Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Successof the US and Failiur of Latin America

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Successof the US and Failiur of Latin America
    Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 16:55

Hello to you all.

 

I have a question to our respected former about a very important subject that I know little about and did not find any one who addressed throughout the 3 years Ive been watching this forum despite it extreme importance and that is why did the American republic work so splendidly when all the Latin republics failed so miserably despite being relatively richer, more homogenous and more organized than the US during that time.    

 

The US succeeded in maintaining a functional republican government that was respected by everyone, stopping the possibility of turning into a dictatorship and in the same time establishing a sense of unity among its citizens that prevented the breakup of the republic even during its darkest hours (the war of 1812), guaranteeing a programmed and stable foreign policy that does not change with the change of presidents or parties. Establishing the rule of law and respecting the constitution as supreme law as well as maintaining a strong economic growth while accepting emigrants from all over the world and effectively melting them in the American melting pot and finally becoming the No. 1 economy in the world by 1900 and the world superpower by 1991.

 

The Latin republic on the other hand soon fell into dictatorships, despotism, rampant corruption that earned some of them the nick name banana republics and finally civil wars despite having all the advantages that the American did not have in the beginning of their republic like sound infrastructure (roads, public building, ports, universities and most importantly professional bureaucracy) while much of the America even in the richest states was wild country for long times after independence.

 

I have a theory that I would like you to comment on it and that theory is like this:

 

I think the main reason why the American experience succeeded and the Latin experience failed is directly connected to the colonial governments in those nations. In America, the Brits took a pragmatic approach leaving the colonies to some kind of self rule, cities and towns elected their officials and colonies had their legislatures and the suffrage, limited as it was, was extended to large segments of the people (by the way it was only in the 1860s I think that property requirements were lifted on voters either by the supreme court or by an amendment to the constitution). A vibrant and mature democratic tradition already existed and it was over a century old when the revolution took place. The revolution itself had both a democratically representative political wing (the 3 continental congresses) as well as a military wing that was subordinate to the political side. Also, from most of the signers of the declaration of independence were politicians in the former colonial administration coming from ALL walks of life. After independence it was insanity for anyone to try to undermine the constitution and after the first big test of the validity of these old-new institutions (the John Adams affair) America triumphed and went on the way to becoming one of the most admirable countries in the world in terms of institutions.

 

The Latin colonial experience on the other hand was the complete opposite of the American from the little that I know.

 

I hope that someone with more knowledge would comment on the topic and Thank you.        

 

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 19:22
Who said that Latin America failed?
 
Of course is not a super-achiever like the U.S., but in compensation is not as neurotic Wink
 
By the way, Latin America has progressed quite a bit in the late four decades, so won't be surprise if pretty soon some of its countries start to be considered developed.
 
By the way, the richest man in the world is Latin American. That's just a synthom that the region should be studies more carefully and leave the stereotype beside.
 
Now, the answer for all the problems that Latin America had since the beginning of the 19th century to the late 20th century can be sumarized in a small phrase: population explosion. Latin American population grew 15 times in two centuries mostly by vegetative grow. There is no society in the world that can stand a grow like that without suffering chaos.
 
Think about it, the rest follows.
 
Pinguin
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 08-Aug-2007 at 19:28
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 20:05
Originally posted by Al Jassas

.... 

I think the main reason why the American experience succeeded and the Latin experience failed is directly connected to the colonial governments in those nations. In America, the Brits took a pragmatic approach leaving the colonies to some kind of self rule, cities and towns elected their officials and colonies had their legislatures and the suffrage, limited as it was, was extended to large segments of the people (by the way it was only in the 1860s I think that property requirements were lifted on voters either by the supreme court or by an amendment to the constitution). A vibrant and mature democratic tradition already existed and it was over a century old when the revolution took place. The revolution itself had both a democratically representative political wing (the 3 continental congresses) as well as a military wing that was subordinate to the political side. Also, from most of the signers of the declaration of independence were politicians in the former colonial administration coming from ALL walks of life. After independence it was insanity for anyone to try to undermine the constitution and after the first big test of the validity of these old-new institutions (the John Adams affair) America triumphed and went on the way to becoming one of the most admirable countries in the world in terms of institutions.

 

The Latin colonial experience on the other hand was the complete opposite of the American from the little that I know.

