Search

The purpose of this paper is to trace U.S. imaginaries, representations, and uses made during the cycle of Latin America's centennial celebrations by a number of men of culture, diplomacy, and regional politics who played prominent roles in discussions about how the countries in the subcontinent should position themselves and act toward one another and toward the United States. By analyzing the multiple references and uses of symbols, signs, and other attributes of the Northern nation that circulated between 1910 and 1926 in a series of speeches, conferences, essays, articles, and books -largely unnoticed by the historiography on the subject-, it will be possible to observe how different images of such country were constructed and disseminated in order to promote and legitimize certain political-ideological searches and bets. Contrary to readings that have reduced the Latin American map at the time to the tension between Pan-Americanism and anti-imperialism, this article ultimately aims to make this image more complex by repositioning other uses and meanings around the United States at a particular moment of the continent's history, in which its imperialist expansion encountered a systematic search by Latin American countries to reassert their interests, positions, and national identities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we explore the relations of the Bolivian National Revolution (1952-1964) with the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc (including Cuba) seeking to understand the implications for the structuring of discourses and hegemonic and counter-hegemonic power blocs in the political struggle, and, thus, for the developmentalist approach to planning. Our aim is to shed light on little-studied aspects of the Bolivian National Revolution. Research included revising primary sources (archives of the Bolivian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bolivian and Unites Stats (us) newspapers, technical and scientific documentation from Bolivian, us, and ussr institutions) as well as secondary sources (Bolivian historiography and opinion essays). On this basis, we discuss how, in the process of developing relations with both hegemonic blocs, the US and the ussr, Bolivia ended up complying with the former at the expenses of the latter. We argue that the reasons for this option are not only political but also economic, particularly, the actual content of the ussr development offers. Our analysis reveals that the relations with the ussr bloc played a key role in the self-determination of historically subaltern actors, and subsequent processes / forms of development planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]