• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

First Columbia, now Bolivia...

Luciana Nery said:
Btw, it is not true that anti-americanism is the motto in South American elections. While there is always a minority that will put all the blame in the world in the US's shoulder (and, when that is not available, they blame Brazil), the matter is that people are too much worried with everyday concerns - jobs health, jobs, education, jobs... - that only concrete proposals will do. Anti-US rethoric can incense a political speech - and make no mistake, that's what the international press will highlight, in detriment of all other issues - but people have fallen for this diversionary ruse too many times to fall for it again.
Click to expand...

That's encouraging. It's one thing to have people not like you for past events, it's quite another for them to blame you for their current troubles. Scapegoating is never helpful for economic development, and it's good to hear it's not as pervasive or effective as I'm sometimes led to believe.
 
It's similar in the Middle East. A two hour speech on a pletorah of topics gets boiled down to: "Death to America!" when it's reported by the Western media.

--- G.
 
Morrison's Lament said:
It's similar in the Middle East. A two hour speech on a pletorah of topics gets boiled down to: "Death to America!" when it's reported by the Western media.

--- G.
Click to expand...

As someone who resides in America that is the part that concerns me the most. Then again, I am selfish like that.
 
Grammatron said:
As someone who resides in America that is the part that concerns me the most. Then again, I am selfish like that.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you tend to get a skewed image of the world, as in "us vs. them". Also, FEAR sells newspapers.

When Lula was elected president, in the very day after he was confirmed, I read in the international press the wildest predictions about his presidency, a summary will follow:

Lula might declare a default with international investors and the IMF; Lula might confiscate the public companies that were recently privatized withou; Lula might build the atom bomb to confirm itself as leader of South America, then obviously Argentina will follow and situation will be tense; Lula might give free reign to the Arabs living in the triple border (Br, Arg, Par), who will then become a major source of terrorism funding and maybe a breeding place for terrorists, including the Amazon that would be a training ground; Lula will gather forces with Chavez and Castro and will exert its power in South America to distance itself from the US, choosing Arabs as major commercial partners...

I sign a service that provides me translated versions of articles of the major newspapers of the world. They pick a selection of world news and everything pertaining to Brazil, that is why I can say this is a panorama of what was written at the time.

NONE of that came to happen. But anyone reading that would think - oh, Brazil will disintegrate! And as I read that, I knew it was nothing short of a very skewed, pessimistic view. Cherrypick facts, speculate, add your bias, voila!!!! When Lula was elected, I was expecting a wide range of mismanagement and incredibly dumb acts. I was right in some aspects, wrong in others. But nothing of the above was considered a possibility even to the local opposition.

This is why when I read about the situation in Iran or Iraq or Russia... hmmm... I dunno. At this point, I truly don't know. If only fear did not sell newspapers...
 
Luciana Nery said:
This is why when I read about the situation in Iran or Iraq or Russia... hmmm... I dunno. At this point, I truly don't know. If only fear did not sell newspapers...
Click to expand...

Luciana, if DD is EVER stupid enough to dump you, I call dibs on getting to hold your hand during your recovery...great post.

Sadly, that Dane is really, really smart...
 
Luciana Nery said:
I can't speak for the whole of South America, as those countries are so diverse.
Click to expand...
Amen, sister. I feel a bit racist in that I have generalized the many great and varied people that make up South America. I guess I'm doubly a hypocrite when I defend staunchly the difference between Candians and Americans and ignore our friends to the south ....

Charlie (I'm not worthy ...) Monoxide
 
Cleon said:
Venezuela, not Colombia.

Colombia is being run by a right-wing jackass named Alvaro Uribe.
Click to expand...

And, of course, it's "Colombia," not "Columbia." "Columbia" is either an alternate name for North America or Washington, DC.

This may seem picky, but while the US is being upbraided by people for not understanding or having respect for other countries, it would be kind of nice if the actual name of the country could be spelled right.
 
Pvt. Stash said:
probably the same way they Tax alcohol (even tho' Any Schmuck can homebrew himself)
Click to expand...
It's possible to grow tobacco also. Once pot is legal and you can simply buy it like tobacco at the local head shop then why bother with the hassle? Hell, get yourself a cow and you don't have to buy milk.
 
Charlie Monoxide said:
Amen, sister. I feel a bit racist in that I have generalized the many great and varied people that make up South America. I guess I'm doubly a hypocrite when I defend staunchly the difference between Candians and Americans and ignore our friends to the south ....

Charlie (I'm not worthy ...) Monoxide
Click to expand...

Not a problem, I know I feel the same when I talk about Africa. For this reason alone I have placed a map of Africa in my office, right in front of my eyes, so at least I can locate those countries geographically if I need to.

Now, does anyone want to hear my rant about the term "Latin America"? You either now close your eyes or brace yourself for that. :D I have noticed no one here mentioned the term, for which I'm very glad and I'll explain why.

The reasons I dislike the term "Latin America" are a) it's inaccurate, as it does not apply to all those who are not of Spanish/Portuguese descent; b) it's ideologically tainted in its origins and c) you can't possibly read the history of those countries in the past two centuries and believe they are similar to each other, so if you don't know this, "Latin America" is short for "I have no idea".

Going back in history, the person who coined the term Latin America was Napeleon III, who in his quest to dominate the world, thought that "Latin America" should because of "common ancestry", be French. So "Latin", in this context was everything not "Anglo-Saxon" and that could be subject to his imperialism. He managed to pull a short-lived stunt in Mexico, with Maximilian, who was shamefully ousted.

