Velasquez 1 
 
Emmaline Velasquez  
Senior Thesis  
March 24, 2020 
The Pressure of Mining: The Impact of the United States on Political, Social, and Economical 
Climates in Latin America 1960-1980 
One way to examine the relationship between the United States and Latin America is by 
looking at the impact of natural resources. From 1960-1980, mining and natural resources played 
a critical role in the relationship between the United States and Latin America, and it had a 
marked impact on the economic, political, and social spheres. By exploring the primary source 
collections of Robert A. Rivera and Charles Will Wright, it brings to light the importance and 
interconnectedness of all three spheres. By looking at those who worked in the mining industry 
in Latin America, they illustrate that mining and natural resources were a key factor in the 
relationship between the United States and Latin America. The Century of U.S. Capitalism in 
Latin America by Thomas O’Brien, Latin America: A Concise Interpretive History by E. 
Bradford Burns, The United States and Latin America: The New Agenda, an anthology, 
especially help to highlight the different aspects of the relationship between the United States 
and Latin America. The political, economic, and social spheres are influenced by the exploitation 
of natural resources by the United States in Latin America, especially during the period from 
1960-1980 as nationalistic tensions were rising and business interests were changing. This paper 
will discuss the significant role economics played in the relationship between the United States 
and Latin America. Next, the paper will consider Americans who traveled to Latin America with 
business or political interests and how they shaped U.S. policy towards Latin America. Finally, 
the paper will turn to the evolution of popular sentiment in Latin America regarding the 
Velasquez 2 
 
nationalization of industries and the spread of democracy – two issues deeply important to the 
United States.  
Mining was an essential part of the economies of both the U.S. and Latin America. The 
collection of Robert A. Rivera, an American in the mining industry in Latin America, helps bring 
to light the importance of economics. Rivera was a mine engineer, mining geophysicist, and 
mining company executive during the second half of the twentieth century. From 1967-1978, he 
was chief geophysicist for Placer Development, Ltd., where he worked in Canada and Latin 
America. He worked for many different companies which dealt with natural resources, 
improving his knowledge and experience with them. Rivera kept many documents about mines 
in Latin America including topographical maps, information from journals, and documents from 
the Bureau of Public Affairs. One document, as an example of his work, was a topography map 
of a mine in Bolivia titled Mineral del Huyana-Potosí - Minas Carmen Aurora.1 These and other 
such maps in his collection show the many mining industries and the areas they were interested 
in. Rivera kept current knowledge of each country’s natural resources; one article from a 
magazine details a large copper discovery that happened in Bolivia during this time.2 Natural 
resource discoveries in various countries can be found throughout Rivera’s entire collection. A 
document from the Department of State details the types of natural resources in Bolivia. This 
includes their trade during 1975 which was 460.5 million from exports in tin, petroleum, other 
minerals, natural gas, sugar, cotton, and coffee.3 Looking at Rivera’s collection demonstrates the 
keen interest of United States businesses in different natural resources and extracting them from 
Latin America.  
 
1 Topography map, Robert A. Rivera collection, box 40, folder Bolivia, American Heritage Center, University of 
Wyoming. 
2 Rivera collection, magazine titled “Industry in Action” pg. 479.  
3 Rivera collection, document titled “Department of State, August 1976 Bolivia”. 
Velasquez 3 
 
It is important to recognize that the U.S. had other, stronger, business interests in Latin 
America because this will only exemplify in the midst of other business interests, that mining 
was still an important guiding factor in the relationship between the U.S. and Latin America. As 
O’Brien argues in The Century of U.S. Capitalism in Latin America, the U.S. targeted the 
consumer markets in Latin America including pharmaceuticals, the automobile industry, and 
food processing. They invested heavily in manufacturing industries to produce these products, 
skyrocketing the investments in the 1960s, “…U.S. manufacturing investment tripled to over 
$4.5 billion, representing nearly a third of all U.S. corporate capital in Latin America.”4 A host 
of factors contributed to this growth, including rapid urbanization creating a growing consumer 
market, competition in Latin America that encouraged the U.S. to invest, and U.S. government 
programs that promoted foreign investment. This displays the strong interest of the U.S. in Latin 
American affairs, and how important Latin America was in deciding where the U.S. invested. 
Many minerals were extracted and exported out of Latin America, leading international 
businesses to find and exploit opportunities found there. There is a history of periods of 
increased investments between the United States and Latin America. In “The United States and 
Latin America in the Long Run (1800-1945)” by James Dunkerley, one example is from a table 
titled “US Direct and Portfolio Investment in Latin America, 1914 and 1929.” It is shown that 
there is $1.614 million invested in 1914 but in 1929 there is $5.369 million invested in Latin 
America. In 1914, 43.3% of that amount is invested in mining/smelting and 10.2% in oil. In 
1929, those percentages decreased to 22% for mining/smelting and increased to 20.1% in oil.5 
 
