[wat0n]

@wat0n

I never said that we can not fix our problems.

In fact, I said that we are the only ones who will fix our problems, regardless of who caused them.

Right. So why don't we fix them?

I think just blaming colonialism is, in the end, damaging as it allows us a pass to avoid responsibility. And it's also false, given if that were the case no former colonies would be developed and they'd all be more corrupt than they actually are.

[Rancid]

Right. So why don't we fix them?

I think just blaming colonialism is, in the end, damaging as it allows us a pass to avoid responsibility. And it's also false, given if that were the case no former colonies would be developed and they'd all be more corrupt than they actually are.

Agree in that endless blaming of past colonial masters doesn't mean Latin Americans don't have control today.

[Pants-of-dog]

Right. So why don't we fix them?

This question assumes we not fixing, which seems incorrect.

Why do you think we are not fixing anything?

I think just blaming colonialism is, in the end, damaging as it allows us a pass to avoid responsibility.

I never mentioned blame at all.

In fact, I explicitly pointed out that I am deliberately excluding blame from my argument. I did this twice.

I am also not arguing that former colonial and former and ongoing neocolonialists will fix the problems or that their role in causing these problems implies a responsibility to fix our problems.

In fact, I explicitly pointed out that we are the only ones who will end up taking any responsibility. I did this twice.

I hope you understand why I will no longer address these misconceptions.

And it's also false, given if that were the case no former colonies would be developed and they'd all be more corrupt than they actually are.

Only if colonialism operated in the exact same way and with the exact same conditions at all times and places.

This is incorrect, so your defense of colonialism is equally incorrect.

[wat0n]

This question assumes we not fixing, which seems incorrect.

Why do you think we are not fixing anything?

Because we aren't. It doesn't matter what type of political party or government rules, some of the issues don't go away.

For some, they aren't even issues.

Only if colonialism operated in the exact same way and with the exact same conditions at all times and places.

This is incorrect, so your defense of colonialism is equally incorrect.

How was my point a defense of colonialism?

Also, what makes the aforementioned examples different from the other former colonies?

[Pants-of-dog]

Because we aren't. It doesn't matter what type of political party or government rules, some of the issues don't go away.

For some, they aren't even issues.

You seem to have neither logic nor empirical support for your belief.

[wat0n]

You seem to have neither logic nor empirical support for your belief.

Really? I even decided to elaborate on what Bolivia has been doing these last few years - namely, replacing the US with China when it comes to depending on foreign investment.

[Wellsy]

@Wellsy why have the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand been able to become independent actors? This is nonsense. Colonialism didn't stop these countries from becoming developed, and it's about time we stop blaming others for our own failures in Latin America, most of which has been independent for 200 years already.

And what do you think distinguishes those former colonies from the colonization of South America in terms of resource extraction and the establishment of institutions?
Because it's not as if colonialism hasn't deeply scarred those nations still, but was able to be integrated into the West in ways that I do not think are comparable in Latin America with being former Spanish Colonies with a different empire that collapsed, with a different colonial system and institutions. ANd with very different histories in 20th century that its too easy to go they were colonies thus the history of colonialism and the Monroe doctrine of the 19th and 20th century be damned.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

So no Latin Americans anywhere are doing anything to try and fix the problems made by colonialism because Bolivia is accepting Chinese investment. That makes no sense at all.

[wat0n]

And what do you think distinguishes those former colonies from the colonization of South America in terms of resource extraction and the establishment of institutions?
Because it's not as if colonialism hasn't deeply scarred those nations still, but was able to be integrated into the West in ways that I do not think are comparable in Latin America with being former Spanish Colonies with a different empire that collapsed, with a different colonial system and institutions. ANd with very different histories in 20th century that its too easy to go they were colonies thus the history of colonialism and the Monroe doctrine of the 19th and 20th century be damned.

So British colonialism was better than Spanish colonialism? Your own example of India would suggest otherwise.

Monroe doctrine? Several of these examples were and still are in the Commonwealth, and were just as part of it as the Raj.

Besides, the Monroe Doctrine actually shielded the former Spanish colonies from European intervention, given that Europeans would sometimes occupy or fight wars against them when the US was unable to enforce Monroe during the Civil War. France occupied Mexico, and Spain itself fought a war against Peru and Chile at the time, both of which stopped after the Union won and decided to reassert the Doctrine. This wasn't out of nicety but because the US regarded European presence in the continent as a threat.

