Poor Guatemala...

So it seems to me that Guatemala was just another stepping stone along the road of American imperialism...Ok so we know that.  What was the most prevalent thing for me in Shlesinger's comments was the importance of the 'media' in the coup and the power of the United Fruit Company.  Throughout the days leading up to the fall of Arbenz so much was made of the power of the radio, American publications, and propaganda.  Sadly no one is as adept at using the media to extract results as the good ol' USA.  We can see that capability now and in the events surrounding 9-11.  The construction of terrorists and their threat can be considered a direct result of a Cold War mentality.  I don't think we are aware of the extent to which the American media were complicit in propaganda and continue to be today.  Schlesinger talked of the way in which the Voice of Guatemala radio station intentionally targeted women, soldiers, workers and young people.  To me that sounds like the same audience that many major corporations target in their advertising campaigns.  Which leads me to wonder what percentage of the Cold War was really about economics and what percentage was actually about ideology? So much of what we read about the United Fruit Company and their abuses of so many rights are all because of profit.  How complicit are consumers in what occurred in so many places in Latin America.  It has been said that we like our cheap bananas and coffee and good returns on our stock investments that those prices could possibly been the reason so much violence and human rights violations were permitted.  So much of the chapters we read talked about perceptions in Guatemala during the lead up to the Arbenz overthrow, and how the radio stations and papers (backed by the American government) were able to successfully create a sense of panic and chaos.  I was glad that one of the pieces we read mentioned the resistance and protest that arose from the Americans involvement in Guatemala and elsewhere.  Why is it that there is always more power and money behind acts of exploitation and human rights violations than behind humanity?  The comment was made in the Schlesinger article that, "among the poor, the tradition of political passivity always dictated that they sit back and await events rather than attempt to influence them" (198).  This may have been the case during the 50s in Guatemala, but it seems to me that there is a very alive and active protest movement in Latin America that has a large quota of poor or lower class members.
Another thing that stood out to me in the article was the use of symbolism during the campaign to depose Arbenz.  The United Fruit Company came to represent the USA, pink sunglasses implied communism, and dead mules were used to imply successful army attacks where none had occurred.  I'm not quite finished the article yet but I'm wondering about the involvement of the School of The Americas.  It sounds like they may have had a huge impact in what occurred in Guatemala. I'm going to keep reading.