Although they lived nearly 100 years apart from each other, José Enrique Rodó and Simón Bolívar had similar ideas about the threat that the United States posed to Latin America. The two men agree on the idea that “the United States… [is] destined by province to plague America with miseries in the name of Freedom,” and that the slightest provocation will unleash the United States’ power (Bolívar 2).  Both writers seem very thouroughly convicned that the United States is almost like a ticking time bomb, just waiting to explode on the peoples and countries of Latin America.

However, the differences in the two men’s ideas comes from their difference in positions. Bolívar is a government official in Venezuela; Rodó is a poet from Uruguay. Because of this Bolívar makes an argument about how to protect his country from a “general conspiracy [of] envy”(Bolívar 2). The idea of envy implies that Bolívar ruled a rich land, one that was incredibly desireable to other countries, one that others would want to take over for selfish reasons. Rodó, on the other hand, talks about how the threat of the United States against Latin America is fueled by fear of “an America de-Latinized of it’s own will, without threat of conquest, and reconstituted in the image and likeness of the North”(Rodó 32). In this, they show the differences of their times; Bolívar existed when the threat of the United States was only that – a threat. In contrast, Rodó grew up during the era of United States Imperialism, and had to deal with all it’s consequences.

Through both primary sources we can see that the relationship between Latin America and the US has not been the best. There is a general understanding through Latin American countries that the United States is simply richer and has more power than they do. The United States has been seen as a bully and an abuser of its power. We can see that with Bolivar’s letter where he states “Can you imagine the opposition that would come from the new American states, and the United States, which seems destined by providence to plague America with misseries in the name of Freedom.” (Pg. 173) We can see that Bolivar knows that America will abuse of its power and use freedom as an excuse to do so. The United States is also seen as an extremely materialistic nation that only cares about its money and power. Rodo wites about this when he calls the United States “The embodiment of Utilitarianism” He believes that in order for the United States to become even richer, they are willing to sacrifice many happiness and the happiness of the rest of the Americas for their own selfish desires.

The articles by Rodo and Bolivar clearly reveal Latin America—United States relationship in the periods that they are written. It is no surprise that there are similar tropes used. Both authors show their concerns over the dominant power of the United States. In Rodo’s article, he describes the United States as a powerful country that is trying to conquest Latin America (Rodo, 1900, p.32). Bolivar agrees when he expresses his worries of the U.S. targetting Colombia and “plague America with miseries” (Bolivar, 1829, p.173).

Despite the similarities found in their stances toward an invasion of Latin America from the United States, Bolivar and Rodo hold different opinions on the way to resist U.S. dominance. While acknowledging the efficiency in American utilitarianism, Rodo believes that it is crucial for Latin Americans to respect and protect their unique culture and heritage from “Americanization” (Rodo, 1900, p.33). On the contrary, Bolivar argues that it is easier to protect Latin America, or at least Colombia, when other stronger countries like England and France are supporting its political decision (Bolivar, 1829, p.173). 

In Pike’s article “Wild People in Wild Lands,” he illustrates the negative stereotypes most Americans hold towards Latin Americans in the 19th century. In order to support his argument, Pike includes quotes from diverse parties from political leaders to travelers. He points out that Latin Americans are often categorized as poor and weak barbarians who are addicted to alcohol and sex. Apart from the lack of understanding of Latin Americans’ culture and traditions, he suggests that the stereotypes Americans created are tools to justify the stripping of Lain Americans’ political powers and properties.

In his article “The Anglo-Saxon and the World’s Future,” Strong shows his belief of the Anglo-Saxons in the United States being the best “race” in the world. He draws from works by famous scholars like Darwin and Adam Smith to support his arguments. He argues that civil liberty and pure spiritual Christianity are the qualities behind the superiority of the Anglo-Saxons. He predicts that the Anglo-Saxons will outnumber other races and finally taking over the world in the future.