 

I hope that someone with more knowledge would comment on the topic and Thank you. 

 
      

The realities were different. The U.S. and afterwards Canada and Australia where colonized by Britain as extension of theirs own territories. Native Americans were exterminated or pushed away. Blacks slaves were considered just as the producers of rough materials, and kept isolated from the society. The lands were opened to the colonization of people of Europe and afterwards of other countries, which came to the Americas for the lands but that KEEP THE SAME KNOWLEDGE and STANDARD OF LIVING they had in Europe; and hopefully a lot better. In short the U.S., and later in the other "White" colonies of Britain, were territories were the White men expanded because of the demographic presure of Europe. From America it only matter the land as a place to CLONE the society of Europe. It is not strange then that Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson enjoyed the same education or style of living they could had in Europe. They were up to date in science and tech, and we are talking of the 18th century!

 
Latin America was a different matter. First, it was colonized by two powers that were already declining. It is well known that Spain, for example, had excelent engineers and for some time the best army of Europe. Less known is that all the instruments of nautics for theirs navy were bough in the Northern Europe, besides most of the manufacturing that need certain sophistication.  Now, when Spaniards invaded the Americas they found a population that for European terms was "savage". They added to it the poor population of Spain that was sufering hunger and all kind of necesities in Spain.
 
By the time of independence, the Latin American countries were basically Middle Age societies based in Haciendas were the Patron has the power of a Middle Age Lord. It was at least 400 years behind Europe or the U.S. Besides, the population was very low to sustain development, and there was almost any infrastructure at all.
 
Since the beginning of the 19th century up to the middle of the 20th century Latin America developed a industrial base and its infraestructure based mainly in foreign investment of abusive powers as Britain and the U.S.. Most of the skills had to be imported and migrants from Europe were encouraged to settled there. Everything, from how to make textiles, exploit mines, build bridges, make maccarroni or beer, it was imported from Europe by skillfull immigrants. Add to that the population explosion that I have already mentioned and you have a picture.
 
In the 1930s the high levels of alcoholism were consumming people while they reproduced at very high scales. The expectancy of living was circa 27 years! The child mortality was unbelievable high even for African standards of today. Analphabetism, ignorance and violence was widespread. There was no running water or electricity for most people.
 
Today all those indicators have been reverted and most people live as much as in developed countries today. Most people read and write and college education is nothing extraordinary today. Shanty towns have diminished as well.
 
The difference is quite simple: U.S., Canada and Australia are clones of theirs mother land, Britain. Latin America is a new born that had to start from zero, without people, money, anything.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 08-Aug-2007 at 20:15
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 22:47
Al Jassas,

Don't forget a big difference: The Spanish colonies were profitable; the North American weren't. The English could give a lot more liberty and discretion to places that weren't that important. However, the same English kept tight control over their profitable colonies in the Caribbean. :)

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 19:19

Hello Mr hugoestr

 

Although I agree with you that the North American colonies were not as profitable to the Brits as South America, still these colonies were very profitable. Not only they helped attract the unwanted citizen of Britain (non-conformist, Catholics, highlanders and Irishmen), but they were also very profitable since they were considered the goose that laid the golden egg for the British treasury when ever there was need for money, did you forget why the American war of independence started? And to signify the loss the Brits immediately moved to colonize India after they lost America to supplant their loss. Also, one of the reasons that the Brits kept tight control on the Caribbean colonies is simply because there were not enough English settlers there to legitimize giving them the wrights of the Englishman as they were laid down in the glorious revolution of 1688.

 Spain lacked the institutions that Britain (parliament, semi independent judiciary and a strong and vibrant middle class both gentry and commoners) had and did not share the notion of individual liberty and accountability of everyone (hell the Brits even tried, convicted and hanged their own king) even though I must confess these notion were very limited yet they existed and were practised from time to time in England and were universally practised in the colonies and I think there was a case in which a journalist of German descent won a free speech case against the governor of one of the colonies despite him being from the nobility  (the Zenger case if I am not wrong). This lack in Spain and Portugal was extended to their colonies and when the new notion of individual liberty came they were strange especially to people who lived in the countryside under the rule of large land owners who used fear to force people to vote for them and they made an unholy alliance with the church and the military cast to control the politics and whenever their power were threatened they made coups, wars, civil unrest or rigged the election so that progressive city elite of industrialist and businessmen would not control the government and thus end their rule.   