4 Thomas F. O’Brien, The Century of U.S. Capitalism in Latin America (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico 
Press, 1999), 143. 
5 James Dunkerley, “The United States and Latin America in the Long Run (1800-1945),” in The United States and 
Latin America: The New Agenda, eds. Victor Bulmer-Thomas and James Dunkerley (Great Britain: Institute of Latin 
American Studies; University of London; Harvard University, 1999), 23.  
Velasquez 4 
 
This shows how there was historically an increased interest in mining and natural resources, and 
how the interests of the U.S. can shift. These percentages are still a substantial portion of the 
investments being made in Latin America. One can see this boom happening again during the 
1960’s-1980’s. In the 1960s, U.S. investment in Latin America increased from $8.3 billion to 
14.7 billion in the 1970s.6 This accounts for the explosion seen during this period.  
Mining and petroleum were the main concerns for U.S. business activity during the first 
half of the twentieth century. The United States and Europe influenced what became popular in 
what countries such as mining tin in Bolivia, guano in Peru, and copper in Chile. These 
influenced world economies and became vital to the economy in these Latin American 
countries.7 As O’Brien explains, “[t]he activity of U.S. enterprises in both these extractive 
industries continued to grow in the 1960’s, but not nearly at the spectacular levels of earlier 
decades.”8 Even with this slowdown, however, mining still provided a large source of income for 
U.S. businesses in Latin America. Part of this decrease in activity was due to the newfound 
interest in petroleum in the Middle East where U.S. businesses could find more opportunities to 
increase their profits. Latin America no longer had that potential. There were weakening world 
prices which was not good incentive for exploration in Latin America. Mining companies were 
also interested in developing minerals in other regions of the world such as Africa.  
Another aversion to Latin America was increased fear of intervention by Latin American 
governments in inhibiting investments by U.S. companies. Such intervention might include 
nationalizing industries and creating policies unfavorable to foreign investors even though the 
 
6 O’Brien, The Century of U.S. Capitalism, 139. 
7 Eul-Soo Pang, “Modern,” in Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture, eds, Jay Kinsbruner and Erick 
D. Langer. (Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2008), Gale Virtual Reference Library, 612-615.  
8 O’Brien, The Century of U.S. Capitalism  ̧147.  
Velasquez 5 
 
U.S. continued to profit from mining in Latin America. 9 Extractive industries represented one of 
the single largest sources of export earnings in individual countries such as Chile. There was 
usually foreign control over these valuable natural resources, and investments tied into mines or 
wells could not be taken out of the country, making them vulnerable. These reasons explained 
why nationalists targeted these extractive industries. Extractive industries influenced how people 
felt because foreign businesses owned them even though they were on Latin American lands. 
The businesses also had economic influence within Latin America because they brought in some 
profits. The extractive companies owned by foreign investors played such a large and detrimental 
role that people wanted more control or even ownership of their minerals and petroleum in Latin 
America. Even though there were nationalization of corporations and industries such as the oil 
industry, there was still a part for U.S. corporations to play in Latin American countries. “Latin 
American governments took control of large-scale U.S. enterprises, particularly in the natural 
resource sector, which had long been symbols of foreign domination,” but these corporations still 
received substantial compensation and there were incentives for investments in other parts of the 
national economy.10 Even so, there was a large disruption in many U.S. enterprises. Many of 
these economic disruptions led to a change in political stances by the U.S. towards Latin 
America, and vice versa.  
It is critical to understand how the U.S. acted, and therefore made policy, towards Latin 
America during this time. The U.S. had looked at Latin America through perspectives of 
communism and American businesses. The U.S. offered their support to Latin American 
countries for the benefits they could receive in return. Americans traveled to Latin America and 
recorded information about Latin America, including how they were treated, how people felt, 
 
