monte Albán, in the southern highlands of Oaxaca, is somewhat less accessible. Nevertheless, it lies within about 10 km (about 6 mi) of the city of Oaxaca, and daily flights connect Oaxaca with Mexico City. The ruins are visited by tens of thousands of foreign tourists annually. The site’s natural setting is stunning, and the ruins lie atop a small mountain about 400 m (about 1,300 ft) high that sits in the middle of a broad valley. The site was occupied more or less continuously between 500 bc and 750 ad and is dominated by a large central plaza and a series of massive pyramid-like structures.

Q: Why was Mexico City built on top of the ruins of the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan?

A: Perhaps the best answer is the most obvious. The city, a large urban center with a population of about 100,000, was built on an island in the middle of Lake Texcoco. In size and functional complexity, the city rivaled the major European cities of the day. After Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés and his allies defeated the Aztecs in 1521, the Spanish occupied the city rather than building a new one. In large part this was a simple matter of expedience and of making the best use of available resources. Aztec religious buildings and shrines were torn down, and the building material was used to construct churches and other religious structures on the same sites.

The Spanish had followed similar practices during the Christian reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula between 700 and 1400, conquering Islamic towns and then occupying them. In similar fashion they frequently occupied mosques and converted them into Christian churches. Several striking examples of this can be found in southern Spain, notably in Cordoba and Seville.

In South America, following the same pattern, the Spanish conquered a series of Inca towns—including the Inca capital, Cuzco, and several other important Inca cities (Quito, Cajamarca, and Jauja)—and founded Spanish towns on the existing sites. In Cuzco and Cajamarca some Inca construction is still present.

Q: Is Fidel Castro a popular figure in Latin America?

A: Popular is probably not the best adjective to describe how Latin Americans view Fidel Castro, but he is respected by Latin Americans from a broad range of political perspectives. Even those who are in complete disagreement with his political beliefs often hold him in the grudging respect one reserves for worthy enemies.

This respect can be traced to several sources.

The Cuban Revolution led by Fidel Castro in 1959 completely transformed the social and economic landscape of Cuba. The revolution also inspired or emboldened several generations of revolutionaries in other Latin American countries—perhaps most notably in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Colombia. These revolutionary movements, while not always successful militarily, often helped bring about more equitable and democratic societies. Of course this has not been the case in Cuba, which has remained a Communist dictatorship ever since the 1959 revolution.

Castro also has done what few Latin American leaders have ever been able to accomplish. He has successfully defied the United States for over four decades. Few Latin American leaders have ever stood so defiantly for so long in the face of stiff opposition from the United States, the so-called Colossus of the North. Over the years, the United States has maintained a crushing economic embargo against the people of Cuba, encouraged covert assassination plots of Castro, financed a counterrevolutionary army and its ill-fated invasion of the island, and provided immense financial and logistical support to anti-Castro forces in the United States. The United States has also provided special immigration incentives to Cubans, available to no other nationality in the world, to encourage Cubans to abandon their country. Nevertheless, in the face of crushing pressure, Castro has remained resolute and has never “knuckled under” to the United States.

Q: What caused the Cuban Revolution? What was so bad about Batista’s government that made Fidel Castro rebel against Batista’s government?

A: Fulgencio Batista was a typical Latin American dictator. He rose through the ranks of the army and eventually consolidated power using the army as his principal vehicle. He ruled the country twice as head of state, first from 1940 to 1944 as the 'elected president' and then later from 1952 to 1959 after an armed coup put him in power. During much of the intervening period, from 1944 to 1952, he largely ruled the country from the background.

His rule represented a continuation of a pattern of social and economic exploitation of the Cuban people by a small elite group of Cubans who were strongly allied with foreign investors. These investors, mostly American, owned most of the nation's sugar plantations, sugar mills, economic infrastructure, and tourist industry. This pattern began in the early part of the 20th century.

Batista allied himself with this small group of Cuban and foreign elites who owned or controlled almost everything, while the vast majority of the population lived in poverty. For most Cubans, infant mortality was high, life expectancy was low, and illiteracy was widespread. Most rural peasants owned no land and toiled as day laborers on sugar plantations. Those who opposed the Batista government were oppressed, harassed, and jailed. One might argue, however, that Batista was actually too soft on his enemies—before Castro successfully toppled the Batista government, he had been jailed and subsequently released!

Castro capitalized on the adverse conditions. He mounted a small guerrilla force that 'invaded' Cuba from Mexico (the force was small indeed and was almost crushed). He installed his forces in the mountainous region in the country's southeast corner (Sierra Maestra) and within a very short time was able to generate considerable popular support. Moving westward across the island, Castro's army quickly defeated elements of Batista's army. Batista and others fled Havana in 1959 and abandoned the capital to Castro's forces.

In short, Batista was corrupt and unjust and seemed content to rule for the benefit of a small national and foreign elite. He did very little to improve the quality of life for the vast majority of the Cuban people.

Q: What are the goals of the rebel movement centered in the state of Chiapas in Mexico?

A: In southern Mexico, and especially in the state of Chiapas, much of the rural population lives as virtual serfs, working as poorly paid laborers on large coffee plantations owned by absentee landowners or local elites. The rebel group known as the Zapatistas (short for Zapatista National Liberation Army) has called for land reform initiatives to help improve the lives of the agricultural workers in Chiapas, as well as a wide range of democratic reforms at both local and national levels.

On January 1, 1994, the Zapatistas initiated an armed rebellion in the rural highlands and jungles of Chiapas. They engaged in direct armed confrontation with the Mexican army for about two weeks and then retreated into the inaccessible jungles as the army consolidated its control over most of the state’s towns and villages. Since then a stalemate has persisted, with neither side in full control of the state but with the government troops clearly holding the upper hand.