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 19:26
Freedom and idealism as the economic advantage?
 
No way, what moves the world is the market. Spaniards believed in merchantilism... that was theirs main mistake.
 
Pinguin
 
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 20:20
Every body at least till 1800 believed in mercantilism.

Al Jassas you take the option too far I guess. In your opinion the one and only reason why institutions exist is reproduction. But as Hugo mentioned they are also shaped by their immediate economic environment.

Things such as the dominant economic sector or the main source of investment are at least as important as the origin of the constitution.

I think your mistake partly comes from a certain ignorance of the Spanish political system: saying that there was no parliament in Spain is one of the most common mistake made by those following the black legend.

It is a matter of opinion, bu in my view: the fact that most of the wealth of the 13 colonies were produced by freemen and  fact that the Napoleonic wars prevented the Europeans to take control of the country's economy.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 22:25
Just a serious analysis of what you said
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

 Spain lacked the institutions that Britain (parliament, semi independent judiciary and a strong and vibrant middle class both gentry and commoners)

 
FALSE:
Spain not only has parlaments and an ruled applying laws, but also was studying the human rights of theirs subjects, as in the case of Amerindians.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

had and did not share the notion of individual liberty and accountability of everyone (hell the Brits even tried, convicted and hanged their own king)
 
FALSE:
The Spaniard has always been an individualistic people that fight for its rights to death. Actually, the real problem with Spaniards and Hispanics is that is very hard to control them LOLLOL
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

even though I must confess these notion were very limited yet they existed and were practised from time to time in England and were universally practised in the colonies
 
FALSE:
The comparison just assume that the average colonial subject of Spain was slave and the one of Britain was free. It is not the case.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

and I think there was a case in which a journalist of German descent won a free speech case against the governor of one of the colonies despite him being from the nobility  (the Zenger case if I am not wrong).
 
In Hispanic America Amerindians won several trials against Spaniards. So what's the point
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

This lack in Spain and Portugal was extended to their colonies and when the new notion of individual liberty came they were strange especially to people who lived in the countryside under the rule of large land owners who used fear to force people to vote for them and they made an unholy alliance with the church
 
FALSE:
I don't know where you have studied Spanish America history, but I tell you, your sources are not the best. You are repeating the Black Legend like a parrot.
If you don't know that the Church has always been the main fighter for equality in Latin America then.... well, you don't have learn anything as yet.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

and the military cast to control the politics and whenever their power were threatened they made coups, wars, civil unrest or rigged the election so that progressive city elite of industrialist and businessmen would not control the government and thus end their rule.   
 
Cartoons plus cartoons. I suggest you read deeply the history of Latin America, the causes of theirs fights and who has won.
 
Latin America has many achievements that you may not be aware of. Just as an example, nowhere else in the world you find that a people of other races have been elected as presidents, like the Japanese Fujimori in Peru, or the Amerindian presidents starting from Benito Juarez and ending in Evo Morales.
 
If you are going to make a thesis with what you believe to know about Latin America, well, I believe it won't be close to the truth at all.
 
Please ask...
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 09-Aug-2007 at 22:28
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 00:42
Al Jassas,

I may be wrong, but from what I understand, the U.S. colonies were not as profitable as the Caribbean ones because they didn't produce cash crops. The rise of cotton in the U.S. South happened after the U.S. had become independent, although I must look into tobacco as a potential lucrative commodity. Since there wasn't a strong reason to keep a close eye on the North American colonies, a lot more independence was granted to them from the start. So when king George decided to fix the mistake and actually get money out of the North American colonies, these rebelled.

Furthermore, you may want to explore more about Spanish and Latin American history. There is a strong tradition on local government in the Spanish world through municipalities--for that matter, most societies begin with quasi democratic institutions. One of the greatest plays of Spanish literature deals with common people killing a local strongman.

And even though Spanish monarch were considered to be absolute rulers, the reality is that many of the viceroys in Latin America made a point to listen to the local elites, often carrying on pragmatic policies that contradicted official orders. So, while their speeches give the official party line, their actions may be very different. This even has a nice little aphorism to describe the policy: "Cumplo pero no obezco", "I follow, but I don't obey."