9 O’Brien, The Century of U.S. Capitalism  ̧148.  
10 O’Brien, The Century of U.S. Capitalism  ̧156.  
Velasquez 6 
 
and looking at what mining could do for the U.S. Through these people, one can see the feelings 
the U.S. had towards Latin America.  
Charles Will Wright was one person with which to assess how the U.S. viewed Latin 
America politically. Wright was an internationally known mining engineer who, like Rivera, 
traveled throughout Latin America. His experiences there demonstrate how those involved with 
mining viewed Latin American politics and their will to resist communism. From 1928-1935, 
wright was the chief of the mining division of the U.S. Bureau of Mines and chief mineral 
specialist for the U.S. State Department. Wright was the recipient of the American Institute of 
Mining and Metallurgical Engineers’ 1954 Legion of Honor award. He collected many 
documents about mining all over the world including Latin America. He wrote pieces for many 
journals which included a variety of topics such as how different resources were important to the 
United States such as metal. One of his main concerns he addresses in these articles is the role 
mining played in the spread of communism. From his long list of credentials, one can see how 
Wright is an important source because of his long experience in the industry and because of his 
perspective as a U.S. citizen.  
Wright speaks about the influence of communism in Russia and ties it back to Latin 
America. One example is in an article he wrote titled “Metals for Peace.” It talks about the 
importance of metals in different countries especially to the United States and how communism 
is being spread through the trail of resources, “There is also a growing nationalistic tendency in 
under developed countries, and their resistance to foreign control of their mineral wealth is 
having a telling effect on exports to the U.S. Damaging opposition to American interests in these 
countries is being actively promoted by Russian commercial and political agents.”11 While 
 
11 Magazine titled World Affairs, Summer, 1959 pp. 43-47, Charles Will Wright Papers, box 7, folder pamphlets and 
magazines 1909 to March 1963, American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming, pg. 45.  
Velasquez 7 
 
Wright is mostly concerned with Russia, communism also impacted the relationship between 
Latin America and the U.S. Many in the U.S., like Wright, believed that communism was 
spreading among people and industries in Latin America, and this belief affected how the U.S. 
treated Latin America. Wright wanted to combat communism by building up industrialization 
and improving living conditions in under-developed countries that were subject to communist 
propaganda. He also touched upon how combatting communism is often overshadowed by 
political repercussions, and lists Bolivia and Venezuela as examples of places where communists 
caused uprisings.12 The fear of communism was a popular sentiment and by looking at Wright it 
goes to show how these fears extended towards and impacted the relationship between the 
United States and Latin America.  
Wright was also known throughout Latin America. He had influence and proposed his 
and U.S. interests to the people of Latin America. In a newspaper article written about him in 
1961 in The Washington Daily News titled “Mine Expert Urges: Develop Latin Ores,” it talks 
about how the U.S. should have “…early action toward development of Latin America’s mineral 
resources.” The newspaper article continues by discussing how Wright encourages President 
Kennedy’s 10-year plan for an “Alliance of Progress” which he believes will “counter 
communistic influence, help the welfare of the American nations, and strengthen the power of 
the Organization of American States.”13 Wright is concerned with combating communism and 
developing the potential resources that could come out of Latin America to greatly benefit the 
United States. Wright demonstrates that the U.S. in the mining industry were promoting an 
agenda in Latin America that they hoped would both stop the spread of communism and further 
 
12 Wright, “Metals for Peace,” pg. 46. 
13 Newspaper article written April 4, 1961, Charles Will Wright Papers. Includes previous quote from the 
newspaper. 
Velasquez 8 
 
the interests of extractive industries. Wright and others publicly shared their views in national 
news outlets. Although Wright feels that Latin American countries were easily penetrated by 
communism, he also believed that developing a relationship with these countries benefitted the 
United States and turned them away from communism. Even though this is just one perspective 
of an American, it demonstrates the widespread feelings of the U.S. regarding communism and 
the improvement the U.S. wanted in Latin America for their interests in respects to the mining 
industry.  
Wright was not the only one concerned with communism in Latin America. Others 
expressed how the U.S. faced resistance in their fight against communism and reveals some of 
the measures the U.S. took in this battle. In an article titled Khrushchev and Castro – An 
American Headache, it states, “It is obvious, then, that the guerillas in Paraguay are a military 
wing aimed against the United States and American defense measures taken in South America 
against communist attacks and aggression.” The author also mentions successful oil installations 
set up and ran by the United States in partnership with the Venezuelan government and how this, 
“…American operation is so successful that its profits provide the main source of revenue for the 
country’s economy. It is obvious that, here too, the guerilla was is directed against U.S. 
interests.”14 It is easy to see from this document how Americans viewed things through their own 
nation’s perspective and are therefore blind to the damage that the U.S. had caused throughout 
Latin America. The U.S. had their interests at heart, shaping how they reacted to the commotions 
in Latin America against an issue they felt held high importance. This concern for communism 
also shaped what forces the U.S. deployed, as shown from the article. This Paraguay military 
wing is painted as an enemy and because communist uprisings like these were not isolated to just 
 
