Fidel Castro Dead at 90

[Meshugger]

 

Because every time a moderate left leaning government was put in power in any Central or South American country, the US would butt in the name of the Truman Doctrine. Pinochet is pretty much the perfect example of that.

 

Not to be (more of) an insufferable ass, but I think you mean the Monroe Doctrine, which predates the explicitly anti-Soviet Truman Doctrine.

 

 

 

I find it interesting that the dichotomy of heads of state in South America has most of the time been a Pinochet or a Castro. Why is that? Why not the US model? Was the weather too hot perhaps?

 

The traditional ruling classes in South America can largely trace their origins to the upper castes of the old Spanish (and Portuguese? I don't know much about that) colonial system. Unlike in the US, you had a small minority of European colonists who ruled over a rigidly stratified society with which, for the most part, they did not intermingle. The independence movements in those countries had little to do with the dignity and rights of native Amerindians and everything to do with creole elites wanting more leeway to do as they pleased without Peninsular meddling and taxation.

 

Left or right trappings were just superficial and cosmetic for these elites, ultimately what mattered was maintaining their privileged status. With a few exceptions, most rulers in South and Central America are of evident European descent, and it's not by coincidence. Reductionist explanation leaving out other factors of course, but as usual, if you want to understand something in history, all you have to do is keep going back...

 

 

That's what i am interested in: How and why. I mean the US was founded by slaveowners who wanted to be free and the time of robber barons is well documented to boot, but still somehow the US put out a framework which resulted in better social mobility and a foundation of a functioning republic all while socialist revolutions seems to pop up in South America. It's not as the ideas of the founding fathers were new to the age either as they borrowed quite a lot from Rome and the Hellenian city states as well.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Cultural differences. Edit: I read it's because when they drop something, they don't say "I dropped it" they say "It fell from me"

Edited December 8, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[213374U]

Edit: Monroe doctrine actually had to do with opposing European colonialism in America.

I'm sure James Monroe would agree. Teddy Roosevelt and others? Not so much.

 

 

 

That's what i am interested in: How and why. I mean the US was founded by slaveowners who wanted to be free and the time of robber barons is well documented to boot, but still somehow the US put out a framework which resulted in better social mobility and a foundation of a functioning republic all while socialist revolutions seems to pop up in South America. It's not as the ideas of the founding fathers were new to the age either as they borrowed quite a lot from Rome and the Hellenian city states as well.

 

The US put out a system that slaveowners wouldn't have only after the country was torn apart in a civil war. And the reasons leading to the war were not only political and ethical, but economic as well.

 

At the same time, you have to remember that Spain, unlike Great Britain, didn't have a long tradition of parliamentarianism. Spanish colonists, unlike their English counterparts didn't establish local assemblies and electoral processes. Socioeconomic arrangements were also different; while in the Thirteen Colonies there was no landed aristocracy to speak of, the Creoles and Peninsulars in Spanish colonies effectively became the landed aristocracy of Latin America thanks to the aforementioned caste system and forced labor schemes which, while formally retaining property of the land for the Crown, granted rights of exploitation of the natives to individuals (encomiendas and repartimientos).

 

Why weren't there social liberal movements in Latin America? Flawed question. There were, but they failed to bring about real change for different reasons. US interference is one of them, but not the only one.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

That's what i am interested in: How and why. I mean the US was founded by slaveowners who wanted to be free and the time of robber barons is well documented to boot, but still somehow the US put out a framework which resulted in better social mobility and a foundation of a functioning republic all while socialist revolutions seems to pop up in South America. It's not as the ideas of the founding fathers were new to the age either as they borrowed quite a lot from Rome and the Hellenian city states as well.

 

 

Apart from the different overall systems as above you also have to consider the effects of those systems. Things like literacy and numeracy or just general education were far higher in North America, and those things tend to be highly advantageous for economic development as your potential Einstein types are less likely to be illiterate or innumerate. Unless a Cuban or Venezuelan or Colombian Einstein was born into a tiny subset of privilege they'd have spent their time cutting sugar cane or harvesting bananas.

 

You tend to get 'socialist revolutions' for two main reasons- there are lots of poor people, and the current system tends to be ratcheted down. The US has the pressure release valve of the electoral system and knowledge that in 4 years you can vote Trump/ Obama/ Bush out. If you have a Pinochet or a Galtieri, they're there long term with no prospect of going, and you potentially have a family history of centuries of grinding poverty as well. You also tend to have literal 1% owning 99% type situations, and virtually no prospect of social mobility unless it's of the radical redistribution kind. You also have the US tending to support the interests of its companies (United Fruit Corp/ Chiquita being the best known) as a matter of policy right up to present day, per the support for the (fairly) recent Honduran Coup.

