free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

spsmith · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 8

It seemed to me that Johnson had negative preconceived notions about the people of Latin America and let them influence his decisions with foreign policy there. Instead of negotiating with the countries, he would use the CIA or military force to gain US control of the area or install a coup that would support the US economically and keep any communist movements safely out of the way. He demonstrated this most in Brazil, Panama, and the Dominican Republic. Compared with Kennedy, Johnson’s way of looking at Latin America was far more direct but also more immoral and sneaky.

To answer Boram’s question, I think that Johnson started letting more immigrants in because they were doing a lot of work for less money than they would have to pay US citizens.

My question is the same a Helen’s, what is the Foco theory?

wquinn · Joined: 24 Nov 2009 Posts: 15 Location: undisclosed, MA.

Johnson might or might not have been a change in U.S. politics, but the reading definitely made him seem more blatant in his actions against Latin American goverment.
I wonder if he was really trying to keep latin American countries down, or if he really thought he was fighting communism. These interferences seem to be against that country rather then any soviet action.
Maybe Johnson just wanted to keep Latin American nations from growing, because anything big enough to rival the U.S. was a threat, and anythings small was at least out of the way. It talked about how brazil had enough resources to become a thriving nation, and if panama had control of the canal, it would have put them on the political map as well. I think the lesson we can learn here is that countries trying to grow should expect some opposition, whether you're communist or not.

Free Forum