14 Magazine, Charles Will Wright Collection, box 8, folder Magazine Articles Ja. 1961 to May 1968 and no date 
items. 
Velasquez 9 
 
one country, the reader might draw the conclusion that communism is spreading throughout 
Latin America. This, in turn, might have given some in the U.S. a negative opinion about Latin 
American politics.  
Along with Wright, David Rockefeller, a prominent businessman, was another American 
who traveled to Latin America. In 1965, he was appointed to the new General Advisory Council 
on Foreign Assistance Programs by President Lyndon Johnson, where he worked on foreign aid 
projects to make Latin America more attractive to U.S. businesses. In 1969, Rockefeller travelled 
to Latin America on a fact-finding mission at the request of the President Richard Nixon. There 
was extreme animosity toward the United States that he experienced during this time in Latin 
America. He discussed the issue of the main economic problem; the population was afraid of the 
U.S. private investments taking advantage of people. In a document titled Report on the 
Americas, he stated how he believed people should be educated and informed this would not 
happen and the U.S. would contribute to the areas where they invested.15 This American 
perspective is critical to examine how those interested in business in Latin America acted 
towards the people. The United States continued to ignore the injustices that happened in the 
past. The U.S. believed that private investments from U.S. businesses was the right course of 
action even though it may have not been best for Latin America. Again, this displays U.S. 
sentiments and views towards Latin America. 
One way to demonstrate how the U.S. might react to those opposed to their influence in 
Latin America is to look at how nationalists at the time responded to U.S. presence. There were 
nationalists who wanted to make economic changes and break the hold the U.S. had, “…the 
expropriation of the oil companies’ operations at La Brea y Parinas and Talra was an act of 
 
15 O’Brien, The Century of U.S. Capitalism  ̧141.  
Velasquez 10 
 
national liberation from U.S. corporate domination, especially that of the Rockefellers.”16 The 
U.S. threatened economic retaliation because of these actions, “but the Peruvian generals 
proceeded with a program of drastic economic changes.”17 The U.S. played an important 
economic and political role, which enabled them to cause mishap in Latin America.  
Although these types of responses resonated throughout Latin America, some 
governments still maintained a positive relationship with the U.S. during the 1970s. A Bolivian 
pamphlet declared: “[t]he government of Gen. Banzer has emphasized the friendly ties existing 
between Bolivia and the United States. The United States continues its commitment to assist 
Bolivian efforts to improve its economic and social conditions.”18 The United States also 
provided other support such as military forces, AID’s technical assistance program, loans, and 
the U.S. Information Service to Bolivia during this time. Bolivia was not the only country where 
the U.S. provided help; other countries were also afforded these types of support. In an article 
from the World Affairs journal titled “A New Look at Latin American Relations,” Harold Eugene 
Davis talks about how the United States has a rising interest in Latin America, which has spurred 
the Senate to launch an extensive inquiry into Latin American policy. He discusses how the 
scope of U.S. economic and cultural programs were expanded in Latin America. The U.S. is 
focused on economic development but despite the concern with Latin American economic 
problems, there was little agreement with Latin America about economic policy principles, 
“…which would permit a multilateral approach to economic development.”19 This maintains the 
idea that while there are some negative views towards Latin America, the U.S. is also trying to 
 
