Underestimated and Overrun: US Imperialism in Latin America Through the Lens of the United

Fruit Company

Pledge: Bella Francois

Bella Francois

Dr. Mitchell

HIST 403

21 March 2022
 The conflict between the imperialist ventures of large nations and the Latin American

continent had existed long before the United States entered the picture. Some would argue that

this conflicting relationship began in 1492 when Christopher Columbus first stepped foot on

Caribbean soil. Others argue that it took place later, as the European powers expanded their

colonial power. However, this long history of foreign influence led to the involvement of the

United States in Latin America, beginning with colonial merchants and continuing into the

present day with the lasting effects of companies like the United Fruit Company on society.

However, as scholars study this relationship between the capitalist enterprises of the United

States in Latin America, there is disagreement about the degree to which it was beneficial for the

continent as a whole. Through analyzing sources from different periods and perspectives of the

influence of US imperialism in the United States, specifically in terms of the relationship that the

United Fruit company had in countries such as Colombia, it becomes evident that while the

company was at fault for some of the impacts it had on Latin America, the root of the issue was

the idea that Americans inherently believed that Latin Americans were inferior to them and

needed their help and intervention.

This idea is the main theme of the book The Century of US Capitalism in Latin America

by Thomas O'Brien. This book proves an important framework to analyze the influence of

capitalism on Latin American society as it argues that the future actions of US companies in

Latin America were driven by the beliefs of the some of the first businessmen men to enter the

country in what O'Brien calls the "Golden Age" which took place from 1876–1921. The

dominating beliefs that this time were the ideas of progress and Protestantism. The book explains

that "US business leaders who ascribed to these theories also believed that the citizens of

civilized societies could reform and uplift the denizens of barbarian nations. In this manner,
American racist beliefs defined Latin America as a series of backward, largely uncivilized

societies, but capable of advancing to higher levels with US assistance.”1 This same prejudice

drove the later actions of US companies in Latin America, as O’Brien explains in the following

sections of the book, including the periods of “Resistance and Populism,” which took place from

1922–to 1939, “War and Nationalism” (1939–59) and “From Revolution to Neoliberalism”

(1960–99). In the section “Resistance and Populism,” O’Brien details the workers’ reaction to

the US companies attempting to control their lives and work habits by explaining the various

strikes that took place during the time. Most notable were the strikes that took place in the mines

during the early 1900s. O’Brien provides context to the mine workers’ discontentment as the

“Americans treated Mexicans as inferior beings deserving of only low wages and harsh

treatment. Mexican workers also protested against fundamental changes in the workplace

instituted by American corporations in the name of efficiency.” 2 Basically, the American

companies tried to force the Mexican workers to comply with what they considered “American”

standards of work, which led to bloody rebellion such as the strike at William E. Greene’s

Cananea mine in the Mexican state of Sonora, where the company, unable to control the strike,

sent Arizona territorial rangers to suppress the labor uprising. The following periods of “War and

Nationalism” (1939–59) and “From Revolution to Neoliberalism” (1960–99) provided to show

the same themes of the US promoting its own culture and idea in Latin America. For example,

during the period of “War and Nationalism,” the United States took two distinct measures to

promote its ideas in Latin America. First was the use of media in Latin America to promote a

positive image of the United States. In 1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Nelson

Rockefeller, who would later become the governor of New York, to head the new Office of

1
Thomas F. O'Brien, The Century of U.S. Capitalism in Latin America (Albuquerque, NM: University of New
Mexico Press, 1999), 31.
2
Ibid., pp. 78
Inter­American Affairs (OIAA), which was not only supposed to be the center for policy matters

concerning the Latin America but also became a propaganda machine of shorts as they used

newspaper, radios and motion pictures to promote a positive image of the US.3 Second, many

businessmen who had interests in Latin America gained federal positions dealing with

international affairs in the area, which further solidified the idea that the United States used its

government influence to promote its business ventures. For example, John Foster and Allen

Dulles, who had both been attorneys for the United Fruit Company, became Secretary of State

and Director of Central Intelligence during this time.4 This same tactic was also used in private

foundations in Latin America, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, which created social

programs in Latin America to help the people but with an agenda that promoted American ideas.

