The author’s main idea is to explain the geostatic nature and the diplomatic consequences of the pink tide shift. It first starts by dispelling the myth that the pink tide shift happened due to United States neglecting Latin America when the U.S started to focus on the middle east. Instead, the article claims that the U.S. had continued involvement in Latin America and that the pink tide shift is partly a result of resistance to U.S. invasion. The second method is to show how events in Latin America had just as big of an impact as events in the U.S. in creating this political movement.
The author starts by pointing out failings of the theories of neoliberalism and dependency theory. After knocking down the opposition, the author uses the case study of Columbia’s military intervention on Ecuadorian territory as a case study to prove more of his point. He concludes with the idea that much of this political movement was built to deal with the threat of U.S. invasion.
Our group chose the topic of human rights violations against journalists in Latin America. During this pink tide shift, journalism was a major way for those in power to control the historical narrative and a way for those in oppression to make their voices heard. This article demonstrates how these two different sides and what narrative survives can have a lasting effect on history. Many of these rights violations against journalists are done by those who understand the importance of controlling the historical narrative.