Cia intervention to prevent any type of cultural or economic growth, to prevent possible dangers to their hegemony
You have to remember the US got a 100 years head start to develop, and once other countries started showing progress they stopped them
Cia intervention to prevent any type of cultural or economic growth, to prevent possible dangers to their hegemony
You have to remember the US got a 100 years head start to develop, and once other countries started showing progress they stopped them
actually technology progressed past the point they could effectively maintain it, so they began struggling and exerting to keep up with 1980s tech society instead of having a functional 1940s tech society.
technology is great, but do we really need it if its becoming so demanding to where our society begins to decline?
Cia intervention to prevent any type of cultural or economic growth, to prevent possible dangers to their hegemony
You have to remember the US got a 100 years head start to develop, and once other countries started showing progress they stopped them
Burgers, we should really build a fricking wall so these frickers leave us alone
Blaming "dah CIA" is cope. South America has never been good or functional for 90% of the plebs, its only had a few periods where life looked relatively decent compared to post apocalyptic wartorn Europe or in the late 1800s when Europeans were also living in favelas and breathing smog or drinking mercury water from the factories.
Latin America's worst disease has always been its own ruling class. I know this because my own family are landowners in Argentina and my parents always shill for economic liberalism that inevitably kills any domestic Industry
>Latin America's worst disease has always been its own ruling class.
Current ruling class isn´t the same than 100 years ago or 200 years ago. Coups, civil wars and newly arrived succesful migrants displaced or exterminated many of the previous ruling families.
And thats a problem, no elite stay at power there, the US has been involved at murdering the ones who start projects to develop their countries.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Elite who try to change things are killed by their own people. The majority of the Latin American elite don't care about developing the country because it's not in our class interests to do so. The rich just send Junior to a private school and then go to Europe for vacation every year, life is good enough to not bother changing the dysfunctional shitshow that is this continent.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Criollos are a curse
2 years ago
Anonymous
They are.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And yet are the ony ones wiith the balls to lead revolutions, Castro, Guevara, Bolivar, Santander, O Higgins, San Martin, etc, all them criollos.
A common characteristic of Latin American countries is that they've never fully been able to move beyond the kind of latifundia-derived plantation politics that have dominated the new world since it was originally colonized. That makes it objectively reactionary in a way that has clear definition, as opposed to the kind of sentimentality-driven conservative politics in the United States. In Latin America liberals and leftists aren't like more progressive forms of conservatives, they're seeking a radical transformation in society and economy so that their countries can become truly modern and overcome the rule of landed aristocracy.
Some countries like Brazil might be more developed than others, but the impositions of semifeudalism continue to assert themselves.
The United States on the other hand was so powerful we got to define "modernity" for the latter half of the 20th century. The only direction to go from the top is down, and the sensation of decline is what gets people to believe that they can still claw their way back to a time when their power and privilege was unassailable. Trump won in the U.S. because there are lots of Americans that want to go back to the past; the country is in decline; and Biden is really just another version of that, which is the desire among other Americans to go back to the Obama years. In Latin America, the right is trying to copy Trump but that's a losing strategy almost everywhere except Brazil because most people don't want to go back to the past of military dictatorships, poverty, and violence. The best times for Latin America are in the future and not the past.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Argentina surprassed the US at the beginning of the XX century, the only difference between the US and Latin America was the sociopolitical instability that shook the continent during the 19th century after the power vacuum left by the Spanish.
While the US conspired against its neighbors and entered the industrial age, fratricidal wars were brewing in Latin America that ended up consuming their national spirit.
For a reason the US was a total shithole compared to Mexico at XVIII century but everything radically changed at XIX century.
2 years ago
Anonymous
yeah, there war vastly more liberal experiments down there after the independence, some kinda worked, mostly didn't but the instability and the threat of the US did the rest
Today
What the hell went wrong with South America
Cia intervention to prevent any type of cultural or economic growth, to prevent possible dangers to their hegemony
You have to remember the US got a 100 years head start to develop, and once other countries started showing progress they stopped them
actually technology progressed past the point they could effectively maintain it, so they began struggling and exerting to keep up with 1980s tech society instead of having a functional 1940s tech society.
technology is great, but do we really need it if its becoming so demanding to where our society begins to decline?
Burgers, we should really build a fricking wall so these frickers leave us alone
socialism happend
They had to eat all the fighting bulls.
Blaming "dah CIA" is cope. South America has never been good or functional for 90% of the plebs, its only had a few periods where life looked relatively decent compared to post apocalyptic wartorn Europe or in the late 1800s when Europeans were also living in favelas and breathing smog or drinking mercury water from the factories.
Latin America's worst disease has always been its own ruling class. I know this because my own family are landowners in Argentina and my parents always shill for economic liberalism that inevitably kills any domestic Industry
>Latin America's worst disease has always been its own ruling class.
Current ruling class isn´t the same than 100 years ago or 200 years ago. Coups, civil wars and newly arrived succesful migrants displaced or exterminated many of the previous ruling families.
And thats a problem, no elite stay at power there, the US has been involved at murdering the ones who start projects to develop their countries.
Elite who try to change things are killed by their own people. The majority of the Latin American elite don't care about developing the country because it's not in our class interests to do so. The rich just send Junior to a private school and then go to Europe for vacation every year, life is good enough to not bother changing the dysfunctional shitshow that is this continent.
Criollos are a curse
They are.
And yet are the ony ones wiith the balls to lead revolutions, Castro, Guevara, Bolivar, Santander, O Higgins, San Martin, etc, all them criollos.
>the only ones
A common characteristic of Latin American countries is that they've never fully been able to move beyond the kind of latifundia-derived plantation politics that have dominated the new world since it was originally colonized. That makes it objectively reactionary in a way that has clear definition, as opposed to the kind of sentimentality-driven conservative politics in the United States. In Latin America liberals and leftists aren't like more progressive forms of conservatives, they're seeking a radical transformation in society and economy so that their countries can become truly modern and overcome the rule of landed aristocracy.
Some countries like Brazil might be more developed than others, but the impositions of semifeudalism continue to assert themselves.
The United States on the other hand was so powerful we got to define "modernity" for the latter half of the 20th century. The only direction to go from the top is down, and the sensation of decline is what gets people to believe that they can still claw their way back to a time when their power and privilege was unassailable. Trump won in the U.S. because there are lots of Americans that want to go back to the past; the country is in decline; and Biden is really just another version of that, which is the desire among other Americans to go back to the Obama years. In Latin America, the right is trying to copy Trump but that's a losing strategy almost everywhere except Brazil because most people don't want to go back to the past of military dictatorships, poverty, and violence. The best times for Latin America are in the future and not the past.
Argentina surprassed the US at the beginning of the XX century, the only difference between the US and Latin America was the sociopolitical instability that shook the continent during the 19th century after the power vacuum left by the Spanish.
While the US conspired against its neighbors and entered the industrial age, fratricidal wars were brewing in Latin America that ended up consuming their national spirit.
For a reason the US was a total shithole compared to Mexico at XVIII century but everything radically changed at XIX century.
yeah, there war vastly more liberal experiments down there after the independence, some kinda worked, mostly didn't but the instability and the threat of the US did the rest
>Latin America's worst disease has always been its own ruling class
/thread
Independence
You, fricking amerilard.
Why did they stop bullfighting?
Because bullfighting is a barbaric practice, it should be banned globally.
You sound like a gay who powders his hands.
Good. Bullfighting is fricking stupid
t. Alberto Barbosa
Bullfighting arena in France
272 years ago
Today
Bullfighting arena in France
1,349 years ago