@wat0n

So no Latin Americans anywhere are doing anything to try and fix the problems made by colonialism because Bolivia is accepting Chinese investment. That makes no sense at all.

Bolivia is just an example, being the case of a left-wing government headed by indigenistas that eventually went back to the old practices.

[minivanburen]

Well folks, America has issues. We all know it does, so, why don't US citizens do something about changing what is wrong in this video?

My theory is simple. They don't change anything because they are too busy trying to survive the system, to get up and work hard on changing the system.

Apathy is going to kill your society. If you don't read about what is going on, you don't get involved for change, you don't know a damn thing about government, politics and economics and you allow some stupid political brainwashing the general public campaign to paralyze you into INACTION.

Other societies have problems galore. But they are there protesting, screaming, pressuring and getting organized.

People get the government they deserve is what I have heard from my Aunt. I told her, but, if they don't like what they are getting how are they going to change it?

Get active. Even if you believe all the stupid lies the Republicans and the Democrat sellouts feed you....get involved. Solve the issues. They are not magically going to go away on their own.

This public service announcement has ended.

The U.S. doesn't "suck at everything." I get that's probably hyperbole, but we should be clear about that at the outset.

In terms of where things have gone wrong in the U.S.: it's a lack of investment in public goods--i.e., education, infrastructure, parks, public transit, public art, and so on. Instead, we've allowed the massive concentration of wealth in the hands of very few. This is what the economist John Kenneth Galbraith referred to as "private opulence and public squalor."

The failure of investment in the American public education system--both K-12 and university--has permitted the festering of conspiracy theories, stagnated economic growth, and burdened an entire generation with unbearable debt.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

So your only evidence is an unsupported example of some vague false equivalency about US and Chinese investments.

This is very poor support for your belief.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

So your only evidence is an unsupported example of some vague false equivalency about US and Chinese investments.

This is very poor support for your belief.

It's not "unsupported". I provided my support, from a left-leaning progressive source if anything

[Tainari88]

The U.S. doesn't "suck at everything." I get that's probably hyperbole, but we should be clear about that at the outset.

In terms of where things have gone wrong in the U.S.: it's a lack of investment in public goods--i.e., education, infrastructure, parks, public transit, public art, and so on. Instead, we've allowed the massive concentration of wealth in the hands of very few. This is what the economist John Kenneth Galbraith referred to as "private opulence and public squalor."

The failure of investment in the American public education system--both K-12 and university--has permitted the festering of conspiracy theories, stagnated economic growth, and burdened an entire generation with unbearable debt.

The yellow highlighted area is where one has to realize the wealth gap inequality is poison. It always has been and always will be.

It is the reason for the majority of rebellions and revolutions within nations happen in human history.

I don't understand why this was not confronted a very long time ago. Once the wages flattened in the early 70s, this should have been tackled and demolished a long time ago. You don't allow that kind of oligarchic behavior to continue unchallenged. It is not good for any society. But? It was not stopped.

Again, did not do enough to stop this at all. Now how is one going to tackle the disparities?

[Tainari88]

And what do you think distinguishes those former colonies from the colonization of South America in terms of resource extraction and the establishment of institutions?
Because it's not as if colonialism hasn't deeply scarred those nations still, but was able to be integrated into the West in ways that I do not think are comparable in Latin America with being former Spanish Colonies with a different empire that collapsed, with a different colonial system and institutions. ANd with very different histories in 20th century that its too easy to go they were colonies thus the history of colonialism and the Monroe doctrine of the 19th and 20th century be damned.

@Wellsy Europe is not a monolith of sameness. Neither is Latin America. No one talks about the Jones Act, the Monroe Doctrine, the Platt amendment, the constant lack of respect that the culture of the USA via Calvinism and Max Weber, Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic committs against societies in Latin America who don't share their value systems. People have a right to differ, to vary, to have different voting patterns and laws, and governing structures. Do we really want Japan, China, South Korea, Singapore, Greece, Italy, Spain, Mexico, Tanzania, South Africa, etc. to all be the SAME. Speaking English, eating at McDonald's and driving SUVs, and living in cookie-cutter suburban condos in their nations? Accept diversity and embrace it. It brings peace to be able to allow differences in everything without IMPOSING your model on the rest of the nations of the world.

I get so tired of people with racist theories about Latin America being poor because of the culture or because they fail to do it the Yankee way. It has nothing to do with culture or failure to emulate the Yankee way.

