Gletkin wrote:If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say perceived anti-Mexican attitudes due to American anti-immigrant sentiment might play a role (Mexico's own hardline stance against illegal immigrants...even fellow Hispanics...notwithstanding).
Maybe the drug war too. It's America's voracious appetite for drugs that make the crime syndicates so wealthy and powerful, so maybe Mexicans blame Americans for that too.
Yes, there is all of that too. But my point was simply that Mexican-American relations were shaky since the beginning. The immigration issue and the drug war are just part of a bigger picture.
But then I wonder if Colombians feel the same way.....they don't seem to be part of this chart.
A quick search on Google showed no results about opinion polls on anti-Americanism in Colombia. But I have a feeling Colombians are much more pro-Americans than anyone else in the continent.
Smertios wrote:That is surprising given past US relations with those countries' military juntas.
I know some Brazilians believe the US had a hand in Goulart's overthrow.
Very few people believe that. We all know that US ships were instructed to support the military in case the coup went south (the so called "Operation Brother Sam"). But that was never necessary, since the whole coup went well.
What the left here usually try to ignore, though, is the fact that the coup was actually supported by the people. João Goulart (or Jango, as we call him) was never elected president. He was elected vice-president (back then the election was by separate ballots), in a very disputed election. Only about 300,000 votes in difference from the second candidate. He only assumed the presidency because the elected president, Jânio Quadros, resigned in 1961. But he was highly unpopular, since the population was catholic and quite conservative. Soon the so called "Maches of the Family with God for Liberty" started. Thousand, if not millions of people took part, protesting against Jango's government. It was obvious the government would be overthrown.
When the coup happened, in 1964, the people were quite supportive. There were celebrations in the street, and the new president (Castelo Branco) was quite popular, as well. And he was part of the non-oppressive wing of the military, who simply wanted to pass the power to non-communist civilians. The popular opinion on the military regime only started to change when Costa e Silva became president, in 1967, and all the oppression started.
So the coup itself was actually not viewed as something bad at first.
I think initially Chile was a lot like Argentina, wanting to preserve ties to both sides.
Eventually though I think they finally broke neutrality and joined the Allies.
No, I mean regarding their relations with the US.
Quantum wrote:You do realise that these countries have been relatively poor for a long time? I could easily say Austria and Switzerland as examples of successful republics. Having a republic or monarchy has little bearing on HDI, it's merely a coincidence. Human capital, geography, rule of law are far more important factors. Swaziland and Lesotho will still suck regardless of their monarchy.
Actually, no, Portugal was doing quite well, economically, before 1910. That's one of the main arguments used by monarchists over there. Basically, Portugal saw a huge decline in their economic power between the 17th and 19th centuries, because industrialized countries were starting to rise, and the Portuguese Empire was essentially agricultural. With the loss of Brazil, things got even worse. After the constitutional monarchy came, in 1834, Portugal began a huge process of economic transformation. Land that once belonged to the Church and aristocracy was sold, to become new farms and industries. And the economy was growing well. Things only started to change bac to the worse by the end of the monarchic period. And then the republic came, and the bad economic policies of the late monarchy became even worse. The country saw a lot of hyperinflation, growing fiscal deficit etc. In 10 years, the cost of living in the country rose to 30 times of what it was.
If you compare the case of Portugal with Sweden, you'll see the exact opposite thing happening. Sweden had been a huge agricultural economy through the entire 19th century, with a mild economy. Then, starting in 1890, they saw a huge wave of industrialization, going up to the 1950s, and the country became what it is today.
Swaziland is an African absolute monarchy and Lesotho was a military junta till recently, so I tend not to make that comparison. If you compare the only real constitutional monarchy in Africa (Morocco) to its neighbors, you will see a stability pattern similar to that seen in Europe. And political stability equals economic stability in the long term. It's really hard to argue about stability. Britain and Sweden were one kingdom each all this time. France had 5 republics. Germany had 3 (after a quasi-absolute monarchy, which is just as bad as an unstable republic, if not worse). Spain and Italy had quite a few different unstable regimes.
Anyway, I agree with you that it is not whether a country is a monarchy or a republic that decides how developed they are. The real variable in question is economic stability, which only comes with political stability. There are many cases of republics that have been able to maintain stability, no doubt. Switzerland, Iceland, Finland and San Marino (and, to an extent, Ireland) are the best examples. And of course, there were tons of examples of unstable monarchies (Germany, Italy, Greece). But my point is not absolute. Republicanism doesn't necessarily imply instability. On an individual basis, it's practically random, I agree. So there are exceptions to the rule. But, when you look at the bigger picture, it's undeniable that the traditional constitutional monarchies in Europe have been able to maintain more stability than the constitutional republics, in general.
It's so easy saying it's a coincidence, but honestly, you can't affirm that unless you have considered (and disproven) all other possibilities.
wat0n wrote:Nope, Chile tried to be neutral in WWI and WWII for as long as it could. In fact it only joined the Allies in 1944, when it was evident they'd win.
I was talking more about the military relations with the US.
We also were close from having a war against the US.
Okay, then I don't get why anti-Americanism is so low in your country.
But seriously, what Americans and Hispanics have against each other? xD You are always at war.
PoFo ethnic party statistics: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8&p=14042520#p14042520
- By Pants-of-dog
- By litwin