O'Brien explains that "foundation executives crafted a program of economic and social

engineering designed to achieve capitalist development with a major role assigned to US

corporations in that process."5 These programs again bring up the question of why the United

States decided that Latin America needed its help in the first place. Was it due to their own

superiority complexes, a desire to make money off of the people, or a combination of both of

those factors? Finally, the promotion of American ideas is evident in the final period of this

book, "From Revolution to Neoliberalism" (1960–99). Specifically, this section explains the

influence that advertising had on Latin America and how the advent of television led to Latin

Americans buying Ford cars and drinking Coca-Cola.6 This type of influence of American ideas

on society may seem less obvious than direct government intervention with specific programs,

but it still shaped the society into one that supported American business and, therefore, American

3
Ibid., pp. 101-104
4
Ibid., pp. 104
5
Ibid., pp. 105
6
Ibid., pp. 146
capitalism. This work provides an important framework for the influence of US business in Latin

America, drawing from a variety of sources, including anecdotes from workers, quotes from

political journals, and statistics about the Latin American economy at the time. While the

historical context is detailed and important, there is a lack of information on the US involvement

in Latin America during the 1990s when the book was written. Also, because some time has

passed since then, it is important to compare it with more present-day sources as well.

As discussed in the section "From Revolution to Neoliberalism" in The Century of US

Capitalism in Latin America, the period of the 1970s is an interesting time to draw on when

thinking about US imperialism in Latin America, as there are both overt and covert explains of

US intervention in the area. Specifically, the article "Dependency and Imperialism: The Roots of

Latin American Underdevelopment," written in 1971 by Susanne Bodenheimer, provides a

unique perspective into the popular thinking of the time. First, it is important to consider

Bodenheimer’s political idealogy, as well as the historical context of the time, as these are both

significant factors that influence her opinion in the article. After surveying Susanne

Bodenheimer’s other work, specifically her other articles from the 1970s, such as “The Ideology

of Developmentalism: American Political Science's Paradigm- Surrogate for Latin American

Studies,”7 it becomes clear that she mostly closely aligns her beliefs with Marxism. This is

logical due to her research into the idea of “underdevelopment” and support of dependency

theory which are common concepts in Marxist thinking. In terms of historical context, the United

States was involved in the Vietnam War in the 1970s, a part of the larger Cold War to stop the

spread of communism. The Vietnam War was an example of direct intervention in order to stop

the spread of communism, and this applied to Latin America as well . The United States was

7
Susanne J. Bodenheimer, “The Ideology of Developmentalism: American Political Science's Paradigm-Surrogate
for Latin American Studies,” Berkeley Journal of Sociology 15 (1970): pp. 95-137,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41035171.
heavily involved in the country of Chile and was planning a way to rid the country of the Marxist

president Salvador Allende. He was later killed by a US-backed coup in 1973. Overall, the

political context of the time led scholars like Bodenheimer to question the true motives of the

United States in Latin America. In her article, Bodenheimer identifies the main point that she

believes social scientists have missed when examining the idea of underdevelopment in Latin

America. She explains that "I shall focus here upon the principal distortion underlying all of

these theories: the failure-perhaps the refusal to examine Latin America in terms of its

relationship to the advanced industrial nations, particularly the United States."8 Then in terms of

analyzing this relationship between the United States and Latin America in terms of Latin

America's underdevelopment, she presents the theory that due to the development of the United

States and other world powers, Latin America has become chronically underdeveloped due to

dependency theory. She states that "Dependency means, then, that the development alternatives

open to the dependent nation are defined and limited by its integration into and functions within

the world market."9 By making this statement and as outlined in her work, Bodenheimer argues

that Latin America has experienced underdevelopment due to the presence of US companies in

the Latin American market in which the companies themselves are profitable, but they do little to

promote the well-being of the people of Latin America or the general health of Latin American

economy. She explains the "nature" of these private companies as requiring protection from an

imperialism state, in this case, the United States. The article mentions many ways that the US

government protects its business interests in foreign countries; however, the general theme is that

the different agencies work together to promote foreign policy and government response that will

act in the interest of capitalism. This is where Bodenheimer makes her final point. She explains

8
Susanne Bodenheimer, “Dependency and Imperialism: The Roots of Latin American Underdevelopment,” Politics
& Society 1, no. 3 (June 1, 1971): pp. 327-357, https://doi.org/10.1177/003232927100100303, 329.
9
Ibid., pp. 332
that in this connection, the theories of dependency and imperialism meet. The dependency theory

explains that Latin America's underdevelopment is due to the dominance of a capitalist nation

like the United States that has not allowed for expansion of the region's economy. The

imperialism theory explains how this is implemented through specific actions from the foreign

nation. Therefore, Bodenheimer concludes that "on the basis of the ties between the state and

private interests in the dominant nations, the theory offers an account of American relations with