16 Charlies Will Wright Collection, box 8, pg. 154.  
17 Charles Will Wright Collection, box 8, pg. 154.  
18 Document titled “Department of State, August 1976 Bolivia.”, Robert A. Rivera collection.  
19 Article titled “A New Look at Latin American Relations” by Harold Eugene Davis in the journal World Affairs, 
Summer, 1959, Charles Will Wright Papers, pg. 48.  
Velasquez 11 
 
support Latin American countries and maintain the relationship through economic factors, one of 
the most important being mining. This kept U.S. interests at the forefront including inhibiting 
communism or keeping business opportunities available.  
Economic and political factors contribute to the understanding of the social side of Latin 
America and popular opinion towards the U.S. from a Latin American perspective during the 
1960s-1980s. This is important to understanding the relationship between the United States and 
Latin America and the role of mining. The U.S. presence influenced how Latin America viewed 
and reacted to the U.S. because they had significant presence in one of their main economic 
factors. To best understand how popular opinion about the United States evolved, and how it 
intersected with the rising nationalist tide of the 1960s-1980s, one must take a longer view and 
consider political changes from the early twentieth century on. Although nationalism gained 
steady support, there existed in Latin America those who supported democracy. Nationalism 
provoked reactions to U.S. involvement, including nationalizing industries or calling for non-
exploitation. In response, the U.S. attempted to advocate for democracy, and a subsequent wave 
of democracy promoted U.S. values more generally.  
Nationalism was a strong feeling that developed slowly throughout Latin American 
history. People banded together with common goals such as economic independence and the 
development of Latin America. Nationalist leaders and adherents promoted change in many 
ways. Architecture was one avenue through which nationalism was spread and expressed. 
Architecture everywhere incorporated and combined more local inspiration and perspectives 
such as art, bright colors, and plants common throughout Latin America. This acted as an 
opposition to European colonialism and focused more to the environment they were living in. 
Velasquez 12 
 
Latin American architects reached prominence and two won the Pritzker Architectural Prize in 
1980 and 1988, Luis Barragán and Oscar Niemeyer.20  
Another avenue was through film. Filmmakers expressed nationalism by focusing on the 
mixture of Indian and European, also called gaucho, which was a clear symbol for national 
identity. In one film where this is demonstrated was made in 1915 by filmmakers Prilidiano 
Puevrredon and Juan Carlos Morel called La Nobelza Gaucha (Gaucho Nobility) which is about 
a sweetheart of a gaucho who is kidnapped but saved by the brave gaucho. This demonstrates the 
struggle to find their national identity within this gaucho idea. This example brings to light the 
struggle Latin Americans had finding their own national identity. In A History of Latin America: 
Volume II by Benjamin Keen, he discusses how film was especially used during the 1960s to, 
“…explore the history and the social and political problems of their nations.”21 The films and 
their producers were able to talk about larger issues not only themselves faced, but many others. 
Film took advantage of a medium that reached many people and opened questions that made 
people think about their Latin American identity.22 
To continue this tradition, Latin American authors used literature as a means to protest 
social and political orders. Keen argues how authors were able to wield their works to push for 
change and to address the problems they found socially and politically. They employed 
techniques such as stream of consciousness, flashbacks, symbolism, and fantasy to speak about 
the larger underlying issues that concerned them.23 One author is Gabriel García Márquez who 
wrote the novel One Hundred Years of Solitude in 1967. This book uses, “…magical imagery 
 
20 E. Bradford Burns, Latin America: A Concise Interpretive History, 6th ed., (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 
1994) 209-211.  
21 Benjamin Keen, A History of Latin America: Volume II Independence to the Present (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 
Company, 1992), 573.  
22 Burns, Latin America, 212. 
23 Keen, A History of Latin America, 571. 
Velasquez 13 
 
and fantasy to depict the violence and horror he sees in Columbian society.”24 Márquez won the 
Nobel literature award in 1982. Through architecture, film, and literary works people were able 
to voice their own concerns about the political and social issues they saw in their own home 
countries. While they saw political and social injustices, the economical injustices greatly 
influenced the thought and opinions of the time. 
To understand the origins of the nationalistic sentiments during the 1960s-1980s and their 
concerns with extractive industries, one must look to the 1930s when attention shifted to 
economic nationalism. Nationalists felt that foreign investors had too much control of their 
resources. These feelings especially arose when their economy, mainly based on export, 
collapsed, “In short, by 1932, Latin America exported 65 percent less than it had in 1929, 
proving once again that foreign trade contributed mightily to the cyclical fluctuations of the Latin 
American economy.”25 When foreign trade seemed to be identified as the issue, nationalists 
demanded that their economy be better expanded and a sense of self dependency be developed. 
The governments helped to ensure new economic policies would be put in place and 
development would happen quickly, giving them control over this movement. The base of the 
nationalist movement would be expanded to include urban working classes and were shown that 
foreign investors contributed to local poverty. Nationalism was an especially compelling 
argument to many. These feelings of economic nationalism continued through to the 1960s.  
Opportunity for U.S. investors created resentment among Latin Americans. The 
economies of Latin America were directly influenced by the U.S. thus propelling feelings of 
nationalism. There was a buildup of nationalistic policies starting in the 1960s, “Between 1959 
and 1973, U.S. investment in Latin America exploded, but so did Latin American opposition to 
 
24 Keen, A History of Latin America, 572. 
25 Burns, Latin America  ̧214.  
Velasquez 14 
 
the ever-expanding American economic and cultural presence.”26 This opposition stems from the 
nationalistic ideas felt throughout Latin America and because the United States was a penetrative 
and financially exploitative force. Despite some increased interest in foreign investors from Latin 
America, the United States still had to address previous social and economic injustice that had 
not yet been given to Latin America. During the late 20th century, Latin Americans again 
questioned the benefits of the mining industry to the national development and the well-being of 
the people. Most notably was how the U.S. received billions of dollars from their businesses in 
Latin America but Latin America in return only received a small amount of the money made in 
comparison. Corporations and the owners of mines became extremely wealthy while the workers 
often toiled for a fraction of what their employers made in dangerous and unhealthy conditions.27 
The people were gaining minimal benefits from resources extracted from their own countries.  
By seeing this relationship and how much power the U.S. had in Latin America, 
nationalists would react in a variety of ways. These reactions included increased criticism of 
foreign economic penetration and attacking the United States. The nationalists wanted to launch 
an attack against the United States because, “…the United States was the largest single investor 
in Latin America. In 1972, the United States had invested over $14 billion in Latin America, 
nearly three-quarters of which was concentrated in minerals, petroleum, and manufacturing 
industries.”28 The United States penetrated and exploited Latin American countries, which fueled 
nationalistic feelings. The Cuban Revolution is one significant example of the advantage taken 
by the U.S. and the subsequent nationalist reaction. Some goals of the Cuban Revolution were to 
limit foreign ownership and oppose U.S. economic control. This worried the U.S. when Cuba 
 
26 O’Brien, The Century of U.S. Capitalism, 138.  
27 “Mining – Latin American Studies – Oxford Bibliographies – Obo.” Accessed May 13, 2019. 
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766581/obo-9780199766581-0016.xml.  
28 Burns, Latin America, 217.  
Velasquez 15 
 
began having success because other countries might have followed in their footsteps. After the 
revolution, this sparked major policy changes towards Latin America during the Kennedy 
administration.29 The Cuban Revolution showed that change would take a long time to 
implement, but also that nationalism could fuel successes in some cases. The Cuban Revolution 
caused the U.S. to feel the resistance against them and did in fact cause change.  
The United States felt opposition to their overwhelming presence also with local 
government resistance. Many governments acted against the U.S. in hopes to achieve their 
nationalistic goals of nationalizing industries and limiting foreign economic power. This 
included, “The Peruvian government in 1968 seized the International Petroleum Company, a 
Jersey Standard subsidiary, and in 1969 expropriated W. R. Grace’s rich sugar estates. In late 
1969, the Bolivian government nationalized Gul Oil’s subsidiary. In mid-1971, Chile 
nationalized the copper industry, taking over the huge operations of Anaconda, Kennecott, and 
Cerro.”30 Nationalism played a critical role in the minds of the people during this period. The 
Secretary-General of the Organization of American States, Galo Plaza, powerfully stated, “One 
of the most powerful forces in Latin America today, and one of the least understood outside the 
region, is the upsurge of economic nationalism.”31 This shows how powerful a sentiment 
nationalism was in taking action against the U.S. This displays too how Latin American 
governments felt misunderstood, and even though the U.S. believed they had the best interests of 
the parties involved, the Latin American governments felt differently.  
One can also learn about the politics and nationalism during the 1960s from Wright. He 
discusses how it is not in U.S. interests to have a nationalism wave. Like with the Cuban 
 
29 Keen, A History of Latin America, 538.  
30 Burns, Latin America, 217. 
31 Burns, Latin America, 217.  
Velasquez 16 
 
Revolution, the U.S. is more concerned with the impacts nationalism will have on U.S. 
investments. Wright comments that, “There is also a growing nationalistic tendency in under-
developed countries, and their resistance to foreign control of their mineral wealth is having a 
telling effect on exports to the U.S. Damaging opposition to American interests in these countries 
is being actively promoted by Russian commercial and political agents.”32 Again, Wright ties 
this back to also the communistic fears. Not only did nationalism threaten the U.S., but the 
susceptibility that Latin American countries faced to both nationalism and communism was 
concerning. The nationalistic tendencies and opposition Wright discuss are directly tied to Latin 
America.  
The main goal of the nationalists was national development. Nationalists wanted to bring 
change and while their attention was at first focused on the past and the, “…potential wealth and 
natural beauty of their land…,” it shifted towards the future.33 This serves as an example of 
nationalizing industries, the power of military overthrows and governments, and the importance 
that extractive industries plays in both of those ideas. They wanted to remove penetrative forces 
such as the United States and lessen their ability to hold dominion over Latin America. As seen 
throughout, nationalism was a powerful feeling among the people, one that contested with the 
United States’ interest and investments. On the other hand, democracy would be supported by 
the U.S. and find its way to the forefront of some minds.  
While nationalism was on the rise among many, there were also democratic sentiments 
cycling through Latin America in the mid-twentieth century. There were those who, after World 
War II, believed that democracy was the best way to move forward and to bring change for the 
better to Latin America. Reality was much different than what people had imagined democracy 
 
32 Magazine titled World Affairs, Summer, 1959, pg. 45, Charles Will Wright Papers.  
33 Burns, Latin America, 218.  
Velasquez 17 
 
could bring and that the idea of democracy was “form without substance.” It seemed for a short 
time that democracy might work. There was a political party in Chile called the Christian 
Democratic Party which called for reform and advocated democratic and evolutionary change. 
Although this party was not successful, these types of groups could be seen throughout all Latin 
America. Democracy needed to be supported and gain momentum as there were many obstacles 
that needed to be overcome, “not least of which were unemployment, underemployment, hunger, 
undernourishment, illiteracy, lethargy, and a legacy of institutions that in no way favored 
democracy.” Although democracy needed this strength and support, democracy was mainly 
supported by the elite and middle class, groups which did not represent most of the population. 
Burns writes, “The privileged groups continued to import their democratic ideology and used it 
for their own rather than their nation’s well-being.”34 Democracy did not have the ability to 
address these jarring problems that the elite and middle class did not face. Nationalism was able 
to speak to many on an emotional level while democracy could only touch a limited group.  
Democracy reached its peak in 1959 when there were only four military governments, a 
record low. This would not last long as governments wanted to implement change and some 
governments found themselves leaning towards a military government. The turn toward 
democracy would quickly turn away, “However, throughout the 1960s, democratic government 
was challenged and the previous trend reversed as much of Latin America returned to military 
rule. In the brief span between 1962-1964, eight countries fell victim to military takeovers.”35 
There is a long history of military being the dominant force in Latin American countries. The 
military are afforded good wages and a good life compared to most people. Even though Latin 
American countries have small militaries and are not involved in any foreign wars, about 25 
 
34 Burns, Latin America, 256.  
35 Burns, Latin America, 257.  
Velasquez 18 
 
percent of many national budgets go to the military. The military, even though small, is also 
capable of reform, “The officers who took control of Peru in 1968 voiced reformist, even 
revolutionary, rhetoric and imposed a sweeping land reform on the nation.”36 The power of the 
military combatted the democratic ideas in Latin America and they took over governments once 
again.  
Along with militaries contributing to the decline of democracy, democracy overall began 
to wane by this period and came to end in many places. In Chile, for example, there was a 
distaste for democracy among the middle class during the latter part of 1973.37 This shows even 
though at first it served middle and upper class, this was no longer true. At the end of this 
democratic wave, democracy could not provide solutions to the issues Latin America was facing 
economically and socially. Despite the decrease in support for democracy, President Nixon 
stated, “The United States has a long political interest in maintaining cooperation with our 
neighbors regardless of their domestic viewpoints. We deal with governments as they are.”  38 
This shows how the U.S. still wanted to keep relations, one could assume for investment and 
manufacturing opportunities, but nonetheless democracy was not the only goal of the U.S. 
Democracy is an important part of Latin American history and important to the impacts it had on 
the relationship between Latin America and the U.S. The United States had the power to 
advocate for and encourage democracy, especially in the face of nationalism.  
Although, there were opposing opinions and actions that took place against nationalism. 
In 1982, many of these nationalistic policies were dismantled throughout most of Latin America 
because of popular protests and an international debt crisis which threatened to destroy 
 
36 Burns, Latin America, 258.  
37 Burns, Latin America, 300. 
38 Burns, Latin America, 258.  
Velasquez 19 
 
economies. Latin American governments began privatizing state corporations and opening major 
natural resources and public utilities to both domestic and foreign private investment. 
Neoliberals gained momentum and wanted to open their economies to the world market, 
encouraging U.S. businesses to rush in and start intense efforts to transform Latin American 
societies.39 Right-wing governments created opportunities for foreign investors, including the 
U.S. For example, they held down wages and redistributed wealth through new economic 
policies to the middle and upper class to increase the size of domestic consumer markets. 
Mining has been vital in the relationship between the United States and Latin America 
because it affected a wide range of economic, political, and social stances. Through the three 
avenues, it demonstrates how vital mining was to each and affected the relationship between the 
United States and Latin America. The economics of mining and natural resources shows the 
interests of the U.S. in Latin America, how they changed, and ultimately how opportunities in 
Latin America grabbed the attention of the U.S. Despite the rising interest in manufacturing, 
mining and natural resources were still important to the U.S. The economic side of mining 
shaped political decisions made by the U.S. Wright shows political concerns of the U.S. 
especially during the Cold War and the fears that the mining interests of the U.S. could suffer. 
Others including Wright contribute perspectives of how the U.S. viewed Latin America and how 
mining influenced their relationship and viewpoint. The relationship was still to be maintained 
but feelings displayed through American show the broader fears and concerns of the U.S. Just as 
the sentiments of the U.S. were changing, so were those of Latin America. Foreign investors and 
their interest in resources and mining in Latin America shaped how feelings of nationalism and 
democracy developed, which was directly influenced by the U.S. Natural resources influenced 
 
39 O’Brien, The Century of U.S. Capitalism¸ 138.  
Velasquez 20 
 
the amount of investments in Latin America, the political sentiments the U.S. took towards Latin 
America, and how the intrusion of U.S. on Latin American natural resources shaped how Latin 
Americans felt from the 1960s to the 1980s towards the U.S. The mining perspective takes 
importance because it helps to explain the trends seen during from 1960-1980. Mining is 
important to recognize especially in the relationship between Latin America and the U.S. 
because it played a critical part in how the U.S. showed interest in Latin America, treated Latin 
America, and accounts for the response of Latin America to the U.S. It allows for broader trends 
to be recognized especially in the current climate as natural resources like oil play such an 
important part in todays economical, political, and social environments.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Velasquez 21 
 
Bibliography  
Primary Sources 
Robert A. Rivera collection, box 40, folder Bolivia, American Heritage Center, University of 
Wyoming.  
Charles Will Wright papers, box 7, folder pamphlets and magazines 1909 to March 1963, 
American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming.  
Secondary Sources 
Bulmer-Thomas, V., and James Dunkerley, eds. The United States and Latin America: The New 
Agenda. Great Britain: Institute of Latin American Studies; The University of London; 
Harvard University, 1999. 
Burns, E. Bradford. Latin America: A Concise Interpretive History. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 
Prentice Hall 1994.  
Keen, Benjamin. A History of Latin America: Volume II Independence to the Present. Boston: 
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992.  
O’ Brien, Thomas F. The Century of U.S. Capitalism in Latin America. Albuquerque: University 
of New Mexico, 1999.  
Pang, Eul-Soo. “Modern.” In Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture, 2nd ed., 
edited by Jay Kinsbruner and Erick D. Langer, 613-616. Vol. 4. Detroit, MI: Charles 
Scribner’s Sons, 2008. Gale Virtual Reference Library. 
http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy.uwyo.edu/apps/doc/CX3078903661/GVRL?u=wylrc_
uwyoming&sid=GVRL&xid=bde80c10.  
Velasquez 22 
 
“Mining – Latin American Studies – Oxford Bibliographies – Obo.” 
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766581/obo-
9780199766581-0016.xml.