In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Notes Introduction 1. Quijano and Wallerstein, “Americanity as a Concept,” 549. 2. Grandin, “Liberal Traditions,” 69. 3. See J. Park, Latin American Underdevelopment, 5, 198, which chronicles a pattern of “disdain toward the peoples and cultures of Latin America” as well as modernization theory’s model of modernity; Pike, United States and Latin America, argues that the United States has positioned Latin America as the “state of nature” to the United States’ modernity, an oversimplification of the history I will trace here; Streeby, American Sensations, 57–58, reads U.S. imperialist­ discourse in Latin America as “unstable,” but only because the U.S. nation-state was; representations of Mexico, in her reading of popular 1848 war literature, seem to serve as a superstructural cultural fix for these internal contradictions. 4. William McKinley, “Third Annual Message,” 5 Dec. 1899. Gerhard ­Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency .ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29540 (accessed 9 May 2014). Louis Pérez’s work— ­ especially Cuba and the United States, which draws on McKinley’s quotation for its­ subtitle—has been foundational for reading the historical proximity and political interconnection of Cuba and the United States, against the Manichean divides mandated by the Cold War. 5. Eric Lott’s argument about blackface minstrelsy is relevant here. He writes that in white working-class desire for Black cultural forms, a mix of racial and xenophobic animus emanates not only from “age-old racism” but from an “erotic economy of celebration and exploitation.” White enforcement of racial cultural boundaries here are “less a sign of absolute white power and control than of panic, anxiety, terror, and pleasure” (Lott, Love and Theft, 6). 6. Karem, Purloined Islands, 4, 10. 7. See Lowe, Intimacies, 17–18. Lowe uses “intimacy” to mean geographic proximity across seemingly distant imperial and national boundaries and a “heuristic ” for reading the production of modern forms of subjectivity. Her work 218 Notes to Pages 4–8 takes on more expansive geography than mine, but it is nonetheless relevant to my reading of “underdevelopment’s” separation from the United States. ­ Intimacy, she writes, affords a means to examine the separation of “modern spheres of­ social life” from those “that are forgotten, cast as failed or irrelevant because they do not produce ‘value’ legible within modern classifications.” 8. Smith, Uneven Development, 199–203. 9. Nisbet, Social Change, 200–201. 10. Benson, “The Economic Advancement of Under-developed Areas,” in Economic Basis of Peace, 10. 11. Myrdal, Rich Lands and Poor, 7–8. 12. On the term’s revival in the contemporary right, see Landes, Wealth and Poverty of Nations, 5–7; Lawrence Harrison’s use in Underdevelopment Is a State of Mind, 1–17, harkens back to the colonial vocabulary of “backwardness .” As a footnote on p. 17 helpfully explains, “‘development’ and ‘progress’ are used interchangeably in this book.” See also David Brooks, “The­Underlying Tragedy,” New York Times, 14 Jan. 2010; Lawrence ­ Harrison again, “Haiti and the Voodoo Curse,” Wall Street Journal, 5 Feb. 2010, which cites voudoun religion as one of Haiti’s “progress-resistant cultural influences.” Observe the irony of the second article’s title, which invokes the ­ notion of a “curse” in order to criticize another culture’s silly superstitions. On the term’s popularity on the left in the era of dependency theory, see Arndt, Economic Development, 170–71. “Neo-Marxists, in Latin America and elsewhere,” Arndt writes, “thought much more about underdevelopment than about development.” 13. Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, 22–28; Frank, Development of Underdevelopment; Escobar, Encountering Development, 47, echoes Gunder Frank’s usage in writing that for all its work, development has mostly succeeding in developing “a type of underdevelopment that has been, for the most part, politically and technically manageable.” 14. For two critiques of dependency theory from the left, see Laclau, “Feudalism and Capitalism in Latin America”; and Larrain, Theories of ­ Development, who regards it as too abstract and too simplified a model, which “may induce the mistaken belief that capitalism in the centre has finally overcome all its contradictions and that it is only in the peripheral systems that contradictions, and the possibilities of socialism, can be found” (145). 15. Arndt, “Economic Development,” 460, 463. 16. HarryTruman,“InauguralAddress,”20Jan.1949,https://www.trumanlibrary .org/whistlestop/50yr_archive/inagural20jan1949.htm (accessed 8 Apr. 2014). 17. Larrain, Theories of Development, 11, discusses three psychological­ arguments in development literature of the 1960s, like McLelland’s Achieving Society, 11–19, which singles out a...

pdf

Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.