Latin America, thus converging with the dependency model. Dependency and imperialism are,

thus, two names for one and the same system."10 While this conclusion adequately represents the

thinking of the time, the article itself is quite theoretical, and therefore in order to decide if this

conclusion is valid, it is important to consider if examples from the texts specifically discussing

the United Fruit Company in this review support her theory of dependency. This theory will be

reexamined later in the review in the context of the articles. However, in terms of her theoretical

argument, she does fall short in a way. Her article does not provide data explaining what she

means by underdevelopment in terms of Latin America. It would be helpful to see how the idea

of underdevelopment could be quantified to make it more of a concrete idea rather than just

assuming that Latin America is underdeveloped by looking at the region from an American

perspective.

Another article touching on this topic from the same time period is "Imperialism and

Dependency in Latin America: A View of the New Reality of Multinational Investment," written

by Russell Martin Moore in 1973. Moore agrees with Bodenheimer in that the theory of

dependency is correct and that it has led to underdevelopment in Latin America, but differs in

that he is less critical of the multinational companies and instead believes that it is the job of the

governments of the countries in Latin America to create policies that protect their own interests
10
Ibid., pp. 355
and people while still promoting foreign investment so that they are less dependent on these

companies. Moore believes that many scholars at the time view multinational corporations too

pessimistically and in a one-sided manner. Specifically, he touches on a quote by Stephen

Hymer, in which Hymer explains the issues that multinational corporations can create, such as

creating inequality between the country that the companies are based and the country that

employs low-level workers of the company. The solution that Hymer proposes is governments

should make policies focused on their own growth and less on multinational corporations.

However, Moore argues that "solutions such as those proposed by Hymer, based on the

glorification of the independent nation-state, maybe naively out of tune with more appropriate

means for asserting political control over economic actors which seem to be in step with the

technological realities of our times."11 In words, Moore believes that the way of the future is

being open to international trade rather than protectionist policies, as long as the Latin American

governments do their part to protect their people. He also explains that the obstacles that Latin

American governments face with regard to regulating multinational corporations are due to the

inability of what he calls “developed nations” to “treat multinational corporations as international

organizations rather than as national companies operating internationally. Such an approach

would reduce some of the tension created by multinational corporations with government”12 in

Latin America. This analysis seems almost patronizing, especially with the juxtaposition of

“developed” versus “undeveloped” countries. Also, characterization of these issues as one of

international policy rather the problems with the specfic actions of the company seems too lax as

well. The companies, whether they are national or international, have created damage to and

11
Russell Martin Moore, “Imperialism and Dependency in Latin America: A View of the New Reality of
Multinational Investment,” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 15, no. 1 (February 1973): pp.
21-35, https://doi.org/10.2307/174907, 27.
12
Ibid., pp. 33
issues for the countries in Latin America, and Moore’s characterization of the issues seems too

lenient. In his article Moore does provide examples of how Latin American governments have

taken to protect their people while still promoting foreign investment. His examples include the

inclusion of foreign investment in development programs, an increased willingness on the part of

Latin American governments to change or break off relationships with foreign investors when it

appears that existing relationships have outlived their usefulness, and encouragement of the

creation of indigenous multinational enterprises, and the desire increase the impact of

multinational corporations on local society, while at the same time increasing local input into the

decision-making of the enterprises.13 While Moore believed that there was a place for

multinational corporations in the Latin American economy and is incredibly optimistic about the

steps the governments are taking to protect their people, he does not provide specific examples of

how these steps have been or will be completed, which weakens his argument as there is no

evidence. Also, when examining this writing in a larger context, it is clear that he may have been

overly optimistic about the future of multinational companies and also dismissive of the true

nature of these companies. After his article was written in the time period called "From

Revolution to Neoliberalism," by O'Brien, there was still much more violence and injustice

against the Latin American people by multinational companies, imperialist ventures, and other

interventions by the United States to come,

While neither O'Brien nor Moore go into detail about the later part of the period, O'Brien

calls "From Revolution to Neoliberalism" (1960–99), the article "US Imperialism in Latin