Also, and this is something that many people miss, Spain and Latin America have a big cantankerous rhetorical tradition that matches that of the English Parliament. It is probably worse because it quickly becomes very passionate and heated. Many of the problems of Latin America in the 19th century have to do with these people being unable to reach a compromise.

You should notice that it was Spaniards who condemned their own actions of what today we would call human rights violations. The Spanish government also had a special tribunal to deal with cases involving Native Americans.

The British colonies, on the other hand, pretty much ignored their horrible treatment of Native Americans. For the longest time the crimes against Native Americans were ignored. While the Spanish granted humanity to the Native
Americans, the U.s. was still painting them as savages just 50 to 40 years ago.

Also, the United States had many owners of big land of people with no rights or dignity. Even when a war was fought to end slavery, the former slave owning states passed laws to strip the dignity of a mass portion of their population.

In fact, I would even go on to say that the American South has many features that makes it very similar to Latin America, including a big racial problem, a small group of people who keep control of power, and a back door way of solving problems.

Oh, and many of the same things that one can criticize about Latin America apply to the American South as well: corruption, nepotism, backwardness, exploitation of the masses, racial problems, and lack of democracy. And just as with Latin America, one has to know more about how the South really works to truly understand its dynamics.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 02:19

Hello to you all.

 

Since all your replies were concerned with refuting my theory I think it is time to put my question forward again, this time with no strings attached.

 

The question is why the American democratic experience worked so well despite all the odds and all the challenges that faced the US early on in its history (the War of 1812, the struggle between Free states and slave states, expansionism and finally one of the most terrible civil wars in history) and the south American experiment with democracy degenerated into dictatorships, military coup, absolute monarchies and finally rampant corruption. Is something to do with the air they breath or the quality of food?!

 

As for Mr. Pinguin, you said that America was a continuation of continental culture, but shouldnt this be true in south America as well. Last time I checked the Jesuits had several Universities in South America and many Jesuits were responsible directly to the enlightment movement since most of the figures of the enrichment studied in Jesuit institutions and some of the figures themselves were Jesuits. I have little knowledge in the history o south America since there are no sources written about it in Arabic nor doe the University library has a good such source, so if you know of a site the has good English books about south or north America could you please upload a link.

Also Mr hugoestr  wasnt tobacco a cash crop that was produced in large quantities as well as wheat and corn in the large plantations of the American south in the colonial period?

 

Finally I admit I am no expert in the history of the Americas (thats why I asked the question in the first place) especially the southern part since most of my historical readings are about the history of my part of the world, the Middle East and Saudi Arabia in particular. Thank you

 

Al-Jassas ibn Murrah

 

Back to Top
Richard XIII View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 651
  Quote Richard XIII Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 05:51
north - protestantism
south - catholicism

"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details."

Albert Einstein
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 12:24
Originally posted by Al Jassas

 and the south American experiment with democracy degenerated into dictatorships, military coup, absolute monarchies and finally rampant corruption. Is something to do with the air they breath or the quality of food?!

 
Nope. It is your prejudice. Embarrassed
 
Study the democratic history of Chile and come back, please. Yes, we have had coups but the good guys always come back.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

As for Mr. Pinguin, you said that America was a continuation of continental culture, but shouldnt this be true in south America as well. Last time I checked the Jesuits had several Universities in South America and many Jesuits were responsible directly to the enlightment movement since most of the figures of the enrichment studied in Jesuit institutions and some of the figures themselves were Jesuits. I

 
 
Yes, Latin America has always been superb in culture, music, humanism and literature. That's the contribution of the Jesuits and others. The difference with Uncle Sam is that we were left behind in science and technology, for the reasons I expossed above: (1) Spain and Portugal were a declining power.
(2) Latin America was already poor when become independent; extremely poor.
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

have little knowledge in the history o south America since there are no sources written about it in Arabic nor doe the University library has a good such source, so if you know of a site the has good English books about south or north America could you please upload a link.

Try our section in this forum about "History of the Americas"

Try:
 
 
Some resources are in Spanish.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 12:31
Originally posted by hugoestr

Al Jassas,

I may be wrong, but from what I understand, the U.S. colonies were not as profitable as the Caribbean ones because they didn't produce cash crops. The rise of cotton in the U.S. South happened after the U.S. had become independent, although I must look into tobacco as a potential lucrative commodity. Since there wasn't a strong reason to keep a close eye on the North American colonies, a lot more independence was granted to them from the start. So when king George decided to fix the mistake and actually get money out of the North American colonies, these rebelled.