[Meshugger]

 

Edit: Monroe doctrine actually had to do with opposing European colonialism in America.

I'm sure James Monroe would agree. Teddy Roosevelt and others? Not so much.

 

 

 

That's what i am interested in: How and why. I mean the US was founded by slaveowners who wanted to be free and the time of robber barons is well documented to boot, but still somehow the US put out a framework which resulted in better social mobility and a foundation of a functioning republic all while socialist revolutions seems to pop up in South America. It's not as the ideas of the founding fathers were new to the age either as they borrowed quite a lot from Rome and the Hellenian city states as well.

 

The US put out a system that slaveowners wouldn't have only after the country was torn apart in a civil war. And the reasons leading to the war were not only political and ethical, but economic as well.

 

At the same time, you have to remember that Spain, unlike Great Britain, didn't have a long tradition of parliamentarianism. Spanish colonists, unlike their English counterparts didn't establish local assemblies and electoral processes. Socioeconomic arrangements were also different; while in the Thirteen Colonies there was no landed aristocracy to speak of, the Creoles and Peninsulars in Spanish colonies effectively became the landed aristocracy of Latin America thanks to the aforementioned caste system and forced labor schemes which, while formally retaining property of the land for the Crown, granted rights of exploitation of the natives to individuals (encomiendas and repartimientos).

 

Why weren't there social liberal movements in Latin America? Flawed question. There were, but they failed to bring about real change for different reasons. US interference is one of them, but not the only one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's what i am interested in: How and why. I mean the US was founded by slaveowners who wanted to be free and the time of robber barons is well documented to boot, but still somehow the US put out a framework which resulted in better social mobility and a foundation of a functioning republic all while socialist revolutions seems to pop up in South America. It's not as the ideas of the founding fathers were new to the age either as they borrowed quite a lot from Rome and the Hellenian city states as well.

 

 

Apart from the different overall systems as above you also have to consider the effects of those systems. Things like literacy and numeracy or just general education were far higher in North America, and those things tend to be highly advantageous for economic development as your potential Einstein types are less likely to be illiterate or innumerate. Unless a Cuban or Venezuelan or Colombian Einstein was born into a tiny subset of privilege they'd have spent their time cutting sugar cane or harvesting bananas.

 

You tend to get 'socialist revolutions' for two main reasons- there are lots of poor people, and the current system tends to be ratcheted down. The US has the pressure release valve of the electoral system and knowledge that in 4 years you can vote Trump/ Obama/ Bush out. If you have a Pinochet or a Galtieri, they're there long term with no prospect of going, and you potentially have a family history of centuries of grinding poverty as well. You also tend to have literal 1% owning 99% type situations, and virtually no prospect of social mobility unless it's of the radical redistribution kind. You also have the US tending to support the interests of its companies (United Fruit Corp/ Chiquita being the best known) as a matter of policy right up to present day, per the support for the (fairly) recent Honduran Coup.

 

 

I have a lot to read on the history of South Americas, kudos to both of you.

[Meshugger]

Cultural differences. Edit: I read it's because when they drop something, they don't say "I dropped it" they say "It fell from me"

 

Is that a spanish proverb and is it true?

[213374U]

 

Cultural differences. Edit: I read it's because when they drop something, they don't say "I dropped it" they say "It fell from me"

 

Is that a spanish proverb and is it true?

 

Not a proverb, but yeah, it's true. In Spanish you'd say "se me ha caído" rather than "lo he dejado caer". Responsibility for falling is on the object in question, the damned thing, never on me.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

[Orogun01]

 

 

Cultural differences. Edit: I read it's because when they drop something, they don't say "I dropped it" they say "It fell from me"

 

Is that a spanish proverb and is it true?

 

Not a proverb, but yeah, it's true. In Spanish you'd say "se me ha caído" rather than "lo he dejado caer". Responsibility for falling is on the object in question, the damned thing, never on me.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

 

I remember reading a study about how language creates culture, the based it on aboriginal tribes who had specific wording for cardinal directions and as a result they had better sense of direction. I can't help but feel that is true seeing as how we tend to be more forgiving and subtle than English speaking cultures that have more direct wordings.