Response Paper to “Harvest of Empire” documentary
Harvest of Empire is a documentary with a clear purpose: to educate about the reality of Latino
migration to the United States. The film narrates the historical context behind several countries.
These countries comprise most of the Latino population in the U.S.: Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba,
Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. In the case of Mexico, Puerto
Rico, and Cuba, the documentary reflects that the U.S.’s expansionist foreign policies directly
contributed to the shrinking of their economies. For the other countries listed, it had to do with
American support for governments that were repressive and, in some cases, dictatorships that
committed severe human rights violations, which made those countries dangerous places to live.
The documentary challenges the perception that Latino immigration to the United States was a
choice. Instead, it was more of a necessity, a result of a society plagued by injustice and
hardship, indirectly caused by the foreign policies of the United States. The film is based on a
book and is narrated in English during a time when illegal immigrants were objects of
discrimination and hate.
The documentary gives a glimpse of the history that we don’t usually learn in school and that is
directly related to the migrant crisis in the United States. Most countries in Central and South
America, as well as Mexico in North America, are developing nations whose resources were
decimated due to colonial regimes. Later, the United States intervened, either in their
independence wars with colonial powers (Puerto Rico and Cuba), taking parts of their land
during its expansion (Mexico), or backing governments that, despite not being the democratic
alternatives for the country, were the best choice for the U.S interests. One part that impacted me
deeply was the section where the narrator explained how the United States took over Mexican
land, and the people living there didn’t cross the border; the border crossed them. The approach
of utilizing personal narratives adds depth to the historical facts by making them personable. It
shows that those labeled as illegal aliens are people who just want to live in peace or who are
trying to give their children an environment where they are not in danger of being tortured for
opposing the government’s actions. As the documentary says, there are no illegal human beings.
In the comment section of the documentary posted on YouTube, one person argues that Haiti is
also part of Latin America, and its history is similar to the other countries in the film. This is a
valid argument and highlights a potential shortcoming of the documentary, as well as the broader
Latino community, in terms of racial attitudes. Excluding Haiti aligns with a larger pattern of
ignoring Afro-Latino experiences in the discourse on Latin American migration. This reflects
how racial biases can shape whose stories are told and whose are left out, a problem that needs
addressing in both media representation and public narratives. Overall, it is a powerful source of
education that can help fight against the hatred that we face in today’s USA and is very relevant
for the near future with Trump’s promises of mass deportation.
After watching this documentary, and as a Latino who migrated to the United States, I learned
pieces of history about the rest of Latin America that I didn’t know. I wonder if someday this
type of material could be taught in schools all over the continent, especially in the United States,
where the anti-immigration sentiment comes from fear and ignorance. The film also raises the
question of whether the solution to the immigration crisis could be addressed by supporting the
economy of the countries of origin of migrants. Maybe assisting in the construction of
Response Paper to “Harvest of Empire” documentary
democratic governments rather than puppet régimes that serve the economic interests of foreign
powers and companies.