amigomexicano said:
History shows clearly how Latin America has been negatively affected since colonization by Europeans. Advanced civilizations like the Aztecs and Incas as well as many others were destroyed to build much less advanced civilizations where social inequality, racism, ignorance and a double moral were imposed on the natives and the enslaved Africans (that's another story of barbarism in itself). Exploitation of resources by Europeans continued for centuries. This made the European countries rich and left the Latin American countries poor. After a while, Latin America was able to achieve independence from the Europeans but power changed to Criollos (descendants of Europeans) in most countries. These people continued to spread poverty and ignorance among the non-criollos and got rich by exploiting them. Then the US and other European countries started taking advantage of Latin America though invasions and unethical actions. The USA also started to control the presidents and politicians in most countries in order to continue exploiting our resources and our people. These puppet politicians have also taken advantage of US protection and weren't afraid to steal billions of dollars from our countries. It's not that we don't take responsibility for our actions. It's just that we aren't really responsible of the corruption of US imposed politicians in Latin America or for the exploitation our countries have suffered for centuries. Even though we are not responsible for others stealing our land and resources by taking advantage of our vulnerability, we will be responsible for solving the problems left to us by these others. Latin America is changing and when I go to Brazil I feel they are much more awake politically than, for example, my country, Mexico is. Mexico has a puppet president right now and his politics will only create bigger problems for the poor. Only the rich will get richer. But guess what?? When the poor get to be too poor, they rebel against the rich. Just look at all the problems in Mexico right now, kidnappings, drug dealing, robberies, guerrilla in Chiapas, gangs, etc. It's the poor's reaction to social exclusion and that will affect the rich in the end. There is no better politics than those that help the majority. Until now, Latin American politics have been designed to help the elite minority only. Brazil is still in the same situation but the Brazilian people are now trying to change this. On the other hand, most Mexicans are too brainwashed politically and aren't even aware that Mexico is going in the wrong direction, in my opinion. Again, I don't see why we should be responsible for the ignorance imposed upon us. I am lucky to have had an education, have traveled and learned but not all Latin Americans can have this opportunity, specially not the people at the bottom of the social ladder. Maybe I should shut my mouth since I have good living conditions but I really think there are lots of injustices in this world that have to be told. I really wish NOT to offend anybody with this post. There is good people on the other side too.
Now, for a more "on topic" post:
The lack of extensive development in LA has been attributed to all things ranging from the colonization (which does not explains why the other areas of the world colonized by the Europeans developed into thriving economies) to corruption to what ever will be in vague of discussion among the intellectuals.
However, it's clear that the lack of extensive development in LA has been due to a lack in interest to create such development. Blame this on whatever anyone wants to blame it on, development or lack of such is the result of peoples desires in such society, by people I mean those in power.
This also begs the question to be asked: What exactly do people mean by development?
In many ways, a bohio was the ultimate in Taino living. Why would such lifestyle be considered backward today? Why would such lifestyle not be considered development? Does an entire society has to conform to eurocentric definitions of development in order to be considered developed?
Regarding Mexico, it's a 50/50. Mexico has gained tremendous advantages via the NAFTA. Most of Mexico's losses were mostly restricted in the agricultural sector and those sectors were directly affected by subsidies maintained in North American farms. An example of this would be the demise of the varieties of maize that was grown in Mexico by small and large landholders. Today, much of the maize being sold in Mexico is of the variation(s) used in the United States, which is overproduced due to subsidies that artificially keep the cost of farming in the US below its actual cost, thus increasing profitability.
Much of the over production in first world agriculture is later dumped into the international market, depressing food prices on a global scale. Guess what, developing nations have a greater advantage in farming and food products make the majority of exports in many developing countries. However, many of those countries are not able to reap the benefits of such, thanks in part to subsidies in the developed world allowing for overproduction of foodstuff that developing countries can do better, faster, and easier and gain from trade of those foods sold on the international market.
Why are farms in developed nations subsidized? A combination of special interest groups pressuring the governments to keep the subsidies and the average citizen in "love" with the countryside that they don't want to see those farm disappear. Southern France is able to look like Southern France at the expense of Mali, Nigeria, Haiti, etc.
Refering back to Mexico, Mexico gained well in the places expected. In the places where it did not gained, was mostly due to unfair practices beyond the realm of free market and free trade.
Free trade works, only when it really exist.
-NALs