I keep seeing folx posting an article that suggests that US foreign policy is primarily (completely) to blame for the conditions in the Caribbean, Central, and South America and have been intrigued by the premise.
I want to start by saying that it’s probably a mistake to place too much emphasis in judging 17-19th century decisions through a 21st century lens. It might be appropriate to not assume the most negative intent on those involved. With that said, I’m not making the blanket argument that everything the US did was positive or even neutral.
I am saying that it’s simplust to ignore all the players.
Spain certainly didn’t leave their colonies with much that would lead to healthy stable free countries. Let’s also remember that Mexico had an excellent constitution, until Mexican patriots decided otherwise.
No one knows for sure, but France set Haiti up for failure when they murdered Toussaint. (Not saying things would have been perfect, but most likely better than Dessalines).
Can we agree that the various religious traditions might have contributed to the current situation? Certothe Roman Church is significant, but even the African religious practices that contributed to Vodou and Santeria haven’t all been positive.
We certainly can’t ignore the Soviet Union and it’s Cuban surrogates contributions, can we?
Even recently we’ve seen the ONG world causing problems, including the Clinton foundation.
I’m quite sure that I’ve missed some more significant contributions to the current situation, but the point is that trying to blame the US first, is at best simplistic and partisan, at worst wrong.
I’d also point out that attributing evil motives to those who made decisions decades or centuries ago is probably not helpful either. Clearly many bad choices have been made throughout history, I’m wondering if it might be more helpful to not always assume the worst about people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
As someone who's dealt with the region a good bit, studied it, have friends and leaders from Latin America, and who is familiar with the history there... I know of no one that would even begin to suggest that America is completely to blame. Certainly no one with any expertise in the field.
That would just be ridiculous conclusion to reach and claim to make.
However, I am aware of US History. I'm aware of support for Thugs and dictators and dirty regimes. I'm aware of coups and overthrows and war crimes and other dirty dealings in Latin America as a part of US policy.
So, just as it would be foolish to say that the US is completely to blame for problems faced in Latin America, so too, it would be foolish to say that the u.s. is innocent in regards to the condition of Latin America.
The truth lies in between. As the facts would demonstrate. But, I know of no serious Scholars in US/Latin American history that would suggest does US policy has not had significant harmful impacts in the region. Certainly, if you asked many of the people who live there and who have lived through negative repercussions of US policy... they will tell you that there has been significant negative or harmful impact.
Speaking of context, I'll never forget the day that I sat across the table from a Nicaraguan woman, an elder in her community of El Regadio, who was speaking for her community and for herself and her family... for the lives of her dead sons and family members - when she asked a group of us Americans,
"I want to know ... Who gave that man, Reagan, permission to come in and to destroy our country?"
SHE viewed US policy as a major villain in Nicaraguan history, and she measured the villainy in the lives of her slaughtered loved ones, in the education denied her children, in opportunity denied her community.
And she said this while sitting across from a former Contra terrorist, with whom she had made peace. She did not blame the contras for all the killing in her country. She and her Village blamed the US for stirring up the division and supporting the contras and their terrorism across her country.
By way of context.
By way of context...
While I appreciate you agreeing with the point of my post, I have to wonder if you actually read it, or if you understood it.
“A Century of U.S. Intervention Created the Immigration Crisis”
This headline doesn’t suggest a fully formed look at the entirety of the causes of the situations in the Caribbean, Central and South America.
Nowhere in the article is any country’s foreign policy actions in the Southern Hemisphere mentioned. So maybe the folx who wrote the article that I’ve seen all over social media don’t have any expertise in the field.
I haven't read the article, but the title isn't wrong. Or at least, it helped create the immigration crisis to a very large degree. Were you not aware of that?
I found one article with that headline. Nowhere does it say the point it's making is that border problems are exclusively US fault.
The problem remains in your consistent inability to read words and accurately understand meaning and context.
Interesting that you’ve chosen to interpret the article failing to mention anything other that a few instances of poor US foreign policy decisions as an example of having expertise in the field.
Clearly the headline doesn’t indicate any indication of anything other that US actions as the cause of the current situation.
Maybe your problem is your constant reversion to the “you don’t understand” trope.
Again, I appreciate you agreeing with the point of the post although I don’t understand your need to do so in such a contentious manner.
Of course, I’d appreciate it if you’d answer a simple respectfully asked question, but that’s probably not going to happen.
More important than how we got here is what do we do now? That question doesn't suggest we ignore how we got here, but focusing on it while doing nothing by point fingers is not at all helpful.
Dan again provide anecdotal evidence to support what he pretend he doesn't fully believe about American culpability. He assumes the Nicaraguan woman settles the question, but I've no confidence that those Americans sitting across from her are smart enough, honest enough to do more than just accept what she says as if the alpha and omega of the issue. Given that there was a war between Sandinistas and Contras, it is not enough to wonder abut loss of life and pretend that means the decision to support the Contras was wrong in and of itself. As to who asked Reagan to involve himself? It's not a legitimate question, as Dan isn't concerned about other forms of aid being freely offered to other nations. He also ignores atrocities committed by the faction this woman ostensibly supports. Dan supposes that all would have been just peachy for all Nicaraguans were the Sandinistas not opposed. So, Dan sides with those who accuse America for the problems experienced there.
I agree that to simply suggest that it’s all Regan’s fault or that it’s all the fault of the US, leaves out many variables. One also wonders if the woman in question had enough of the bigger picture or enough accurate information to make that sort of sweeping geopolitical statement. We just don’t know for sure, and the medium of communication doesn’t engender trust. It also assumed that the alternatives would have been better. What’s not an assumption is that no Matt what happens it’ll be blamed disproportionately on the US.