The inauguration of Vicente Fox as president of Mexico in December 2000 may lead to a resolution of the protracted stalemate in Chiapas. Fox made resolving the Chiapas problem one of his campaign platforms, and immediately after his inauguration he moved to reduce the presence of the Mexican army in the region and to reinitiate negotiations with the Zapatistas.

The Zapatistas named their group after Emiliano Zapata, a revolutionary leader from southern Mexico who fought for peasants’ land rights and land reform during the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920).

Q: How does Colombian geography influence the country’s economy and culture, particularly its situation with narcotics traffic and guerrillas?

A: Well, I am a geographer and therefore prejudiced. I think physical geography always matters, but it is only one of many factors that influence a country’s social and economic development.

One of the significant aspects of Colombia’s geography is the mountainous character of much of the nation’s territory. The Andes Mountains dominate the most fertile and most populated portions of the country.

In some ways the basic geological structure of the Andes is more complex in Colombia than in other Andean nations. In Colombia the mountain range is divided into three principal spurs—the eastern, central, and western cordillera. Two major valleys lie between these ranges—the Cauca Valley and the Magdalena Valley.

Historically, transportation and communication east and west between these mountain and valley systems has been difficult. The mountains are steep and often unstable; road construction is costly and time-consuming; and railroad construction is extremely difficult. Even north-south movement along the river systems of the Cauca River and Magdalena River is not easy. It is no accident Colombia was a leader in the development of civil (passenger) aviation among Latin American nations.

Beyond the Andes, both to the east and to the west, much of the remainder of Colombia is covered with tropical rainforests and seasonally flooded plains (the Llanos). Like the mountains, both of these environments present significant challenges to the development of effective terrestrial transportation systems such as roads and railroads. These areas have traditionally been peripheral to the nation’s economic and social development. This peripheral characteristic, however, has made these areas particularly appealing to drug production, drug trafficking, and revolutionary groups.

Colombia, like many mountainous nations or regions, has been subject to the development of strong regional traditions. These often develop as a function of geographical isolation. Regional economies and societies, with few linkages to other regions and places, can develop. In addition, these can lead to strong regional rivalries and considerable conflict within a national political system.

Nevertheless, it is not reasonable to lay responsibility for Colombia’s extreme social problems at the feet of its geography. Other Andean nations—Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Venezuela—are also dominated to some extent by the Andes mountains, but none experienced the kind of social disintegration that characterized Colombia during the late 1940s and 1950s when “La Violencia” dominated the nation’s countryside and tens of thousands of citizens were murdered. Nor has any other Andean nation experienced a civil war that has continued, largely unabated, for almost 40 years. And no other Andean nation has some 30 to 40 percent of its national territory controlled by “revolutionary armies,” as is presently the case in Colombia.

Q: How difficult is it for United States citizens to travel to Cuba?

A: Officially it is very difficult, but in practice it is relatively easy for a U.S. citizen to travel to Cuba if one wishes to do so, especially if one travels from a third country to Cuba. Surprisingly, it is U.S. law, not Cuban law that makes it illegal for most U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba. Strictly speaking it is not illegal for U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba, but rather it is illegal for them to spend money in the island nation. However, almost no United States citizen has ever been prosecuted for traveling to Cuba and spending money there.

Charter flights from Miami and New York to Havana are somewhat inconvenient and infrequent. Many U.S. citizens who travel to the island do so through third countries such as Mexico, Canada, and the Bahamas. These popular points of entry offer better flight connections and have diplomatic relations with Cuba. Because of the restrictions imposed by the U.S., traveler’s checks in U.S. dollars and credit cards from U.S. banks cannot be used in Cuba. Despite restrictions on spending U.S. dollars in Cuba, the currency circulates freely in Cuba and can be used anywhere.

Indeed, Cuba welcomes visitors from the U.S. with open arms. Cuban immigration officials facilitate visits from United States citizens by not stamping entry or exit stamps into U.S. passports.

Several special classes of U.S. citizens are exempt from restrictions and may travel to Cuba. Academics, some professionals, and journalists may travel to Cuba if the purpose of their travel is professional. Thus, scholars doing research on Cuba, professionals attending conferences, or journalists covering news stories on the island may travel there. In addition, U.S. citizens who have family members living in Cuba may travel to the island once a year.

Q: What are some of the best destinations for ecotourism in Latin America?

A: Best, of course, is a matter of interpretation and perhaps personal preference. It seems that ecotourism efforts have been most successful in tropical rain-forest environments, which tourists from North America and Europe seem to find most interesting. Today, tour companies and tourist agencies offer ecotourism trips to most Latin American nations, with the greatest number going to countries with tropical rain forests. Costa Rica has long been one of the most popular destinations for tropical rain-forest ecotourism, while several areas in Peru have been the focus of ecotourism for some years.

“Best” will depend on what one wants to see and what level of physical discomfort or inconvenience one is willing to put up with as a tourist. Some ecotourism experiences consist of lovely modern lodges and cabins sited in a tropical rain forest and day trips to compelling sites in the vicinity. Other experiences are considerably more rustic and physically demanding. One might also want to consider the relative “safety” of the host country when making such decisions. Country reports and bulletins published by the U.S. Department of State can provide some guidance on current conditions throughout the region.

While tropical rain-forest environments represented the initial focus of ecotourism in Latin America, the past decade has seen a veritable explosion in the number of companies providing ecotourism services in the region and an immense expansion of the number of destinations from which tourists may choose. The World Wide Web can provide a number of leads on commercial enterprises and nonprofit organizations that promote ecotourism in Latin America.

Q: Is the gaucho still important in Argentine and Uruguayan cultures?