It has to do with what a system does to societies that don't have guns or money. For example, this is problematic. But in Mexico, they are bombarded with ads about the benefits of Coca-Cola. It is causing mass diabetes in the population. They push dairy products in the Mayan region of Mexico knowing full well that the vast majority of the population has lactose intolerance. Why? Simple. Profits.

Bolivia said no to McDonald's. Why? Too expensive and the Bolivians preferred traditional foods that are not only cheaper but are healthier and they like the traditional Incan-based foods. Not the hamburgers. You can spend a lot of money on the streets of La Paz, Bolivia on ads but in the end? They won't spend.

https://www.kuodatravel.com/bolivian-fo ... of%20sales.

Who is right or wrong in that case? The corporations wanted to hook the consumer in Bolivia. The Bolivians did not go along with it. So? Do you get violent over that crap? No. You pack it in and leave. That is what should happen in political stuff. If the society votes in a free and fair election without manipulations from the elite and the corporate and the banksters....and they want to FORCE it? You will have massive problems.

Limit what is a commercial venue of sales. It should not be about manipulating a public government that is there to serve all of Bolivian, Peruvian, Colombian, Ecuadoran, etc society. Give it up. Don't do it.

[minivanburen]

The yellow highlighted area is where one has to realize the wealth gap inequality is poison. It always has been and always will be.

It is the reason for the majority of rebellions and revolutions within nations happen in human history.

I don't understand why this was not confronted a very long time ago. Once the wages flattened in the early 70s, this should have been tackled and demolished a long time ago. You don't allow that kind of oligarchic behavior to continue unchallenged. It is not good for any society. But? It was not stopped.

Again, did not do enough to stop this at all. Now how is one going to tackle the disparities?

what

[Wellsy]

So British colonialism was better than Spanish colonialism? Your own example of India would suggest otherwise.

Monroe doctrine? Several of these examples were and still are in the Commonwealth, and were just as part of it as the Raj.

Besides, the Monroe Doctrine actually shielded the former Spanish colonies from European intervention, given that Europeans would sometimes occupy or fight wars against them when the US was unable to enforce Monroe during the Civil War. France occupied Mexico, and Spain itself fought a war against Peru and Chile at the time, both of which stopped after the Union won and decided to reassert the Doctrine. This wasn't out of nicety but because the US regarded European presence in the continent as a threat.

The point is to actually look at what occurred in the colonies of each nation. A lot of British colonies of course were brutal to native populations whether, Irish, Indian, Native American and so on.
But you're ignoring settler colonialists and their role in the colonies, and even the development of certain colonies, as even Georgia is quite different than Virginia. Overall I'd say that settler colonialists in British Colonies were not subject to as strict influence from the crown and had a lot of local decision making power and autonomy, much of which assisted in the development of their institutions and economic development compared to the Spanish and French colonies. Spanish colonies began with soldiers and missionaries, compared to convicted criminals and tradesman and such in British colonies.
I'd perhaps mark a distinction of say Australia and much of the Americas as settler colonialism distinct in it's treatment of native population and extraction of wealth than of India although still brutal. But I wish to emphasize the institutional development of the US compared to say Southern Mexico that I take to be have continued the institutional dominina of the Aztecs but then taken over by the Spanish conquistadors and very directly extracted wealth to be sent back to the mother country. Where as the settler colonialism in the US very explicitly took on a different character in part because of the more hands off approach from the crown and the type of settlers.

But the point is that the US established itself as a new power and while the South Americans kicked off their Spanish rulers, they struggled to reform the colonial institutions they inherited which were heavily based on the extraction of wealth, where as in the US there was a great development in local decision making, rendering more democratic institutions and in some places intense suspicion of interference and control, compared to stricter institutions in Latin American colonies.

Big powers fighting over who gets to make you their bitch isn't exactly an endearing sense of protection than that of a mafiosa 'protection' racket protecting their benefits. And the Monroe doctrine of course extended into a lot of intervention, as you say as the US didn't act out of benevolence as no nation does.
We have the banana wars, have the cold war, and even after all that have the international institutions such as the IMF and World Bank prying open desperate economic situations with 'structural adjustment plans'. This doesn't require that many of the politicians and elites in many of latin American countries were corrupt pieces of shit, but part of their instability is an inheritance of the past extractive institutions and the continuation to support such dynamics for economic and political ends. Attempts to change as much lead to such intense interventions or support of domestic coups and such, because it's not beneficial to many who currently benefit from the status quo. A lot easier to pay of a dipshit dictator and have great access than let them try and go their own way and end up like the pariah Cuba.

