So, word of warning before reading this review, I DNFed this book 100 pages in... largely because I felt that, while well-written, the book had fundamental issues that weren't going to get resolved, with just the way the book was structured.
This book is not, as I had hoped, a history of the 20th Century in Latin America. It is, instead, a series of articles written by Eric Hobsbawm in the 60s, largely inserted without any context and seemingly without much actual order to them. It is... an odd idea, for a book. Basically, robbed of any of the surrounding context of the era, the articles aren't really useful as a view into things at the time... and knowing what happened afterwards, tends to make these articles either pointless in hindsight, or borderline laughably idealistic. For example, two chapters early on talk about political violence and the civil war in Colombia, with the author waxing lyrical about the potentials for revolution amongst the peasantry... which does somewhat fall flat when we know the next few decades will usher in an era of narcotics-based ultraviolence.
The author has some quite entrenched political views, and they do impact on my ability to trust his impartiality on certain subjects. He is clearly staunchly leftwing, to the point where the entire book is viewed through the lens of the 'potential for revolution among the peasants' and basically seems like the author is hungering a very classically Marxist idea of global uprisings against the bourgeoise. However, this attitude does make it hard to take the author on trust when talking about things like the violencia in Colombia, where he claims that Liberal and Conservative militias were responsible for horrific violence, but autonomous Communist groups were only responsible for 'armed self defence'.
The author's obsession with the idea of revolution sweeping across Latin America does feel a bit distasteful, as he is ultimately not an actual citizen of Latin America. The vibe does often feel like that of the armchair intellectual, sitting in the UK, preaching that the peasants should throw off their shackles and engage in a potentially bloody revolution that he, of course, would have no stake in. If this were only hinted at occasionally, I wouldn't mind, but almost everything is viewed through this lens, and I can't help coming away from this thinking 'well, isn't that for the so-called peasants to decide, not some guy who has the comfort of knowing he can cross an ocean and go back home?'.
Overall though, the structural issues were my biggest problem here. These articles appear without a modicum of introductory context, so its like listening to half a story where he throws out technical terms, political theory, and the names of groups and individuals as though the reader knows who they are... which of course, they don't because the articles were written in the 60s. It would even help if the dates of the article were at the beginning of the articles, so you've at least got half a chance, but no, for some reason they're saved to the end. These are undoubtedly well-written articles, but to me it was hard to draw any intellectual value from them.