America: Then and Now, Here and There" by Henry Veltmeyer touches on examples of US

Imperialism in Latin America from the 1990s. Specifically, he explains that in the 1990s, "with

the disappearance of the threat of the Soviet Union and international communism, this system of
13
Ibid., pp. 29-31
economic imperialism, based as it was on the hegemony of "democracy and freedom" [...] did

not as much break down as it was eclipsed by the emergence of the "new imperialism" based on

the unilateral projection of military force as a means of securing world domination."14 Veltmeyer

provides an example of this use of military force to create in Paraguay in 1996. During this time,

the United States military received immunity from the government of Paraguay from any laws

that they may break while training the Paraguayan troops in counterinsurgency. While the

Americans were present, they also influenced some of the NGOs in the area to promote ideas

that they supported, such as diverting the poor away from social movements.15 Veltmeyer

provides clear examples in his writing of the ways in which the United States influenced Latin

America across multiple time periods though he chose to emphasize different events than

O’Brien did in his articlem which is useful when looking at US involvement in Latin America as

a whole. Veltmeyer chose to divide his work into periods that focused on the political doctrine of

the United States, as exemplified in the section "The Dynamics of Empire Building in Latin

America." In this section, his work is divided into sections by time period, ranging from

"1945-79 imperialism in an era of state-led capitalist development" to "2000–10 US imperialism

under the Davos Consensus." In contrast, O’Brien focused more on the periods before 1945 and

spent less time on the present day, as his work was focused on providing context to imperialism

in Latin America. Veltmeyer’s section that focuses on the most current history provides

interesting insight into what US imperialism looks like today, which can then be compared with

examples from the past. Veltmeyer explains that by analyzing the relationship between Latin

America and the United States in the 2010s, the current policy idea that "prevailed—and still

prevails—is what the Economist (January 22, 2011: 13) describes as the "Davos Consensus": the

14
Henry Veltmeyer, “US Imperialism in Latin America: Then and Now, Here and There,” Estudios Críticos Del
Desarrollo1, no. 1 (2011): pp. 89-123, https://doi.org/10.35533/ecd.hv, 95.
15
Ibid., pp. 98
belief in the need to boost economic growth with free-market capitalism (pro-growth policies of

"structural reform"—privatization, deregulation, liberalization), and to reduce the incidence of

extreme poverty, via a strategy of enhancing human capital and targeted social expenditures."16

These are the same solutions that have been promoted since Moore's 1973 article, and the same

ideas have been present throughout the struggle between Latin Americans and US imperialism

which shows the continuity of the issue and perhaps the idea that the American solution is not

the correct solution to the issue. As a non-American author who is a professor at the Universidad

Autónoma de Zacatecas in Mexico, perhaps he sees the future differently than Americans trying

to come up with solutions for non-American problems. However, his predictions for the future of

the relationship between the United States and Latin America were grim. He concludes his

article with a somewhat sarcastic tone with a statement on the United States' historical invention

in the area. He explains that if the current strategies of policy fail, "then the US might well return

to its historic policy of direct intervention in Latin American affairs and support for military

coups—this time not as a matter of choice but as a 'last resort.'"17 Here he means that the US will

return to doing what they have always done, using military force as a "last resort" even though it

is indeed not the last resort but rather a preferred tactic.

Now that the idea of US imperialism through capitalism in Latin America has been fully

examined in its theoretical sense, it is important that it is also examined through an example of a

company. Specifically, US imperialism in Latin America is not better exemplified than through

studying the United Fruit company. Specifically, the article "Good Dictator, Bad Dictator: United

Fruit Company and Economic Nationalism in Central American in the Twentieth Century" and

the book Bananas and Business: The United Fruit Company in Colombia, 1899-2000, both by

16
Ibid., pp. 114
17
Ibid., pp. 120
Marcelo Bucheli provide deep insight into the company. First, Bucheli provides an overview of

the company in "Good Dictator, Bad Dictator." He begins the paper with the thesis that the

alliance between United Fruit and the dictators of Latin America "could only survive as long as

the multinational provided the dictators with economic stability for the country. However, when

the multinational proved to be incapable of doing that, the dictators allied with the working class

to confront the multinational and extract higher rents from it."18 He then provides context to the

conflict between the complicated relationship between the United Fruit Company and the people,

giving both historical examples and then examples of how this relationship was solidified into

culture through works of fiction such as Cabbages and Kings by O. Henry, writers Miguel Angel