In my view, both articles reveal the main reason behind stereotyping—ethnocentrism. While Pike points out that it is ignorance and misunderstanding of other races that allow the creation of negative stereotypes of Latin Americans, Strong clearly stands from an ethnocentric point of view in that he only sees the qualities that Anglo-Saxons have as superior. I think these articles raise our awareness of ethnocentricism and its harmful consequences to both ourselves and other races. It is important for us to get rid of our prejudices and be open to other cultures. In this way, we can truly respect one another.

Both Pike’s Wild People in Wild Lands and Strong’s The Anglo Saxons and the World’s Future elaborate on the use of stereotypes throughout history and in works to demoralize people and things we don’t understand. Both articles look at this aspect from the perspective of Anglo-Saxon’s and how their poor views of Latin Americans has perverted historical views on them as a whole. This can be seen through out the entirety of Strong’s article as his piece reads as homage to Anglo-Saxons and everything they’ve done while simultaneously backhanding Latin Americans and their struggles. Pike’s article helps to serve as a blueprint for where scholars like Strong draw their inspiration and beliefs from. At the end of the day both are summaries of how historical and cultural views of the silent minority can be tainted and smeared because of the use and enforcement of stereotypes due to a lack of awareness.

The main argument of Frederick Pike’s article “Wild People in Wild Lands” is that the use of stereotypes, whether by the opressed or the opressor, leads to a cycle of demonization that becomes normalized in society. Using this idea, Josiah Strong’s piece, “The Anglo-Saxon and the World’s Future” can be seen in a different light. Although the colonial themes of the piece are evident right off the bat, the stereotype of the “nobelest races [the Germans and the Anglo-Saxons, specifically the English, the British Colonists, and the people of the United States]… always [being] lovers of liberty.” Analyzing it through Pike’s idea of stereotypes allows for a fresch glance at old ideas; specifically, the idea of “civilzation” versus “primitiveness” that pervades the history of colonization.

Although the articles at first seem unlinked beyond the idea of sterotypes – Pike’s is about Latin America and Strong’s is about the Anglo-Saxons – they are really just approaching the same problem from different viewpoints, from different times. Pike writes about the issues of stereotyping Latin American peoples after the fact, as someone who sees this practice as wrong. Strong, on the other hand, is writing in the moment, as someone who has fallen prey to these ideas of stereotyping that have put the white man above the Latinx.

Pike’s Wild People in Wild Lands and Strong’s The Anglo-Saxon and the World’s Future both center around very opinionated claims of Anglo-Saxons and the named or unnamed other. In Pike’s case, stereotyping is his focus as he discusses how every group has a set of stereotypes by which they judge other groups of people. He discusses how one group is seen as better, and that this “asymmetrical” relationship provides the ability to the “lesser” group to defame the better. Through the publication of his study, he hopes to show that Latinos have been equally “bigoted, extreme, irrational, and self-serving” in belittling North Americans, as North Americans have been to Latinos. This is an extremely strong statement, and he follows through by providing instances of 19th-century stereotyping that has continued into modern times, and listing the common stereotypes that many Americans hold of Latinos. These include “sexual abandon,” and profuse alcoholism. While citing evidence that these images are not completely unfounded, Pike ends by saying that many Americans have never traveled to Latin America, and therefore, are more likely to have pinned these stereotypes on the Latinos from travel accounts of others, which may or may not be truthful. Strong’s argument focuses more on what creates a successful society, which he claims are the two defining traits of Anglo-Saxon morality: “civil liberty” and “pure ‘spiritual’ Christianity.” He continues by stating that in order to compete with the advancement of Anglo-Saxon society, other societies must adapt and most likely adopt some aspects of Anglo-Saxon societies. Their arguments are not similar in evidence, but rather in the underlying point they make about Latin American societies needing to better themselves by standards set by Anglo-Saxon, or North American (named the “great home of Anglo-Saxons by Strong) population. Pike and Strong’s arguments are quite opinionated in that there is little room for counterargument, and very little, if any, is provided in either piece.