A: The gaucho is a distinctive and emblematic figure in the history and culture of Argentina and Uruguay, as well as in Brazil in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, which borders Uruguay. Initially gauchos were independent horsemen who ranged over the region’s treeless plain, known as the Pampa, surviving on the tens of thousands of feral cattle that ranged over it. Crop agriculture gradually forced its way onto the Pampa during the later half of the 19th century, and barbed wire effectively closed the range by the beginning of the 20th century. As a consequence, the fiercely proud and independent gauchos were transformed into ranch hands, working for the land gentry who came to dominate the Pampa. Their skill as horsemen made gauchos a valuable asset to local strongmen during the first half of the 19th century as competing factions vied for political control in both Argentina and Uruguay.

Today in Argentina and Uruguay gauchos continue to work on large cattle ranches, herding cattle and attending to a wide range of chores much like the cowboys of the American West. Indeed, in many ways the gaucho in Argentina and Uruguay is closely akin to the cowboy in the American West in its mythic role and in the widespread national identification with its image.

Q: What was the purpose of the Inca Empire’s extensive highway system?

A: The Inca highway system was designed and constructed to integrate a geographically extensive empire. The Inca Empire was concentrated largely in the Andes, but it also included the coastal margins of the Pacific to the west and the high jungles of the Amazon basin to the east. The mountainous nature of much of the empire presented special problems of communication, and the comprehensive road system greatly facilitated governance.

At its peak, the Inca Empire extended from southern Colombia southward down the Andes through present-day Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, with small outlying areas in northern Argentina. Carefully ordered and superbly administered, the empire maintained its cohesiveness through rapid communications between the capital, regional centers, and the empire’s periphery. The road system permitted the quick movement of information, supplies, and military personnel from one region to another.

The use of the terms road and highway to describe the network may create a false impression, however. Trail or path might be a better term, but neither is really adequate. Along the coastal margins of the Pacific, where desert conditions prevail and vegetation is sparse or nonexistent, the roads often were no more than paths 2 to 3 m (7 to 10 ft) wide, marked by stones. In the mountains, however, the Inca roads were usually paved with stones and ranged in width from 1 to 2 m (3 to 7 ft). The narrow roadbeds were adequate because the Inca had no wheeled vehicles or large draft animals. All freight was moved either by human carriers or by llama trains. Inca engineers also facilitated travel through mountainous regions by constructing superb suspension bridges over many rivers and gorges.

Q: How can I find out about language-study programs in Mexico?

A: Spanish language-study programs are a big business in Mexico. Well, not exactly big business, but their importance has surely grown in the last 20 years. Language-study programs have sprung up in many locations. Many programs can be found in attractive medium-sized cities in the country’s central plateau region, such as San Miguel de Allende and Guanajuato. Others are affiliated with local universities and situated in large urban centers such as Mexico City or Guadalajara.

A quick search on the Internet can identify many programs, and perusing Web sites can give the neophyte some idea of the range of options available. Programs that provide opportunities for students to live with Mexican families in Spanish-only living situations provide some of the best conditions for total immersion and increase one’s likelihood of successfully learning the language. Many universities in the United States also run or are affiliated with Spanish language-study programs in Mexico. These programs are especially attractive if one is seeking college credit for the language-study experience.

In all cases, it’s a good idea to double-check the quality of the programs before deciding on one. Ask for the names of previous students who can provide references about their experiences in the program, or consult with local Spanish teachers in public schools. Many of them can tell you about their own or their students’ experiences with study-abroad programs. Similarly, professors of Spanish at area colleges and universities will have useful insights and may be able to provide specific suggestions.

Q: How important is bullfighting in Latin American cultures?

A: The importance of bullfighting as a social custom varies regionally in Latin America. Despite popular perceptions, bullfighting is almost nonexistent or only practiced as a kind of curiosity (much like the circus in North America) in some Latin American countries. Bullfighting is widespread in Mexico and Colombia, where bullrings are a common fixture of the urban landscape in many towns and cities. Matadors can become major popular culture icons, and many earn impressive salaries and have celebrity status equivalent to stars in other sports, cinema, and music. In most Latin American nations, however, bullfighting is not so ingrained in the popular culture. Larger cities might have bullrings, but they are by no means common in most cities. Bullfighting in these places is more of a curiosity event. Bullfighting is largely absent in Brazil.

Q: How have the beliefs of indigenous cultures influenced the practice of Christianity in Latin America?

A: Likely one could write a book as a response to this question. First, it is important to note that it is essentially the practice of Roman Catholicism in Latin America that has been affected by indigenous religious practices. Protestant denominations had a limited presence in the region until the second half of the 20th century, so there has been relatively little influence on Protestant practices as a result of evangelizing among indigenous populations.

During the colonial period and even later, Catholic priests often made small concessions to local peoples to make the practice of Catholicism more palatable or acceptable to them, in the interest of winning their conversion. For example, local indigenous religious celebrations or festivals often were transformed into Roman Catholic ones simply by identifying a Catholic saint with the festival and renaming it. Suddenly an indigenous holiday was slightly transformed. Catholic priests also often constructed new churches near or on top of indigenous holy sites, further blurring the distinctions between indigenous and Catholic religious practices.

A similar kind of process occurred in a number of countries where large numbers of African slaves were forced to reside. In Brazil particularly, Catholic religious practices have been influenced by the religious beliefs African slaves brought with them from Africa.

Q: The Spanish found and took huge quantities of gold from Latin America during the conquest and the colonial era, but none of the countries in the region are significant producers of gold now. What happened?

A: The Spanish exported immense amounts of gold bullion from the Americas during the colonial period. During the first decades of conquest, they plundered the accumulated wealth of indigenous societies, often objects of religious art and ceremony or adornments worn by the most privileged indigenous elites. Later during the colonial era, the Spanish pressed indigenous people into placer mining the easy-to-reach gold deposits in the gravel of rivers throughout Latin America. Extracting gold from veins in rocks was less common than placer mining, but major gold strikes, or discoveries, occurred in the early 1700s in the Brazilian Highlands. This led to significant exports and increased settlement in the region. Gold was a major export commodity from Latin America during the colonial period and after independence, although silver production far exceeded that of gold.