Asturias' Banana Republic trilogy that included the novels entitled Strong Wind, Green Pope,

and The Eyes of the Interred, Pablo Neruda with his poem "United Fruit Company," and Gabriel

García Márquez with his novel One Hundred Years of Solitude. 19 Bucheli then explains the

factors that led to the United Fruit Company's successful relationship with the dictators and then

the ultimate failure of the relationship during four distinct periods. First, Bucheli explains that at

the beginning of the 20th century, the United Fruit company capitalized on the instability created

by the dictators in Latin America who were constantly fighting with each other and fighting for

the approval of the United States to create a massive empire in Latin America. This empire

​"included plantations, railways, telegraph lines, housing, hospitals, and ports in the producing

areas. Many of these investments were made after getting concessions from local governments

eager to attract foreign capital to modernize their economies."20 Basically, the multinational

companies created infrastructure in Latin America to promote their own interests and make their
18
Bucheli, Marcelo. “Good Dictator, Bad Dictator: United Fruit Company and Economic Nationalism in Central
America in the Twentieth Century.” Research Gate , January 2006.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4811811_Good_Dictator_Bad_Dictator_United_Fruit_Company_and_Eco
nomic_Nationalism_in_Central_American_in_the_Twentieth_Century, 1
19
Ibid., pp. 1
20
Ibid., pp. 2
business run smoothly. This was beneficial for the people of Latin America in some ways, but

the companies did not have the benefit of the people in mind when they created the

infrastructure. Also, this close relationship between the dictators and United Fruit caused the

people to associate them with the atrocities the dictators were committing and gave them a

terrible reputation, in some cases rightfully so. However, after this time of dictatorship began to

wane, so did United Fruit's influence. In the period Bucheli calls "The Era of the "Banana

Republics" and the American "Mare Nostrum" (1900- 1945), it is made clear through specific

examples from countries such as Honduras, Guatemala, Panama, and Costa Rica "the less

democratic that government was, the more inclined it was to accommodate itself to the interests

of the United States and United Fruit. [...] The dictators helped United Fruit's business, and

United Fruit helped them to remain in power, creating a system with little or no social reforms."21

However, a shift took place during the period of Reforms, Nationalism, and Rebellion in

Honduras and Guatemala, 1945-1954, in which more liberal leaders came into power, which led

to the government's interests not being aligned with United Fruit's. This shift in power was due to

the economic instability during World War II that left the people hungry, poor and frustrated

under the dictatorships in their countries. In Honduras, former United Fruit lawyer Manuel

Gálvez came into power, and although many thought he would support United Fruit's interests,

he instead "freed political prisoners, permitted political exiles to return, created the country's first

income tax, health insurance, social security, and an eight-hour day. These actions encouraged

labor unrest in the banana plantations."22 In Guatemala, the transition was much more dramatic.

There were multiple transitions of power after the fall of Ubico in 1944, starting with the

elections of Juan José Arévalo in 1945 and Jacobo Arbenz in 1951, as presidents of Guatemala

21
Ibid., pp. 19
22
Ibid., pp. 20
created liberal policies and sought to control United Fruit's power. However, the United States

viewed Arbenz's actions as president as a "communist threat to the Western hemisphere, and the

Eisenhower administration formed a plan to overthrow Arbenz using some Guatemalan rebel

forces stationed in Honduras."23 They were successful, which curbed the threat against United

Fruit for the time. Finally, during the period of the Cuban Revolution, Alliance for Progress and

Company's Retreat (1954-1974) was when the relationship between the Latin American

governments fell apart. During this time, the United States adopted a “double-edged sword”

policy toward Latin America in the attempt to fight communism. Bucheli explains, “Aware that

poverty made Communism attractive to lower classes, the US government encouraged and

endorsed agrarian reform programs in the region through the recently created Alliance for

Progress. [...] At the same time, the US government supported anti-insurgency policies and

military coups.”24 This was not effective in creating stability as the benefits of the reform

programs were being undermined by the violence. The oil crisis of the 1970s also greatly

impacted Latin America and led to even more instability in the region. It was during this time

that the countries had to adopt more protectionist policies and therefore did not care about

protecting the interests of the United Fruit Company because their interests were not aligned.