[Tainari88]

The point is to actually look at what occurred in the colonies of each nation. A lot of British colonies of course were brutal to native populations whether, Irish, Indian, Native American and so on.
But you're ignoring settler colonialists and their role in the colonies, and even the development of certain colonies, as even Georgia is quite different than Virginia. Overall I'd say that settler colonialists in British Colonies were not subject to as strict influence from the crown and had a lot of local decision making power and autonomy, much of which assisted in the development of their institutions and economic development compared to the Spanish and French colonies. Spanish colonies began with soldiers and missionaries, compared to convicted criminals and tradesman and such in British colonies.
I'd perhaps mark a distinction of say Australia and much of the Americas as settler colonialism distinct in it's treatment of native population and extraction of wealth than of India although still brutal. But I wish to emphasize the institutional development of the US compared to say Southern Mexico that I take to be have continued the institutional dominina of the Aztecs but then taken over by the Spanish conquistadors and very directly extracted wealth to be sent back to the mother country. Where as the settler colonialism in the US very explicitly took on a different character in part because of the more hands off approach from the crown and the type of settlers.

But the point is that the US established itself as a new power and while the South Americans kicked off their Spanish rulers, they struggled to reform the colonial institutions they inherited which were heavily based on the extraction of wealth, where as in the US there was a great development in local decision making, rendering more democratic institutions and in some places intense suspicion of interference and control, compared to stricter institutions in Latin American colonies.

Big powers fighting over who gets to make you their bitch isn't exactly an endearing sense of protection than that of a mafiosa 'protection' racket protecting their benefits. And the Monroe doctrine of course extended into a lot of intervention, as you say as the US didn't act out of benevolence as no nation does.
We have the banana wars, have the cold war, and even after all that have the international institutions such as the IMF and World Bank prying open desperate economic situations with 'structural adjustment plans'. This doesn't require that many of the politicians and elites in many of latin American countries were corrupt pieces of shit, but part of their instability is an inheritance of the past extractive institutions and the continuation to support such dynamics for economic and political ends. Attempts to change as much lead to such intense interventions or support of domestic coups and such, because it's not beneficial to many who currently benefit from the status quo. A lot easier to pay of a dipshit dictator and have great access than let them try and go their own way and end up like the pariah Cuba.

The US government doesn't deal with Latin America with a long-term, well thought, and cooperative plan to have mutual benefit. It just obeys narrow financial and geo-strategic interests.

Also a correction Wellsy. The Aztecs were the last rulers of the Valley of Mexico but Southern Mexico is not Aztec at all. It is Mayan and has been Mayan and they still speak the traditional variation of Mayan dialects. The native language of the Aztecs was Nahuatl and it was not something the Mayans of Yucatan for example could understand.

The variations of Indian languages is something rarely studied in the USA. They should. But they don't.

[Mike12]

Just about all I can say for the history book is no one apologized to Japan about the Phillipines or Korea anywhere. Anyone notice this. They don't develop it like they should. McCarthur lands on the Phillipines after Japan, then independence. I guess that's all they got to say about that.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not "unsupported". I provided my support, from a left-leaning progressive source if anything

Note that your source clearly shows that the Bolivian government is investing in many infrastructure projects that are addressing shortcomings caused by a previous lack of development, which was in turn caused (at least in part) by colonialism.

You claimed that we were not fixing it. This source does not support your claim.

Instead, it makes the argument that Chinese involvement in Bolivia has many similarities to US involvement, which is true.

Both the US and the Chinese are larger economies operating from a position of superiority and are exercising this superior position in order to make the situation enrich them more. We call this “capitalism”, and it is the current global economic system. The Chinese, by the way, seem to be winning.

[Wellsy]

The US government doesn't deal with Latin America with a long-term, well thought, and cooperative plan to have mutual benefit. It just obeys narrow financial and geo-strategic interests.

Also a correction Wellsy. The Aztecs were the last rulers of the Valley of Mexico but Southern Mexico is not Aztec at all. It is Mayan and has been Mayan and they still speak the traditional variation of Mayan dialects. The native language of the Aztecs was Nahuatl and it was not something the Mayans of Yucatan for example could understand.

The variations of Indian languages is something rarely studied in the USA. They should. But they don't.

Yes, i looked at a mao again and do see aztec empire wasn’t as large as I thought it was. Was mostly thinking in terms of it not reaching up in northern Mexico and the limited influence of central Mexico continuing under the the spanish.