The term is inaccurate because it ignores the Amerindians, and this has nothing to do with PC, but with numbers: 30% of Mexicans descend from Amerindians; 45% in Peru; in countries like Paraguay, Bolivia, Colombia the mix white-Amerindian is prevalent, in Brazil 40% is white-black-Amerindian.

What about the African descendents? Brazil is the blackest country outside of Africa, even though only about 6-7% of the population is black, but that's because the Africans mixed with whites and Amerindians. And the non-Latin whites? Many millions descend from Germans, Austrians, Ukranians. One million Brazilians descend from the Japanese.

And Suriname and its Dutch colonization? The population descends from Indians! Not to mention the Javanese. Guiana and French Guiana are about the same, where whites are only a tiny minority.

South America, Central America and North America are geographically correct terms that do not come with ideologies and that is why I prefer them.

And the last point is larger and too much for a simple rant, but the matter is... generalizations have their place, but their usefulness is limited. I can say "Europe suffered economic depression after WWII" or "Some countries in Europe have joined the EU", and those would be true, but only to a certain extent. So when I hear people say "Latin America had military dictatorships in the 70s and 80s", I can only roll my eyes, because that is probably the extent of people's knowledge and they can't even imagine there is way too much beyond that - culture, political backgrounds, uneven economic development... Would anyone tell the history of France by focusing on its government changes? Or the USs by the numbers of wars they have been engaged in? Wouldn't that be considered awfully reductionist, naive or politically biased? To sum up, generalizations have their place and that's fine by me, but they can also be a proud display of ignorance.

[/end of rant]
 
I say...

...grow what you can, and get what you can for it, on the open market. That's the farmers way!

We grow THE most cancer causing crop on the planet, and we export it to ever corner of the world. I am speaking of course of tobacco. We are also the world's leading producer of alcoholic beverages, which can be deadly when over-consumed.

Does ANYONE else see hypocrisy in the U.S. dictating what crops other countries can and can't sow & reap???

If your soil grow grapes, then make wine. If poppies pop up, then go with herion.

Personally, I am proud that South America has choosen to embrace its cultivative differences.

Can you imagine how pissed OUR tobacco farmers would be if Japanese crop dusters flew over spraying disel fuel all over the place, and then claimed that they were ONLY protecting Japanese children from a lifetime of addiction???

Viva LA COCA E MARIJUANA!
 
I agree with Morales on the coca issue but in almost everything else he is a step back towards foolish socialism. It's a pity that the US will prevent him from succeeding on drugs and that Chavez will waste Venenzuela's oil riches to temporarily help out Morale's economic stupidity.

Bolivia has been misruled for so long that the people are desparate to try anything. But jsut because it is different does not mean it is better - as they will soon learn.

CBL
 
Terribly sorry I missed your post earlier :)

Luciana Nery said:
The problem is that you tend to get a skewed image of the world, as in "us vs. them". Also, FEAR sells newspapers.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood my response. I mean that as an American, and to be more precise a resident of USA, when some country wishes Death to my country they inherently wish death upon me. And while I don't simply ignore the rest of the newsreport, when that part pops-up it concerns me the most.
When Lula was elected president, in the very day after he was confirmed, I read in the international press the wildest predictions about his presidency, a summary will follow:

Lula might declare a default with international investors and the IMF; Lula might confiscate the public companies that were recently privatized withou; Lula might build the atom bomb to confirm itself as leader of South America, then obviously Argentina will follow and situation will be tense; Lula might give free reign to the Arabs living in the triple border (Br, Arg, Par), who will then become a major source of terrorism funding and maybe a breeding place for terrorists, including the Amazon that would be a training ground; Lula will gather forces with Chavez and Castro and will exert its power in South America to distance itself from the US, choosing Arabs as major commercial partners...

I sign a service that provides me translated versions of articles of the major newspapers of the world. They pick a selection of world news and everything pertaining to Brazil, that is why I can say this is a panorama of what was written at the time.

NONE of that came to happen. But anyone reading that would think - oh, Brazil will disintegrate! And as I read that, I knew it was nothing short of a very skewed, pessimistic view. Cherrypick facts, speculate, add your bias, voila!!!! When Lula was elected, I was expecting a wide range of mismanagement and incredibly dumb acts. I was right in some aspects, wrong in others. But nothing of the above was considered a possibility even to the local opposition.

This is why when I read about the situation in Iran or Iraq or Russia... hmmm... I dunno. At this point, I truly don't know. If only fear did not sell newspapers...
Click to expand...

Well certainly one must read many sources to get a full picture of what's going on, but yeah, fear does sell better than calm.
 
CBL4 said:
I agree with Morales on the coca issue but in almost everything else he is a step back towards foolish socialism. It's a pity that the US will prevent him from succeeding on drugs and that Chavez will waste Venenzuela's oil riches to temporarily help out Morale's economic stupidity.

Bolivia has been misruled for so long that the people are desparate to try anything. But jsut because it is different does not mean it is better - as they will soon learn.

CBL
Click to expand...
An unequivocal prediction. Brave. Except ... what do you mean by soon?

It's quite possible we'll see a return to the system where oil money comes into Venezuela or Bolivia, straight into the pockets of the criollos and back out for their consumption, by-passing the rest of the population (except insofar as it pays for police and army to keep them law-abiding, especially as regards property law). I doubt democracy will have anything to with it if that does happen.

(Note the equivocation. :) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom