Which event do you think was most beneficial to latin america?

Answer 1

Well, I cerebrate I'm pretty eligible to answer this question, taking into account that i have lived in Venezuela, the Cumulated States, and currently, Colombia. Afore i go on, it must be pointed out that there is no right answer to this question, but here are the facts. First and foremost, it is conspicuous that all of the events verbally expressed above were in America's best interest. Not a revilement, just true. The Monroe doctrine admonished other countries not to intervene in the Americas. Why? Because the Coalesced States wanted more control over the region. It conspicuously was to some advantage for the region since it additionally greatly incremented trade in the underdeveloped nations. The Spanish-American war simply spread us leverage over the region, gaining (if i am not erroneous) territories like the Philippines and Puerto Rico. The Coalesced States DID avail the Panamanians win their independence, but only because Colombia, which ruled over Venezuela as well, was becoming too puissant. The corollary additionally availed to increment trade, since it incremented the chances of return for investors. yet: Presidents cited the Roosevelt Corollary as justification for U.S. intervention in Cuba (1906-1910), Nicaragua (1909-1911, 1912-1925 and 1926-1933), Haiti (1915-1934), and the Dominican Republic (1916-1924). Determinately, the completion of the Panama Canal was a gargantuan step for elongating and amending world trade, but as long as the Coalesced States controlled it, the country that owned the land (panama) was receiving little if not none of the profits from the passageway. In integration, in the 20th century, this imperialism did great harm to south and Central America. The coalesced state placed tyrants into potency, such as Pinochet in Chile, and Noriega in Panama, both of which became sizably voluminous fiascoes for the U.S.