Furthermore, you may want to explore more about Spanish and Latin American history. There is a strong tradition on local government in the Spanish world through municipalities--for that matter, most societies begin with quasi democratic institutions. One of the greatest plays of Spanish literature deals with common people killing a local strongman.

And even though Spanish monarch were considered to be absolute rulers, the reality is that many of the viceroys in Latin America made a point to listen to the local elites, often carrying on pragmatic policies that contradicted official orders. So, while their speeches give the official party line, their actions may be very different. This even has a nice little aphorism to describe the policy: "Cumplo pero no obezco", "I follow, but I don't obey."

Also, and this is something that many people miss, Spain and Latin America have a big cantankerous rhetorical tradition that matches that of the English Parliament. It is probably worse because it quickly becomes very passionate and heated. Many of the problems of Latin America in the 19th century have to do with these people being unable to reach a compromise.

You should notice that it was Spaniards who condemned their own actions of what today we would call human rights violations. The Spanish government also had a special tribunal to deal with cases involving Native Americans.

The British colonies, on the other hand, pretty much ignored their horrible treatment of Native Americans. For the longest time the crimes against Native Americans were ignored. While the Spanish granted humanity to the Native
Americans, the U.s. was still painting them as savages just 50 to 40 years ago.

Also, the United States had many owners of big land of people with no rights or dignity. Even when a war was fought to end slavery, the former slave owning states passed laws to strip the dignity of a mass portion of their population.

In fact, I would even go on to say that the American South has many features that makes it very similar to Latin America, including a big racial problem, a small group of people who keep control of power, and a back door way of solving problems.

Oh, and many of the same things that one can criticize about Latin America apply to the American South as well: corruption, nepotism, backwardness, exploitation of the masses, racial problems, and lack of democracy. And just as with Latin America, one has to know more about how the South really works to truly understand its dynamics.
 
I wouldn't compare Latin America with the South. The first was a Middle Ages society based mainly on servitude. The second was a society based on slavery only. The first had a hierarchy of people based on the origin, the second was a society divided between citizens and prisoners. Not much in common.
 
The main fight of Latin America has been for equality and the destruction of the class hierarchies. This wouldn't be understood if compared with the realities of the South. A better comparison is the servitude system in Russia, for instance.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 15:57

Hello to you all.

 

Well Mr. Pinguin I read about the history of your country and though I admit the democratic experiment of Chile was somewhat successful but not only Chile was an exception to the rest of Latin America, but it also proved some of my theories too. After full independence, Bernardo OHiggins (How the hell did an Irishman came to rule Chile??) ruled as a dictator until 1823 but the liberals ousted him and restored the republic but not for long. In 1830 conservatives took power and the country was in civil unrest until 1859 although the conservatives did manage to do great thing to the economy their rule was authoritarian but none the less through democratic means. The liberals finally managed to win government and instituted reforms that were met with rebellion and finally outright civil war in 1891 that was baptized by the Catholic Church the took down the elected government. Finally after years of political turmoil Chile became the last Latin American country to have a coup dtat in 1924 and then in 1925 although democracy was soon restored the rise of the left lead to the bloody Pinoche years that were supported by those in the minority who hated democracy when could not win. From this short and very incomplete history I find that the Catholic church was and is to this day a force against progress and factor of instability, they first supported the conservatives until the 1860s and then after that they shifted to supporting the liberals only to help ignite a bloody civil war when they felt a stint of secularism coming and to this day they still exert a huge influence on the right wing politics making Chile one of three countries that outlaw divorce in the 21st century. Also Amerindians did not fair well in Chile as they do in other Latin American countries since the government does not officially recognize them and their wrights in their native lands as the US for instance. My source for the above was   Microsoft Encarta and my last word is if this was the history of the best Latin American country then how much worse can it get? I hope you dont take any offence.

Thank you

Al-Jassas ibn Murrah  

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 17:01
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello to you all.

 

Well Mr. Pinguin I read about the history of your country and though I admit the democratic experiment of Chile was somewhat successful but not only Chile was an exception to the rest of Latin America, but it also proved some of my theories too. After full independence, Bernardo OHiggins (How the hell did an Irishman came to rule Chile??)