Specifically, during this time, the UPEB (Banana Export Countries Union, in its Spanish

acronym) was created in 1974 by Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and Colombia in

order to gain more control over the United Fruit Company and its profits due to the struggling

economy as a result of the oil crisis. This was the beginning of the end of the relationship

between the Latin American governments and the United Fruit company. The United Fruit

Company did protest the formation of the UPEB as well as actions by other governments such as

23
Ibid., pp. 24
24
Ibid., pp. 25-26
Panama, but with no support from the US government, they eventually accepted the policies.

This time period ended with Eli Black, the company's CEO, committing suicide and an

investigation into the corruption in the United Fruit company. Clearly, when the Latin American

countries' interests did not align with United Fruit's, it was detrimental for United Fruit. Bucheli

clearly states this connection, but I find it interesting the connection discussed in this article is

not further discussed in his book. Also, I believe that more primary sources regarding the actual

operations of the company during this time, such as financial records or meeting memos, could

have been helpful when examining the relationship between United Fruit and the governments of

Latin America.

While Bucheli focuses mainly on this relationship in his article, his book Bananas and

Business: The United Fruit Company in Columbia 1899-2000 is a more in-depth critique of the

past scholarship on the United Fruit Company as an organization. He points out four major flaws

of past scholarship and then explains how he will include these perspectives in his writing. He

first points out that scholars "fail to analyze the company as a business enterprise," which is the

main theme of his writing. He chooses to analyze the company's operations and how they

adapted to the changes in Latin America through the 20th century. Specifically, he focuses on

"the dramatic transformation Colombia underwent after the 1930s," which is another point he

believes that scholars have overlooked. He also focuses on how "how the consumer market

outside Latin America affected company decisions." Finally, he uses vital primary resources that

include UFCO's archives in Colombia and unpublished government reports to help explain the

actions of the company further.25 Throughout the chapters, Bucheli paints a dynamic picture of

how to company adapted to different environments in Columbia, such as government unrest and

25
Marcelo Bucheli, Bananas and Business: The United Fruit Company in Columbia, 1899-2000 (New York, NY:
University Press, 2005), 5-6.
then the move from the town of Magdalena, which was entirely focused on banana production, to

the town of Urabá in which banana production was more of a dynamic industry. However, the

most interesting argument posed by Bucheli in this book is one that is in contrast to the theories

of dependency previously mentioned in the articles about US imperialism in Latin America by

O'Brien, Bodenheimer, and Moore. Instead, he argues that "By studying the banana planters in

Colombia, it can be seen that this group was a more than a mere instrument of the foreign

corporation. The entrepreneurs managed to develop their own business when United Fruit left,

which goes against one of the basic assumptions of dependency theory on export enclaves"26

which was that those in export enclaves were so dependent on the companies based that they

would not be able to survive on their own and create their own business once the company left.

He then goes on to argue that dependency theory does not consider the perspectives of

neoclassical economists who see this type of trade as beneficial and explains that "the reason that

Latin America did not develop through foreign trade and foreign investments is because

institutional constraints did not permit market forces to operate freely"27 He would argue, in

contrast to other scholars such as Moore that the Latin American countries should have done less

rather than more to protect themselves from multinational corporations as the free market is what

would lead to development and growth in Latin America. However, it is unclear if this

conclusion is true for the country as a whole when taking into consideration other scholarship on

Latin American dependency theory. While the specific region of Magdalena was successful for a

time after United Fruit company left, the region was not left alone for long, and in fact, Bucheli

even mentions that "In the 1980s, United Brands was again interested in Magdalena (owing to

political problems in Urabá) and quietly returned to the region it had abandoned more than two

26
Ibid., pp. 188
27
Ibid., pp. 188
decades before."28 It is easy to become dependent on something that is a constant presence,

which was the case in terms of the United Fruit Company. Even though this specific region did

survive on its own for 20 years, the issue of dependency and American imperialism is not one

that can only be looked at through a specific case study, rather is a systematic issue that takes

place when companies continue to exploit a region for their own profit, some even acting as if

they care, building hospitals, and creating social programs but as O'Brien mentions, there also

always the agenda of profit. And Bucheli agrees that United Fruit did what it needed to do to

make a profit. He states, "The actions of United Fruit in Columbia and in other Latin American

countries were motivated by one basic reason—to provide a good and secure profit rate to its

investors through the sales of bananas in the United States and Europe"29 Bucheli's analysis of

the United Fruit Company as a business is incredibly detailed and impressive, especially with the

inclusion of his own projections and calculations based on primary sources. However, based on

other scholarship on imperialism and dependency theory, the conclusion that the United Fruit

company did not create a system of dependency on its exports in Latin American countries and

on American intervention is not entirely true. While it may not have been the intention of the

company to create these issues, the intrinsic biases that were held when the company first entered

Latin America that whites were better than the people of Latin America and that the United

States knew best produced a culture in which every aspect of the business of the United Fruit

Company in Latin America was to promote their own profit and success.