Latin America continues to be a significant producer of gold. In 1997 Latin America accounted for more than 12 percent of total world gold production (312 metric tons of a total 2,467 metric tons). Most of the region’s countries produce some gold, and no one country dominates. In recent years Peru, Brazil, and Chile have been the leading producers, each producing about 50 metric tons annually, followed by Mexico, Venezuela, and Colombia, each producing more than 20 metric tons annually. In comparison, United States and Canadian production stood at about 350 and 170 metric tons per year, respectively.

Q: Which disagreements in Latin America today are most likely to become dangerous conflicts?

A: Colombia is clearly the region’s most troublesome flashpoint. A civil war has dragged on there in one form or another for almost 40 years and shows few signs of quick resolution. It has cost tens of thousands of lives, displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians, and encouraged the immigration of tens of thousands of Colombians to the United States, Spain, and other Latin American countries.

Misguided policy initiatives by the United States government—notably its participation in Plan Colombia—will likely widen the conflict, increase the death toll, and displace thousands more innocent civilians. Plan Colombia is poised to pump nearly $1 billion into the nation for counterinsurgency and drug eradication and interdiction. Equally troubling is the prospect that the conflict will spill over into neighboring countries as Colombian guerrilla groups—the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and National Liberation Army (ELN)—seek secure staging areas along border areas with Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, and Panama. There is already evidence that this spillover is occurring, and Colombia’s relations with Venezuela have deteriorated considerably in the last two years.

Venezuela also has a serious longstanding territorial dispute with its neighbor to the east, Guyana. Long dormant, this dispute has recently become more contentious as the potential for the exploitation of the region’s rich mineral resources has become clearer to both nations.

Q: What languages are spoken in Latin America? How uniform is the use of the Spanish language across Latin America?

A: Spanish and Portuguese are the dominant languages in Latin America. More than 300 million people speak Spanish in the region. Portuguese is spoken by more than 150 million people in Latin America, all of whom are from Brazil. In the non-Latin nations of South America and the Caribbean, people speak English, French, Dutch, Hindi, and a wide range of creole dialects. Differences in national languages in the region date back to the colonial period, when the colonizing powers—Spain, Portugal, and France among them—brought their languages to the Americas.

In many Latin American nations there is a substantial minority population of indigenous peoples, many of whom still speak native languages. Predominant among these are about 10 million Maya speakers in southern Mexico and Guatemala; a similar number of Quechua speakers in Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia; and about a half million Mapuche speakers in southern Chile. In Paraguay, almost all of the nation’s inhabitants are bilingual in Spanish and the indigenous language of the region, Guarani.

Spanish dialects can vary considerably from country to country and sometimes even within a single country. In most of the Andean nations (Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina) there is a clear difference between the speech of people who live in the highlands and people who reside in the coastal lowlands. Some of this variation is based on distinct local vocabularies that often incorporate indigenous words, while other variations stem from differences in pronunciation and syntax. Mexican Spanish is clearly distinguishable from Spanish spoken by Costa Ricans or Colombians. In Argentina, the residents of Buenos Aires have an accent so distinct that it is readily recognized throughout Latin America. Similar variations in Portuguese can be identified within Brazil.

Q: Do the descendants of the Maya people retain a distinct culture in Mexico?

A: Absolutely. Perhaps as many as 5 million Maya live in the southern Mexican states of Chiapas, Yucatán, Campeche, and Quintana Roo. Substantial Maya populations, totaling about the same number, are also found in the neighboring countries of Guatemala and Belize.

The majority of the Maya peoples in Mexico maintain a cultural identity distinct from that of the country’s mestizo (people of mixed Spanish and indigenous descent) population. This is especially true in rural areas, although many Maya who live in small towns and villages also maintain their cultural traditions. Most speak one of several Maya dialects as their first language, but many also know Spanish. Distinct clothing, food habits, and social customs distinguish them from other Mexicans and from other extant indigenous peoples.

Q: I had always been told Mexico was ruled economically by the 12 families that control most of the industry, banking, and commerce. I heard these families are told in secret when Mexico is going to float the peso so they can buy dollars and control the economy. Is this true, or is there another explanation for the continual collapse of the Mexican middle class?

A: This is a myth. There is no doubt that Mexico, like most countries, has a power elite (a ruling class) that exerts enormous control over political, social, and economic conditions in that country. It is also perfectly reasonable to assume that members of this ruling elite are well connected in political and economic circles and this gives them considerable advantages in their business and commercial dealings.

Nevertheless, Mexico is a country with an immense territorial extent, distinctive cultural and economic regions, and a population of about 100 million. To suggest that 12, 20, or even 50 families could control the country’s economy and political system simply does not jibe with Mexico’s complex reality.

On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that in some of the smaller Central American nations this is the case. El Salvador is frequently cited as an example. There, a small ruling clique composed of some 10 to 20 families has exerted immense political and economic control.

To address your last question, it is true that the Mexican middle classes have suffered considerable trauma during the last decade, especially after the collapse of the peso in the early 1990s. And although Mexico’s middle class may now only consist of some 10 to 20 percent of the population (10 to 20 million), there is considerable evidence that it is growing. The eager pursuit by the United States of the NAFTA treaty with Mexico is in part predicated on the hope that the middle class will grow in Mexico, thus providing new markets for U.S. products and goods.

Q: Who are the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo?

A: The Plaza de Mayo sits at the symbolic center of the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina. The presidential palace (the Casa Rosada), the national cathedral, and the municipal government of Buenos Aires all face on this plaza. Historically it has been the site of many significant political demonstrations and events in Argentina’s national history.

Between 1976 and 1983 Argentina was governed by a series of military governments. Confronted by two revolutionary movements, the People’s Revolutionary Army and the Montoneros, the government quickly resorted to state-sponsored terrorism and extra-legal methods to eliminate them. These included kidnapping, torture, and summary executions. During these years the police, the military, and paramilitary groups rounded up thousands of individuals, many innocent of any crimes, who subsequently vanished, or in local parlance, “disappeared.” Usually nothing was ever heard from or about those individuals who were seized by security forces.

The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo arose as a result of these abuses of human rights. The mothers of the “disappeared” defied the government every Thursday by demonstrating in the Plaza de Mayo, carrying placards with pictures of their loved ones, demanding justice for the disappearances, and denouncing those responsible. Their defiance and their determination exposed the crimes of the military governments to a wider national and international public and eventually contributed to efforts to determine the fate of the disappeared and to hold accountable those responsible.

Q: Has the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) benefited Mexico’s economy or people?

A: This is a difficult question to answer definitively. In general, the answer is yes. But it is important to appreciate that the benefits of NAFTA in Mexico have not been distributed uniformly among all of its citizens.

The greatest benefits to the Mexican economy and its workers have been in industrial activities related to the manufacturing and assembly of a wide range of consumer goods that find a ready market in the United States. These include, but are not limited to, automobiles, automobile parts, tires, and consumer electronics.

The benefits have been less pronounced in the agricultural sector. Modern commercial farms, producing specialty crops such as tomatoes, mangos, or melons for export to the United States, have clearly benefited from the trade liberalization that has permitted greater exports. On the other hand, traditional farmers, producing food grains such as corn or wheat, are at a very significant competitive disadvantage with respect to U.S. producers, who produce these grains at costs far below those of their Mexican counterparts. In the long term, indeed even in the medium term, NAFTA will surely squeeze many of these smaller, noncompetitive farmers out of business.

The benefits of NAFTA also have varied significantly in a geographical sense. Mexican towns and states that border the United States, and Mexico’s northern regions in general, have benefited the most from the implementation of NAFTA, while the benefits have been less noticeable in the country’s central and southern portions.

In the long term, however, Mexico seems likely to reap considerable economic benefits from NAFTA. The benefits to the U.S. economy and U.S. workers are likely to be less significant.

Q: Which archaeological sites in Peru are the most interesting and easy to visit?

A: Peru has a rich prehistory and is well endowed with fascinating archaeological sites. Many of these sites are world-renowned, while hundreds of more minor ones are lesser known. Peru’s most famous archaeological sites are reasonably accessible to the international traveler.

The country’s most impressive archaeological ruins are located in the city of Cuzco and at numerous sites in the surrounding Andes Mountains. Most of the ruins are from the civilization of the Incas, who made Cuzco the center of their empire. Vestiges of Inca walls, palaces, and temples are found in the city’s core, while the ruins of a massive Inca fort, Sacsahuaman, dominate a mountaintop adjacent to the city. Perhaps the most well-known and frequently visited ruins in Peru are at the Inca mountaintop retreat of Machu Picchu, located in the Andes about three hours by train from Cuzco. Cuzco’s international airport has direct flight connections with the United States and other nations.

Several interesting sites along Peru’s Pacific coast also are accessible to international visitors. Pachacamac is a large archaeological site that is located about 50 km (30 mi) south of Peru’s national capital, Lima, and is easily reached by car or through various tour operators. Less spectacular than the Inca sites around Cuzco, this site nevertheless provides a sense of the richness and sophistication of the coastal cultures that developed advanced societies beginning about ad 500. More adventurous travelers may wish to continue south to Nazca (about 450 km, or 280 mi, from Lima) for a look at the giant geometric and zoomorphic drawings that early Peruvians drew on the plains. Known as the Nazca Lines, they are so expansive they can be seen in their entirety only in an aerial view.

Q: Why is Portuguese the main language of Brazil even though Spanish is spoken in most of Latin America?

A: The use of both Portuguese and Spanish in Latin America can be traced directly to early exploration, subsequent settlement, and long-term colonization of the Americas by both Portugal and Spain. Beginning in the late 1400s both countries aggressively pursued exploration and colonization of overseas colonies. To avoid conflict as the process of exploration and colonization accelerated, the two nations turned to the Catholic pontiff to mediate. In 1493 Pope Alexander VI defined a line at approximately longitude 50 degrees west, roughly cutting the continent of South America in half. He decreed that all territories east of this line fell within the Portuguese sphere of influence, while territories to the west fell to Spain.

The resulting Line of Demarcation was established in 1494 under the Treaty of Tordesillas, which was signed by Spain and Portugal. The land to the east of the line corresponds roughly to the present-day nation of Brazil, which the Portuguese explored, colonized, and settled, and where they implanted their culture and customs, including the use of Portuguese. To the west of the line, Spanish colonial authorities held sway, similarly implanting the widespread use of Spanish and establishing a pattern that continues to this day.

Q: How was the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) able to retain power in Mexico for more than 70 years?

A: Although nominally a democracy, Mexico after the revolution of 1910 to 1920 could be more accurately described as a tightly managed one-party state. Elections served only to reaffirm and legitimize the ruling party, the PRI, and had little to do with democratic discourse. The Mexican constitution, which established a highly centralized federal system of governance, placed virtually all power in the executive branch. The legislative branch of government was little more than a rubber stamp to the executive and provided no significant checks on the executive’s power. Similarly, the judicial branch was weak and largely ineffectual.

The PRI successfully co-opted the leadership of all major social movements and economic groups, drawing them into alliances with the governing party, often to the detriment of these groups’ members. The leadership of peasant groups, trade unions, and industrial and commercial federations all aligned themselves with the PRI.

The line between the party organization and the national government was often unclear. Because Mexico lacked adequate fiscal controls and an effective legal framework for a civil service, the PRI was able to build loyalty by offering employment patronage to party faithful, and it used government monies to advance the interests of the party.