That seems to be S.O.P. As to the woman, my concern is that she doesn't have to have enough accurate info (or even to have been in any way involved in anything in which she claimed to be involved) so long as she advances the preconceived notions held by people like Dan. I have absolutely no confidence in any of his anecdotal stories. Not simply because they're anecdotal, but his wildly goofy positions and interpretations suggest he is not a reliable source for accuracy with regard those anecdotes.
It's the same problem I have when he speaks of illegals he defends and protects, as well as those he claims are his "experts". I'm not at all prepared to trust his judgement on the truthfulness of those he puts forth as truthful representatives of the typical asylum seeker. I'm far more inclined to believe he's easily chumped.
Exactly, we have no way to know anything about any of these folx he trots out as experts and no way to research them. Since I don’t trust him to report what people say in an accurate and unbiased way, I tend not to give these folx much credence.
What a bunch of fucking arrogant pricks.
Get your fucking white fat asses down in the streets and villages of Nicaragua or Guatemala for a few years, LISTEN to what these people you snidely dismiss have to say, do so with only a few dollars in the back of your fat ass pants, THEN let's talk, you smug and ignorant pharisees.
To hell with your smarmy white-privilege ignorance.
God damn it to hell.
Isn't there enough hypocritical phariseeism in the church and on the conservative side of life to just make you vomit? Do you not know how you come across?
Lord, have mercy.
Since when is pointing out the truth “smug and arrogant”?
I’d ask how many years you’ve spent in Venezuela and Guatemala, but I’m pretty sure the answer is less than “a few”.
Something in this thread must be hitting pretty close to home to get you this unhinged.
The point of this post is that the situation in The Caribbean, Central and South America is more complex than a simplistic “Its Regan’s fault” or “It’s the US’s fault.”. There’s plenty of blame to go around, and you trotting our anonymous “experts” as if they represent some sort of objective truth that can’t be questioned is simply more of your self centered hubris. The fact that pointing out the truth of the matter, and that you’ve given neither of us any reason to trust you might hurt, but it’s out of control, expletive laden rants like this the reinforce your untrustworthiness.
Quite frankly, given your increasing level of hatred and vitriol, and unwillingness to embrace the grace you demand of others, I don’t care what things look like to you. Your lens of anger, prejudice, and hatred surely distort how you view things.
You’ve got enough hypocrisy and Phariseeism for all of us, so I think we’re good.
I just have to note the demonstrable reality that my comments answering your questions get deleted and misrepresented, your hateful, expletive filled personal attack gets posted.
Because hearing the reports of young women in the Socialist paradise of Nicaragua having to prostitute themselves for food and seeing video and interviews of Venezuelans talking about their plight isn’t nearly as valuable as moving down there for a few years and taking resources away from the starving people. Good call. If I want scoop on Guatemala, I can talk to my friend who spends 6 months out of every year down there and has started a business with Guatemalans. But she probably doesn’t meet your stringent standards for being informed either.
This is the same stupidity that says you are unable to speak to “women’s issues” if you’re not a woman. Unless you identify as a woman, then it’s ok.
That Dan. He such a grace-embracing Christian!
I'm so sorry (not really) that he can't manage to reign in his tender emotions enough to type out his vitriol in a less childish manner.
But my position stands. He can present all sorts of anecdotes and the problem still remains. How can I trust that his interpretation of events is accurate? How can I trust that he and his "experts" are expert enough to know when they're being chumped by the sob story of a conman/woman? The point goes much beyond the illegitimacy of the anecdotal as evidence or proof. The point refers to Dan's own character, intelligence and wisdom (or in this case, the lack of any of it). I've only his many years of wackiness by which I can judge such things. Those years leave a great deal to be desired.
But let's say I did go walk the streets of Nicagragua or Guatemala. What if the people with whom I spoke contradicted what Dan said? What would Dan say to that? How would he respond?
The thing is, I don't "snidely dismiss" anyone from those countries. I haven't spoken to any of them. I dismiss YOU, Dan. I dismiss YOUR anecdotes. I don't find you credible or wise enough to determine when a sob story is truthfully told.
My experience in Haiti is that many people will “tell you what you want to hear” in the hopes of getting something from you. Folx in theses countries aren’t stupid at all, they know that if a blanc is around that the blanc is there to help. So they’ll try to gain an advantage by having a really compelling story that will induce you to give them something. Back when I was hiring/mentoring homeless guys, I noticed the same thing.
I think it’s a natural reaction to improve whatever you do to make a living and to do it more effectively.
In Dan’s case I have no doubt that the folx he interacts with know exactly what folx like Dan want to hear and will cast their story in a way best designed to elicit sympathy/empathy. Honestly, I’ve met teenagers on the beach in St Louis who could give sales training to folx who have been in sales all their lives.
As far as Dan’s tantrum, I learned as a child that having to resort to expletives was a sign of an inadequate ability to express yourself. I’m sure Dan will justify his behavior by suggesting that we are minions of Satan or something self serving like that. The facts of the reality are that simply asserting something on a blog doesn’t give credibility, and the less confirmable information provided just makes it harder. Of course, the more anonymous the “source” and the harder to verify just allows more leeway in how their story gets told.
Agreed and well stated.
What's even more maddening about Dan's dishonest discourse is that regardless of the truth of his anecdotes, they do so little to mitigate the strength of the position he's opposing when he uses them. The difficulty a suffering asylum seeker experiences in gaining access to this country doesn't make our laws and procedures immoral. That's generally his beef, but it's just an appeal to emotion...not a lefitimate argument all by itself.
Of course it’s about emotion, why bother with facts.
Post a Comment