[QUOTE=Common Soldier;15801902]
Originally Posted by
saxdude
Cherry picked period in history, The Brazilian Military Dictatorship, the Argentinian Dirty War, and the colorado faction of the Paraguayan civil war, were all directly supported by the US and have had lasting effects on the development of all three countries. It's kind of silly to point at a period in history were independant powerful nations waged war at each other and say "See! Without colonial powers they're every bit as bad!" Nevermind that the nations themselves are a direct result of colonialism. [/Quote@]
Contrary to what you claim, Latin America was not paradise on Earth before the US meddle in the affairs. The mess in Venuzuala is not of the US making, and as I said, the Paraguay War of the Triple Alliance which resulted in perhaps half the population of Paraguay being killed wasn't ether. Latin America was full of dictators long before the US was actively involved. I don't like or agree with much of the CIA actions, any more than I agree with the CIA giving it's own personnel LSD without consent or being informed. But I think you are deluding yourself if all or even most of the problems of the Latin American countries would have disappeared if the US had stayed out of its affairs. The US expolitdd maybe these corrupt governments to its own advantage perhaps, but it didn't create them, although it might be guilty as you said in hindering efforts of reforms. The problems of Latin America date back to Spanish and Portuege colonial times nd as I said, these dictators and corrupt government existed before the US was active on the scene. It is not cherry picking to point that out, what you are doing is as much cherry picking as you assert to me. If you are saying that the US should not have gotten invovled they way it did, I will agree, but the problems predates the US active inovlrment. It is not cherry picking to point out the War of the Triple Alliance was a local affair, of which the US was not the cause or invovled. How much h better off Latin America would benefit if the US stay d out of it is impossible to say.
Outside of the wars of independance, there wasn't a period in time were Latin America wasn't actively being interfered with by the USA. Almost every single dictatorship has either been tacitly supported by the USA, or full on supported by the USA or an American supported regime. Even if I decided to lay off Americans entirely, you can find the French, British, and even/specially the Soviets taking some part in steering the way of Latin American politics.
In the grand scheme of things, the war of the Triple Alliance stands as an exception rather than a rule to latin american political relationships.
any more than I agree with the CIA giving it's own personnel LSD without consent or being informed
I would hope so, since what the CIA has done in Latin America is orders of magnitudes worse than giving some of it's workers one of the least adictive and harmful drugs in the world.
The US expolitdd maybe these corrupt governments to its own advantage perhaps, but it didn't create them, although it might be guilty as you said in hindering efforts of reforms
All you're doing is illustrating you're lack of knowledge on Latin American history, which is most unfortunate since it's probably the single most important regional studies subject in America right now, what with the US being entirely responsible for the migratory mess it's in right now.
"Exploiting these corrupt goverments" is tantamount to saying Americans created them. The USA obviously didn't materialize Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Chile, etc. out of thin air, population to subjugate in tow and with a right wing facist dictatorships running the place; In the best of cases they
allow allowed and actively
support supported acts of bribery, lobbying and intimidation from american based corporations, in the worst the US has armed paramilitary groups, ousted democratically elected goverments, defended and financed genocidal regimes, defined economic policies and basically steered latin america into what it is now.
Yeah Latin America has it's own share of the blame but it's hard to argue that the US hasn't gone and made every problem a thousand times worse.
The problems of Latin America date back to Spanish and Portuege colonial times
----------------
Colonism did not create the issues of high infant mortality, lack of literacy and the rest. If you are ok with infant mortality running at 25%, then Africa had no problem. I happen to disagree with you, and in any case, it is these issue that Europeans are blames for. If they are a peblem now, then you can't claim they were not issues before. Just because people might not know any better, that doesn't mean it was there was not problems.
Yeah, you don't solve high infant mortality, lack of literacy and "all the rest", with slavery, genocide, institutional violence, segregation, racism, relocation, arbitrary political boundries and so forth. Like... Yeah, there was high infant mortality in precolonial Africa, so what? We aren't talking about institutional negligence and enormous wealth disparity causing these mortality cases, that's just the life expectancy of pre-industrial agricultural societies, especially with pre-industrial hunter gatherer societies. Ultimately what you're saying is that the european powers came, fixed none of the problems and made everything else actively worse. Now globalism and the upwards curve of technological progress are starting to patch out the issues and you want to say it was thanks to colonialism? Come on.
The Zulus expanded into south Africa in conquest that shed some amount of blood, where the Europeans were not invovled. Africa had its own native empires that rose and fell long before the Europeans were on the scene, and the conquest of these empires were not always peaceful.
Again, so what? What is this absurd line of argument that because most societies partake in violence it means all acts of violence, no matter the scale or context, are irreproachable? Nobody is under the illusion Africa was some kind utopic eden, but there is a magnitude of difference between what the Zulu did in southern Africa to what colonial powers did to the entirety of Africa. The scale is simply incomparable and the effects of one have had larger and longer overarching affects on the lives of the people in the continent than what the other could have ever hoped to achieve.
It like what I read somewhere - stealing from a helpless blind man may be despicable, but it was the man being blind and helpless that allowed one to steal from him...it is quite another thing to claim as you do that they made the man blind and helpless in the first place.
I
Yeah, he was still robbed dude. What kind of point are you trying to make here?
You got it backwards - it was the success of the Europeans in the first place that allowed them to screw people over as you say...
Snip, snap, snop
Yeah that's a pretty fantastical romantic view of european history you're having,
mate. Forgive me if I roll my eyes at the suggestion that the battle of Tours was some instrumental victory in staving off a colonialized Europe? Also the battle of Lechfield was won by the Magyars so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
I find it equally annoying to claim that events centuries in the future were responsible for the success of the Europeans in the past.
Good thing the only one that is claiming that is you.
What I am saying though is that the modern european way of life that Basil is so proud of was financed through the exploitation of the very people he has the gall to
about, not because "newton made the laws of gravity" or because "Gutenburg invented the printing press". But everything from the flow of capital, resources and goods that came from the conquest of the new world, to the cheap or free labour from the exploitation of native americans and africans, to the flow of spices from India, to the selling of Opium to the Chinese, to the privatization of national resources from emerging countries. All of it contributed and now contributes to your comfy way of life.
So it's kind of hard to swallow when a
super duper great not at all anything offensive person like Basil starts going on about how great colonialism was and how stupid these black and brown people have been at managing their own countries, LOL.