Taking all of this into consideration, the works by O'Brien and Bodenhiemer, present the

most compelling cases of the impact of multinational corporations on Latin America. O'Brien’s

book provides important context surrounding the belief of Latin Americans as inferior to white

28
Ibid., pp. 171
29
Ibid., pp. 182
people, which therefore led to the exploitation of the people because it has been engrained since

the two began to interact that the people of Latin America need help from white men. Without

this bias, there would not have been such vast exploitation of the people as they would have been

on equal ground with those was ran the multinational corporations. Bodenheimer’s work presents

a theory on the application of this theory through what she explains as the convergence of the

dependency and imperialism theories. The dependence of Latin American countries on countries

like the United States is due to their imperialist tendencies in which they assert their influence on

the country, giving the people no choice but to depend on them. While I do not believe it was his

intention, Bucheli’s works on the United Fruit Company support Bodenheimer and O’Brien’s

theories. In his book, he argues that the 1928 riots took place because the workers for United

Fruit wanted to be recognized as official employees as they were not treated as such.30 This

clearly shows the bias of the American company against Latin American workers as they were

believed to not be capable of the responsibility of being actual employees of the company that

O’Brien describes. Perhaps it was not Bucheli’s intention to make a moral argument for or

against United Fruit, but by supporting its business practices, he overall portrays them in a good

light, which is contrary to the examples of the mistreatment of United Fruit found in O’Brien’s

work. In terms of Bodenheimer’s argument of dependency and imperialism, Bucheli more

specifically argues against it. However, he does not deny that the United Fruit Company

promoted its own interests in Latin America; in fact his main argument is that they were there to

make a profit. This fact, combined with the lack of evidence that the majority of the towns

created by the United Fruit Company survived and the current knowledge of the struggles Latin

Americans still face, it is clear that multinational companies such as the United Fruit created

30
Marcelo Bucheli, Bananas and Business: The United Fruit Company in Columbia, 1899-2000 (New York, NY:
University Press, 2005), 10.
lasting effects on a population of people who were underestimated and overrun by American

capitalists.
 Bibliography

Bodenheimer, Susanne. “Dependency and Imperialism: The Roots of Latin American

Underdevelopment.” Politics & Society 1, no. 3 (June 1, 1971): 327–57.

https://doi.org/10.1177/003232927100100303.

Bodenheimer, Susanne J. “The Ideology of Developmentalism: American Political Science's

Paradigm-Surrogate for Latin American Studies.” Berkeley Journal of Sociology 15

(1970): 95–137. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41035171.

Bucheli, Marcelo. Bananas and Business: The United Fruit Company in Columbia, 1899-2000.

New York, NY: University Press, 2005.

Bucheli, Marcelo. “Good Dictator, Bad Dictator: United Fruit Company and Economic

Nationalism in Central America in the Twentieth Century.” Research Gate , January

2006.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4811811_Good_Dictator_Bad_Dictator_United

_Fruit_Company_and_Economic_Nationalism_in_Central_American_in_the_Twentieth_

Century.

Chapman, Peter. Bananas: How the United Fruit Company Shaped the World. New York, NY:

Groove Atlantic, 2007.

Moore, Russell Martin. “Imperialism and Dependency in Latin America: A View of the New

Reality of Multinational Investment.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs

15, no. 1 (February 1973): 21–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/174907.

O'Brien, Thomas F. The Century of U.S. Capitalism in Latin America. Albuquerque, NM:

University of New Mexico Press, 1999.

Veltmeyer, Henry. “US Imperialism in Latin America: Then and Now, Here and There.” Estudios

Críticos del Desarrollo 1, no. 1 (2011): 89–123. https://doi.org/10.35533/ecd.hv.