unclefred

I did not make that statement you claimed I did:


Uncle Fred has said, "Oh that was a long time ago.."

Did you know quotation marks are to be used when QUOTING someone? Perhaps you should do some reading...

I actually said: "Not only that, but everything he referenced is 60+ years old. Yet he is speaking in the present tense."

I was pointing out that you were citing events from long ago to support your statement about the present time. That is a criticism of your references.
That is a far cry from what you claimed I said.

MonomachmosIV

Book suggestion;

Open Veins of Latin America.



This book was actually suggested to Obama by Hugo Chavez. He gave him a copy as a gift. The list of American involvement in Latin America, for good or bad is quite long.

pikeshot1600

First, the topic and thread is central America. Second, whose involvement in "Latin America" would be more expected....Germany, Russia, China???

Third, there is a forward to that work by Isabel Allende. It was the "involvement" of the Soviet Union, that resulted in Isabel Allende's perception of the issue. That perception transfers to Nicaragua, Cuba, Colombia, San Salvador, Honduras, Guatamala, Grenada or wherever else the vital interests of the US are concerned. That includes Venezuela.

Fourth, there are not going to be any more "Cubas" in the Western Hemishpere - regardless of who is involved.

Fifth, Hugo Chavez...really?

MonomachmosIV

Central America is part of Latin America. So what is your point? The book deals with Central America which is part of Latin America.

It was probably the ousting of her cousin by a coup partially sponsored (or at least an attempted sponsor) by the U.S. What does her introduction have to do with it ? She didn't write the book.

I'm not quoting Hugo Chavez or anything, I'm just providing background on the book. It's most recent place in the spotlight was surrounding this minor
event.
I do think the book is more balanced than out-right anti-American policy books such as "Peoples History of the United States". In any case, the author makes a case that U.S. and European involvement in Latin America has often produced negative results in South and Central America.


If you want to comment on the actual contents of the book, it might be more useful than vaguely disparaging it. Can you comment on something you disagree with about the book?

Jake10

The point being that while Vietnam is part of Asia, a book that looks at Asia is not the best source for investigating Vietnam. Latin America is a huge group of countries, all different and many having very little in common with Central America aside from language.

Hugo Chaves is a politician with an agenda which he promotes any way he can, which even includes lying in public. Surely, in an effort to obtain an impartial view, we can look to other sources.

MonomachmosIV

Again, Hugo Chavez didn't write the book.

I didn't say it's the only book on the subject, but it's a well-known book with a unique organization based on phases of Latin American economic history. It also doesn't totally ignore the positives of the U.S. economic development It's open to criticism of course.

A book about be a good starting point to learn about Vietnam's 20th Century history. IndoChina in the 20th Century, though not specific, would be a good starting point to understand 20th Century Vietnamese history. But please, feel free to recommend other more balanced books that are also beginner friendly.

Jake10

Nobody said that Hugo Chavez wrote that book.

purpleguy89

I'd like to point out that, as far as I know, little has been written on 16th to 18th century Central American history. This is a pity, probably due in part to the fact that Mexico and Peru had greater economic priority.

SirOrmondeWinter

Continued from our 'CIA in Latin America' thread.

Ultimately I think 'blame the gringo' is too easy. It is not the US's fault Castro became a communist dictator and sought to export his revolution overseas, you can chuck out a US backed dictator and his business interests without becoming a worse dictator yourself and seeking to impose that on others. And maintaining it 25 years after the Cold War ended?

Frankly the US/CIA's policy in Latin America was one of realpolitik, whilst the Cold War was on you had to keep our man in the presidency and the other guy out, even if our guy was a dictator and occasionally bordered on genocidal, you knew the other guy was infinitely worse. Once the Cold War was over the US didn't have to do that anymore (as Noriega found out to his cost) and was happy to let those countries find their own way, even if it meant they elected socialist regimes and the occasional idiot like Chavez, without the threat of the wider war against communism they were content to let them make their own mistakes.
Now what would have happened if the USSR had won?

Lucius

Now that's a good question; one worthy of it's own thread over in one of the "just for fun" sub-forums.

(I know, it's supposed to be "sub-fora" but I don't care - that doesn't sound right.)