 
Bernardo O'higgins was Chilean, not Irish. He was the son of Ambrosio O'Higgins, a Catholic Irish that worked for the Spanish Empire. If Encarta said he was Irish that show how weird is Encarta, not O'higgins LOL
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

ruled as a dictator until 1823 but the liberals ousted him and restored the republic but not for long. In 1830 conservatives took power and the country was in civil unrest until 1859 although the conservatives did manage to do great thing to the economy their rule was authoritarian but none the less through democratic means. The liberals finally managed to win government and instituted reforms that were met with rebellion and finally outright civil war in 1891 that was baptized by the Catholic Church the took down the elected government.
 
Yes, there was political turmoil in those years, not much different of what happened in Europe at those times. Encarta forgot to mention, though, the huge industrial transformation Chile suffered in the same period.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Finally after years of political turmoil Chile became the last Latin American country to have a coup dtat in 1924 and then in 1925 although democracy was soon restored the rise of the left lead to the bloody Pinoche years that were supported by those in the minority who hated democracy when could not win.
 
So, Encarta resume the history of Chile in two coup d'etat... curious.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

From this short and very incomplete history I find that the Catholic church was and is to this day a force against progress and factor of instability, they first supported the conservatives until the 1860s and then after that they shifted to supporting the liberals only to help ignite a bloody civil war when they felt a stint of secularism coming and to this day they still exert a huge influence on the right wing politics making Chile one of three countries that outlaw divorce in the 21st century.
 
Encarta is again very simple minded. I bet a moron is writing it already. The Catholic church has been a force both for good and evil. If Encarta don't consider Abate Molina (our first scientist), Father Hurtado (the man that created the first massive institution to take care of poors and ofphans) or Cardinal Silva Henriquez (the man that oppossed Pinochet) into the account and just conclude the Catholic church is evil, I must be forced to conclude Encarta is biassed.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Also Amerindians did not fair well in Chile as they do in other Latin American countries since the government does not officially recognize them and their wrights in their native lands as the US for instance.
 
Encarta forgets most Chileans have Amerindian ancestors.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

My source for the above was   Microsoft Encarta and my last word is if this was the history of the best Latin American country then how much worse can it get? I hope you dont take any offence.

Thank you

Al-Jassas ibn Murrah  

 
Not offense. Encarta need a revision LOLLOL
If you read bad literature of course you will get wrong conclusions, that's obvious.
 
Pinguin
 


Edited by pinguin - 10-Aug-2007 at 17:03
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 17:22
Sorry but not all what was said above came from Encarta. I heard about the plight of natives in the Bio-Bio region in the BBC. The bad influnce of the catholic chuch is my conclusio. As for encarta I can say this, I trust the ghost written articles of wikipedia more than the "scholarly" ones found in encarta simply because the "experts" of encarta claim that (2003) cities in Saudi arabia which is my country elect their own minucipalities and that tribal militias still exist which is totaly false.
Al-Jassas ibn Murrah
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 17:29
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Sorry but not all what was said above came from Encarta. I heard about the plight of natives in the Bio-Bio region in the BBC. The bad influnce of the catholic chuch is my conclusio.
 
Fellow. The problem is that you start from the conclusion. Besides, I really don't see what it has to do the plight of the natives of the Bio-Bio against Endesa (private electricity producer) with the Catholic church at all. Confused
 
If you want to understand these and other problems, look at the detail in different source, or just ask.
 
I am Chilean (therefore also Latino) and I bet I know quite a bit about the topics you have mentioned. (Particularly in the topic of the Mapuche plight, I have the advantage I know several real Mapuches and they have been my friends as well LOL)
 
Please, just ask or research deeper before jumping to conclusions.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 10-Aug-2007 at 17:31
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 01:31
Al Jassas,

Yes, tabacco is a cash crop, and that is why I raised the issue. But except for it, the northern colonies were not as profitable.

I noticed that you are making the history of the U.S. have a lot more trouble than it had, and minimizing the obstacles of Latin America.

Latin American countries had to wrestle with radically different visions for their own countries. So many conservatives wanted a king or a centralized power; liberals wanted a federalized republic modeled after the U.S. Many civil wars were fought on this issue.