Opposition parties did exist, most notably the Partido de Accion Nacional (PAN), but these parties had almost no electoral success until the 1970s. Beginning then, rising political awareness and modest reform initiatives allowed the PAN to begin to compete successfully in some mayoral and gubernatorial races. Additional reforms and political opening in the 1990s permitted more varied political voices to prosper, enabling the PAN candidate, Vicente Fox, to win the national presidential elections in 2000, the first time an opposition party has ever won them.

Q: What can I read to better understand Latin American culture?

A: Wow! That is a tall order because there is so much one might read. One approach would be to read some of the more famous contemporary Latin American authors whose work is published in English translation. Gabriel Garcia Marquez is a Nobel Prize-winning Colombian author who has had a profound effect in Latin American literature and has captured much of the soul of Latin American culture in his works, most notably Cien anos de soledad (1967; One Hundred Years of Solitude, 1970). Peruvian author Mario Vargas Llosa writes in a completely different style but also captures the sense and character of Latin America in his novels. Several of these are available in English: Conversation in the Cathedral (1975), The Green House (1968), and The War of the End of the World (1984). In Mexico, author, diplomat, and intellectual giant Carlos Fuentes has written The Buried Mirror: Reflections of Spain in the New World (1992), The Old Gringo (1985), and The Death of Artemio Cruz (1964).

Another approach is to read books that attempt to summarize or synthesize the spirit of Latin America, Latin Americans, or specific countries or nationalities. Mexico has been the subject of a good number of such books, perhaps because of its proximity to the United States. Although somewhat dated, Many Mexicos (4th ed. 1966) by historian Lesley Byrd Simpson does a superb job of placing the Mexican experience in historical context in a readable, lively manner.

New York Times reporter Alan Riding provides a more contemporary view of Mexico in his excellent and readable book Distant Neighbors: A Portrait of the Mexicans (1984). Patrick Oster, another newspaper reporter, provides a more personal view of the nation’s people in his volume Mexicans: A Personal Portrait of a People (1989). The Brazilians (1995) by Joseph Page provides a wide-ranging overview of Brazil’s diverse population and culture. A fine overview of the entire Latin American region is found in Americas: The Changing Face of Latin America and the Caribbean (1992) by Peter Winn. Alma Guillermoprieto offers an insightful series of vignettes on the region in her collection of essays, originally written for the New Yorker magazine, in The Heart that Bleeds: Latin America Now (1994).

Q: What are some of the highlights of Rio de Janeiro’s Carnival?

A: Perhaps the premier event at Rio’s carnival, the parades held at the Sambodromo, a specially designed street lined with grandstands, feature the city’s most accomplished samba schools parading and competing. The parades are held over a two-day period when the city’s 16 best samba bands, each including as many as 600 to 800 drummers, parade along the length of the Sambodromo (or Sambadrome) for over an hour. A week later, the best bands parade again in a parade of champions. Stiff admission charges characterize events at the Sambodromo.

While the parades at the Sambodromo are extravagant, highly choreographed affairs, more spontaneous neighborhood street parades, or street carnivals, occur throughout the city during most nights of Carnival. There are no admission charges to these parades, which avoid much of the glitz and commercialism that now characterize the Sambodromo activities.

Carnival balls are also wildly popular and occur nightly for about a week before Carnival and for several days after. Although admission is charged to attend these balls, they cater to all social and economic groups and something is available for all budgets.

Hotel rooms are in short supply during the time surrounding Carnival, and visitors should expect to pay accordingly. Similarly restaurants, bars, and other tourist facilities are packed, and prices increase during this period.

Carnival, however, is not just a phenomenon typical of Rio. It is celebrated in many of the other cities along Brazil’s northeastern coast. Many argue it is more enjoyable and indeed perhaps even more authentic to experience Carnival in one of the other cities. Other important carnival celebrations occur in Salvador, Recife, and Olinda.

Q: How safe is travel in various Central American countries? Should I worry about traveling throughout the region alone? What issues or recent events should I be aware of?

A: Traveling in Central America is much like traveling anywhere in the world. You need to be careful, do good research, and do everything reasonably possible to avoid potentially dangerous situations. I have traveled extensively in Central America over the past 25 years, as both a budget traveler and as one with slightly greater financial resources. I have never been robbed or assaulted, or been the victim of any crime during my travels there. However, United States citizens traveling as tourists in the region are regularly robbed and assaulted—and even, in a few instances, murdered—so caution should be the motto of any traveler.

Follow a few basic safety measures. Use a money belt or some similar device to keep your money and other valuables safe and out of view. Do not carry valuables in purses, backpacks, camera bags, or other obvious places. Cameras always attract attention and usually immediately identify you as a tourist. I prefer small cameras that can be kept in a pocket or backpack out of view. Be alert and aware of what is going on around you. Do not wander into neighborhoods where you do not feel comfortable. Finally, if you are confronted by thieves, you should cooperate immediately and relinquish your valuables, since thieves may be armed. Money and valuables can be replaced; your life cannot.

Conditions can vary dramatically among countries and even within a country or within a city. You can get up-to-date information on current conditions in Central American countries by consulting the U.S. Department of State’s Travel Warnings & Consular Information Sheets. You should also review the department’s publication, Tips for Travelers to Central and South America.

Most good travel guides also include sections on countrywide travel dangers and details on local conditions in particular regions and individual cities and towns that are not generally available in the State Department’s publications.

Foreign travel is rewarding and exciting and potential travelers should not be intimidated by possible dangers. Be careful, be thoughtful, and enjoy yourself. I believe that conditions in most countries and places are often no more dangerous than in one’s hometown.

Q: How did Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s political philosophy influence Peru’s Shining Path revolutionary movement?

A: The Shining Path, an extremely violent revolutionary group especially active in Peru during the 1980s and early 1990s, was profoundly influenced by Mao Zedong’s revolutionary and political philosophy. During the 1960s and 1970s several of the group’s leaders visited China, most notably the group’s leader, Abimael Guzman. They toured, studied, and absorbed much of Mao’s conventional revolutionary philosophy, and they applied it to Peru.

