Question
Discuss the influence of neocolonialism in the development of two nations in the Americas between 1865 and 1929.
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans:
Candidates are required to offer a considered and balanced review of the impact of neocolonialism on two countries in the region in the given period. Neocolonialism suggests that while countries achieved nominal political independence, their economies continued to follow models of colonialism. Thus, economic development was based on primary export economies and remained dependent on conditions and policies of countries outside the region.
Indicative content
Economic influence
• It contributed to an export boom in, for example, sugar, coffee and minerals, and it led to the development of cash crop economies in many countries.
• It promoted foreign investment in infrastructure, for example, in railroads and communications.
• In some areas estate values soared, which benefitted large landowners.
• Foreign companies, such as fruit companies, established themselves in many countries, and even low managerial levels were occupied by foreigners.
• Industrial development was still limited.
Political influence
• An amount of political stability was achieved, but managed elections and fraud prevailed.
• In some countries, Mexico, Chile and Argentina for example, the urban middle class began to demand greater political participation.
• The US increased its influence in the region intervening in Cuba, Panama, Mexico and several other Central American and Caribbean countries.
Social influence
• There was internal rural migration and foreign migrations to cities.
• Bureaucracy grew as did the urban middle class.
• Foreign cultural influence could be seen in areas such as education, arts and fashion.
• It could be argued that neocolonialism reinforced social stratification.
• Indigenous populations and peasants saw limited improvement in their lives. Many became landless peasants as a result of the economic policies.
The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.
Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.
Question
Evaluate the impact of “indigenismo” and nativism in Latin America in the period from 1865 to 1929.
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans:
Candidates are required to address “indigenismo” and nativism and appraise their impact on Latin America. Any relevant Latin American region or country/countries will be accepted, and possible choices could be Peru or Mexico. Candidates may choose to approach the question by considering Latin America as a whole.
Indicative content
• “Indigenismo” has a long history in Latin America, but became much stronger in the last half of the 19th century and in the early 20th century.
• “Indigenismo” contributed to new intellectual perspectives that put the indigenous people at the centre of discussion, for example, Mariategui in Peru and/or Vasconcelos in Mexico.
• Responses could focus on land reform, living conditions, income, education, political participation and the cultural experience of indigenous peoples. Often, the experiences of the indigenous peoples were romanticized in literature and art.
• Candidates might indicate that “indigenismo” was paternalistic and was used by the dominant culture to support their own agendas and to control the indigenous population.
• Nativism emerged most strongly in the early 20th century in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru in response to large immigrant populations from Germany, Italy and Japan who did not assimilate.
The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.
Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.
Question
Examine the role of women in one country in the Americas between 1865 and 1929.
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans:
Candidates are required to consider the extent to which there were developments in the role of women in one country throughout the entire period.
Indicative content
• Women in the region entered the labour market as a result of internal migrations (urbanization), to fulfil the increasing demand for workforce or to replace men in their jobs during armed conflicts.
• Despite the influence of liberal ideas, education opportunities for women saw little increase by the turn of the century. With the exception of teaching, professional employment opportunities were also limited as their role in the family took precedence.
• The role of women was determined by their place in society. Upper and middle class women became entrepreneurs, benefactors of charitable organizations or, in some countries, owners of haciendas. Lower class women worked, for example, in agricultural production, domestic service or as shopkeepers.
• In some industries, organized groups led strikes demanding better working conditions and higher salaries and sometimes trade unions were established.
• Although women struggled to change their status, results were limited (for example in the given period, only the US, Canada and Ecuador granted women the right to vote).
• Despite all of the above, a significant number of women opposed change and supported more traditional gender roles.
The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.
Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.
Question
Evaluate the successes and failures of the leadership of either Theodore Roosevelt or Wilfrid Laurier.
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans:
Candidates must demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements of the question and effectively deploy knowledge of the key issue raised by the question: whether or not either man led their respective countries effectively and achieved their goals. Candidates should establish the criteria by which they define success or failure and apply relevant examples.
Indicative content
Roosevelt:
• As President, Roosevelt used the Forest Reserves Act (1891) to set aside 150 million acres as a national reserve. His legacy also included support for expansion of the National Parks.
• He set a precedent by enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) as evidenced in the Northern Securities case and 40 other antitrust actions. His approach was distinguished by attempting to differentiate between “good” and “bad” trusts.
• He supported the Meat Inspection Act and Pure Food and Drug Act (both 1906), which were among the earliest efforts at consumer protection laws.
• Roosevelt sought a “Square Deal” for labour in its relationship with big business as indicated by his support (short of union recognition) for miners in the Anthracite Coal Strike (1902).
• He helped to instigate and support the revolt in Panama, in order to speed the building of the Panama Canal and thus illustrated the willingness of the US to achieve its goals in Latin America through military force.
• Roosevelt asserted a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine to protect Latin American states from European debt-collecting threats. This also established a justification for US intervention in Latin American countries.
• Roosevelt received the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the Russo-Japanese peace agreement.
Laurier:
• Laurier established a policy of compromise in education: he offered some cultural concessions but opposed separate school systems for French-Canadian Catholic minorities, and thus rejected the concept of cultural dualism.
• While committed to advancing the future independence of Canada from Britain, Laurier agreed to have Canada pay the costs of transportation and supplies for those who volunteered to fight in the South African War (1899–1902). This measure was opposed by most French-Canadians.
• In 1903, Laurier supported the construction of two additional Canadian transcontinental railroads and he was criticized for the expansion of the public debt.
• Laurier’s support for the 1910 Naval Service Act and for a free trade agreement with the US angered different elements of his party and led to his fall from power in 1911. However, he remained an effective opposition leader until 1916.
The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.
Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.