This wasn't an issue at all in the U.S. The U.S. has had only one civil war on the one topic which the constitutional congress agreed to have a temporary compromise on.

Furthermore, the U.S. constitution was actually a very close fit and a continuation of their historical institutions with slight modifications. Taking that model and mapping it on Latin America wouldn't work. It would have made more sense to turn the Spanish institutions into democratic bodies, but the combination of the U.S. on the one hand and the belief that one could re-invent a nation brought from the French revolution on the other didn't make this happen.

Pinguin,

The American South is almost a Latin American country, and it requires a lot of study to fully understand it. But in brief, Latin America and the American South's economy was based more or less on cash crops where you either had slaves or people who were practically slaves doing all of the labor. The American South prospered because of the peace that the US enjoyed, only to fall into a long economic lag after slavery was declared illegal. The South also deals with a shorter kind of a caste system, with at least two underclasses, a white one and the black one.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 09:32
Originally posted by hugoestr

...
Pinguin,

The American South is almost a Latin American country, and it requires a lot of study to fully understand it. But in brief, Latin America and the American South's economy was based more or less on cash crops where you either had slaves or people who were practically slaves doing all of the labor. The American South prospered because of the peace that the US enjoyed, only to fall into a long economic lag after slavery was declared illegal. The South also deals with a shorter kind of a caste system, with at least two underclasses, a white one and the black one.
 
Yes and no. In the economical sense I absolutely agree with you that the South looks a lot more alike the system of plantations in the Caribbean or haciendas in South America. They were economic systems based in an aristhocracy that own the lands and exploited labour either slave, like in the South or free (as in the case of most Latin America), to produce basic products like cotton, tabacco or suggar cane and coffe.
 
Now, in the cultural and racial terms the realities were absolutely different. The South was a systems were two races lived together under an absolute segregation of people, at least in theory. There was not exception possible. In that sense the South is a carbon copy of places like the Haiti, Jamaica and particularly of Brazil where slave explotation was the base of the society.
 
In most part of Latin America the explotation was on the shoulders of the poors. First, they taxed indian nations with the famous mita system of free labour that was a infamous system for of explotation, and that was used, among other things, to extract the silver from the Peruvian and Bolivian mines. Besides, for most land owners in Latin America it was cheaper to exploit the large masses of poors of Latin America rather than import slaves that they had to maintain.
 
Indians, Mestizos, masses of poor Europeans that came to the Americas for a better life and failed, all of them become servs of the lords in those Middle Ages' institutions called the Hacienda. Foreign historians usually don't get the idea of what an Hacienda was, and why the workers were so loyal to theirs lords (patrones). The Haciendas were economical self-sustained "kingdoms" that produced everything for its own consumtion and sale excedents for profits. The servs (peones or pawns) worked for the lord in exchange of a rented piece of land on where plant the products for its own survival. That system was in place in Latin America up to very late in the 20th century and in some locations still exist!
 
So, yes and no. There are certain similaries with the South in the economical approach to the economy and with respect to elitism. However it is not the same as the south in other aspect. In Latin America there weren't racial castes as in the U.S., but the discriminations between classes was and is very marked and clearly seen. In certain sense Feudalism never ended in Latin America.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 13:47

Hello Pinguin, I hope that I have not become a irritating to you.

Since you gave me new insight in your last post I was wondering if you could answer a couple of questions that I have either here or in a new thread:

The first question deals with the Haciendas that you have mentioned earlier. Can you kindly elaborate of that system, its composition and how far reaching was its effect on the history of Latin America. Also can you explain why this system ceased to exist if it really did in the US? My understanding is that this system was prevalent in the lands the US took from Mexico after the 1846 war especially in California.

 

My Second question is about industrialization in Latin America, how far did it reach and what were the reasons for its success/failure.

 

Finally to a lighter subject, hows the weather there in Chile, I saw in the newspaper lots of snow in SantiagoCool. Do you suffer like us here in Saudi Arabia from a cold wave? Ours just did it for us, people got sick and went to the hospitals suffering from fever and cold because of this darn cold wave which reduced the MINIMUM temperature in Riyadh from 35 C on the 3rd to 28 C yesterday LOL.

Thank You

Al-Jassas ibn Murrah

 

 

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.157 seconds.