Several elements of Mao’s political and revolutionary philosophy figured prominently in the strategy of the Shining Path. In China, Mao had advocated a rural-based revolution, arguing that disrupting the flow of agricultural products to the cities would make it possible to overthrow the established order. Shining Path pursued this strategy in the early 1980s, initiating its revolutionary movement in the province of Ayacucho, an impoverished and remote corner of the Peruvian Andes. The group built a solid power base and gained valuable tactical experience during the first half of the 1980s. By the late 1980s its early successes enabled it to focus on the nation’s major urban centers, and by the early 1990s it held sway over some districts in the national capital, Lima.

Again following Mao’s lead, and perhaps taking a page from China’s Cultural Revolution, the Shining Path argued that a wholesale transformation of Peruvian society was required to save it. Thus it was necessary not only to dismantle the nation’s capitalist economy, but also to reform the entire social order and the mores of society. Shining Path revolutionaries scorned indigenous customs and beliefs just as vehemently as they did those of the capitalist elites in the major urban centers. Where Shining Path did achieve control and was able to impose some semblance of local governance, it quickly alienated local residents as it tried to apply a rigid puritan moral code in addition to forcing them to farm under its direction.

Shining Path never achieved a mass following or even broad support among Peruvians. At the height of the group’s military and political strength, it may have fielded as many as 5,000 armed fighters and perhaps ten times that number of active sympathizers.

Q: What is the nature of Spain’s relationship with its former colonies in Latin America?

A: Much like Great Britain, France, and other European colonial powers, Spain maintains close relations with its former colonies in Latin America.

During the long rule (1939-1975) of the fascist dictator Francisco Franco, Spain maintained extremely close relations with many Latin American countries, many of which were also governed by authoritarian military rulers. (Argentine ruler Juan Domingo Peron, for example, lived in exile in Spain for 18 years after he was overthrown from power in 1955.) Mexico was a significant exception to this rule, and its relations with Spain were decidedly chilly, as tens of thousands of Spaniards who had opposed Franco found political asylum in Mexico.

In recent years, as neoliberal economic reforms have opened Latin America’s markets and investment opportunities have boomed, Spanish firms have moved aggressively into Latin American economies. Spanish entrepreneurs have made major investments in telecommunications in many countries and have invested considerable sums in hotels and other tourist infrastructure in Mexico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and other countries.

Curiously, Spain’s democratic government (established after Franco’s death in 1975) has maintained extremely close relations with Cuba despite the island’s authoritarian form of government. This is because Cuba was a colony of Spain until 1898, when the United States defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War. Even after independence, Cuba remained a major destination for Spanish immigrants, who continued to migrate to the island in substantial numbers into the 1920s. Many Spaniards, especially from northern Spain, still have close relatives living in Cuba.

Q: Hugo Chavez Frias, Venezuela's president, objected to the term “representative democracy” in the democracy resolution passed at the Summit of the Americas. He wanted to replace it with the term “participatory democracy.” What exactly is the difference? What does the outcome of the summit mean?

A: Hugo Chavez is a populist. He is a former army colonel who made an abortive attempt to topple the elected government of Venezuela, failed, and then went into exile. He returned later to take the country by storm—legally, through the ballot box—and become president. He has transformed the country's political and judicial structure. Some say he has dramatically improved it, but others believe he has created a personal fiefdom of the country's political infrastructure.

Some of Chavez's critics have painted him as undemocratic. In part his objection to the use of the term “representative democracy” in the democracy resolution passed at the Summit of the Americas has to do with these criticisms. Chavez feels much of the criticism of his regime comes from the United States and its allies in Latin America who favor the use of this phrase. He is more comfortable with a term like “participatory democracy,” which is vaguer and allows the state to mediate just what participation and democracy are and to draw in 'other' kinds of social, political, and economic groups and interests.

Before the summit Chavez also raised his objections to the term. It is reported that the Caracas daily, El Universal, quoted him as saying, 'Representative democracy doesn't work in these latitudes.'

Politically, Chavez might be described as left-leaning, or perhaps 'kinda socialist.” With his military background, and indeed his outlook on some matters, his government has much in common with the somewhat left-leaning military governments of Juan Velasco Alvarado and Francisco Morales Bermudez in Peru between 1968 and 1980. These governments advanced a kind of participatory development and 'democracy' (without elections) overseen by the state—and the military.

The term “participatory democracy” might have been used to give some political cover to Chavez's Caribbean ally, Cuba, and his 'good old baseball buddy,' Fidel Castro, who was banned from the Summit by its organizers for representing the only undemocratic nation in the Western Hemisphere.

What do the results of the Summit mean? I'd say business as usual. To me the declaration of intent for a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005 signals a steady push toward hemispheric trade integration. We are already well on the way. Here in the United States it is a rare consumer who is not regularly affected by the increased choices available in grocery stores and retail outlets.

However, I think it is unlikely that we will see such a grouping by 2005. Much will depend on the independent but intertwined fortunes of NAFTA and Mercosur, competing trade blocks in North America and South America, respectively. Nevertheless, I suspect that in a decade, some kind of hemispheric trade organization will be in place, although it is unlikely to be fully implemented by then. Rather, I imagine it will be in its initial stages.

Q: Why has the 16th-century Inca emperor Tupac Amaru had such a long-lived legacy, with a modern revolutionary movement in Peru and even a rap singer invoking his name?

