It seems reasonable to assume that there has to be significant truth to the idea of the USA intentionally exploiting South American countries, considering how many people believe it, but I'm completely ignorant about the history.
What did the USA do to earn such a reputation? Was it simply easy to use the USA as a scapegoat, or was the CIA really orchestrating the downfall of governments simply for being socialist?
John Coatsworth, former Provost at Columbia University and a leading English-language scholar on the history of US relations with Latin America in the 20th Century, estimates that the United States successfully intervened to change governments in the region 41 times from 1898-1994. (See: https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/book/united-states-interventions)
Others in this sub can surely speak more forcefully on the justification for those interventions, but a common interpretation within the region—and here in the US—is that the interventions were often economic in nature. An example frequently cited is the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954. His government took action that adversely impacted the American-owned United Fruit Company in the country, and many leading American policymakers had a major stake in the health of the company. The CIA, under the direction of the Eisenhower administration and leading Congressional figures, played an active role in shaping and encouraging that coup. This role is not in dispute, not even by the CIA itself, and US efforts were likely pivotal to its success. (See: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol44no5/html/v44i5a03p.htm) (Another good source here is Piero Gliejeses’ Shattered Hope: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691025568/shattered-hope)
The reasons for intervention in each case vary, obviously, and Guatemala is just one example. While these are nuanced and difficult questions (one could make arguments separate from economics as explanatory devices), there is indeed a long history of US intervention in the region. That much is a matter of historical record.
Yes, it is substantially true.
The National Security Archive*, a freedom of information/open government project at George Washington University has FOIA'd and published a great deal of presidential, diplomatic and agency cables and documents that pertain to US posture in South America and Central America.
Among the things these documents show are: Between 1962 and 1964, the Kennedy and Johnson administrations distrusted the 'anti-american' nature of Brazil's Goulart administration and sought to make contacts with Brazilian military to encourage a coup. When the coup came, Johnson gave diplomatic orders and discussed naval deployments to encourage Goulart to give up power and not fight the coup.
Furthermore, it is well established that the CIA was deeply involved in destabilizing the Chilean economy after the election of Salvador Allende in 1970, and played a large role in backing the military coup against Allende in September 1973. The National Security Archive papers add to our understanding by publishing presidential memos of Nixon's meeting with President Medici of Brazil, where the two discussed coordinating US and Brazilian actions to facilitate a coup against Allende.
It is less clear whether the United States had advanced knowledge of the Argentine coup in 1976, but documents do show that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger immediately acted to recognize and support the new junta, including recommending a US public relations firm to clean up the new regime's reputation. Furthermore, as the junta became more established, Kissinger actively sought to block human rights statements that drew attention to repression in Argentina and that would have embarrassed the junta.
So yes, in the 1960s-1980s it is fair to say that US presidents and diplomatic/national security establishment feared that other Latin American countries would follow the lead of Cuba and establish left-wing, Soviet aligned governments. So, the US was very willing to support coups against left wing governments, and took strenuous measures to support right-wing military governments, and downplay the level of human rights abuses these regimes committed.
*the National Security Archive is a project of George Washington University. It is not affiliated with the National Security Council or the National Security Agency.
Can any experts tell me if Empire's Workshop is a good book on this topic? I haven't read it, just wondering if it's reputable.