A: Tupac Amaru was the last of the Inca emperors. After his ascension to the throne in 1571, Tupac Amaru and his followers vigorously resisted Spanish colonial rule and attempted to maintain the remnants of Inca rule in a remote region of Peru. Spanish colonial authorities captured him and his followers and executed him in Cuzco in 1572. Tupac Amaru’s defiance of Spanish rule, despite overwhelming odds, has inspired revolutionaries and revolutionary groups in Peru and in Latin America. In the 1780s a Peruvian rebel, Jose Gabriel Condorcanqui, adopted the name Tupac Amaru II and led a two-year revolt against the Spanish colonial government. During the 20th century, urban guerrillas in Uruguay named themselves the Tupamaros in the 1970s, and a revolutionary group in Peru named the Movimiento Revolutionario Tupac Amaru (Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement) was active in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The mother of the deceased rapper Tupac Shakur changed his name in infancy as a tribute to the Inca revolutionary.

Q: Ever since Nixon's visit to China, the United States has vigorously moved toward normalizing relations with China despite that country's horrible human rights record. The United States has also been, albeit slowly, trying to normalize relations with Vietnam, a communist country with which it fought a very costly war, sacrificing several thousands of American lives in the process. Why is Cuba, whose human rights record is no worse than China's, being so ostracized and isolated by the United States, when the two countries have not even fought a war?

A: The answer to this question is straightforward. As one of the past speakers of the United States House of Representatives is reported to have repeatedly said, “All politics are local.”

Put quite simply, U.S. policy toward Cuba is largely controlled by the political influence of some members of the expatriate community of Cuban Americans in south Florida. These exiles, many of whom represented the island’s wealthy upper classes and professionals, vehemently oppose any normalization of relations with the island nation until Castro is overthrown. The Cuban National Foundation and Brothers to the Rescue, both based in Miami, are two important organizations that represent this point of view.

However, it must be noted there is an increasingly vocal percentage of the Cuban community (albeit a minority) that does not share these views and advocates dialogue and engagement with the Cuban government.

Because Florida is a large state with a significant block of electoral votes and is very narrowly split between Republicans and Democrats, these Cuban voters can be the swing voters that can either make or break the chances of a presidential aspirant taking Florida’s block of electoral votes. For instance, during the 2000 presidential elections, Al Gore pandered to the Cuban exile community by opposing the policy of the Clinton administration and the Justice Department on the need for the return of Elian Gonzales to Cuba for just this reason.

In contrast to the substantial political clout Cuban Americans exercise, the political power of Chinese and Vietnamese communities in the United States is quite limited. One might also argue that the potential markets in China and Vietnam are too lucrative for U.S. business (or the U.S. government) to ignore, while Cuba’s population of about 10 million is just not big enough to bother with, given the intense opposition of the politically powerful Cuban community.

Q: What are the most significant long-term effects of United States intervention in Central America in the 1980s?

A: One’s answer to this question may have as much to do with one’s political views as anything else. A reasonable way to examine this question is to attempt to address how individuals on opposite ends of the political spectrum might answer it.

U.S. intervention in Central America in the 1980s included tremendous military assistance to El Salvador, Honduras, and to a lesser extent Guatemala, as well as modest economic development aid to these and other countries on the isthmus. It also included the financing of a counterrevolutionary movement in Nicaragua that opposed the Sandinista government formed there in 1979 by the Sandinista revolutionaries, contributing to a long civil war in the country.

Those who supported U.S. government actions in these nations would likely conclude that U.S. intervention prevented Communist-inspired revolutionary takeovers in these countries, saved them for democracy, and prevented these revolutionary movements from spreading to other areas.

On the other hand, many people in the U.S. and throughout Latin America would argue that the U.S. government’s involvement in the region during the 1980s had very negative consequences. These individuals might point to the high cost in civilian lives in countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala, where tens of thousands of civilians died at the hands of the military, paramilitary death squads, and revolutionaries. They might also note the tremendous number of well-documented cases of human-rights abuses, as well as an almost genocidal war against indigenous peoples waged by Guatemala’s military (although U.S. military aid to Guatemala was suspended at various times). They would probably focus on the illegality of U.S. intervention in Nicaragua and the havoc it wreaked on an innocent civilian population, or the militarization of neighboring Honduras as a result of the establishment of U.S. military staging areas there.

Q: Why didn't Mexico experience a communist revolution like Cuba or other Latin American countries in the late 1950s and 1960s? It seems the times were right and the people were sufficiently oppressed and upset, and had the pre-Olympic massacre to act as a fuse. Could it be simply that Mexico sees itself as unique in Latin America, and above all the messy politics around it?

A: Several factors help account for Mexico’s comparative immunity to a communist revolution during the 1950s and 1960s. Perhaps most importantly, Mexico did experience a horrific revolution during the 20th century. Beginning with the fall of its long time dictator, Porfirio Diaz, Mexico was racked by an internal struggle (in 1910 and 1920) that devastated vast portions of the nation and its productive infrastructure and cost the lives of tens of thousands of Mexicans. Competing armies and factions battled over much of the country’s territorial extent during this decade.

In the aftermath of this revolution, a new constitution was promulgated. One of its key components was a massive land reform program that returned large percentages of the Mexican countryside to peasant communities as “ejidos,” communal farms that were farmed by community members and could not be sold. In addition, the constitution asserted the nation’s right to its mineral wealth with a provision that led to the nationalization of foreign-controlled oil companies under the regime of President Cardenas during the 1930s. These provisions and others eliminated many of the sore points that led to the revolution in Cuba in 1959. Cuba’s revolution stemmed from its problem with large numbers of landless peasants and foreign domination of vast sectors of the economy.

Mexico also implemented a unique system of one-party rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (known as the PRI), which increased the involvement of popular sectors, labor unions, and peasant organizations in the governance process. Perhaps more honestly one should say this system co-opted the leadership of these organizations and kept any popular uprising or discontent effectively in check. This system worked very effectively for nearly 80 years, during which time the PRI retained tight control over Mexico’s political processes and economy.

Finally, while the pre-Olympic massacre was a shocking and disturbing event, it largely involved university students and left–wing organizers, and in no way represented a popular uprising against the state.

Appears in

Cuba; Mexico; Brazil; Peru (country); Colombia; Tenochtitlán; Latin America