Causes of the backwardness of Latin America

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by Rumiñahui
But, then, how arose such great civilizations as mayans, aztecs or incas, which developed a level of social and economical organization comparable to the euroasiatic ones, in these same geographical areas?

I agree that they were impressive civilizations with great dynamism, but there was obviously a temporal lag compared to Europe, brilliantly explained by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel. After all, they were still Stone Age civilizations, with a smattering of metal introduced.

In Marxist analysis they are likened to the Asian mode of production (check it out, it's in the Grundrisse, link here). Interesting stuff, huh?

 

[unmerged(6657)]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum



The US has a Catholic majority now, and only if you consider all Protestant denominations separately. For most of its history the US has been demographically and culturally predominantly Protestant. It still is predominantly Protestant culturally.

QUOTE]

I would venture to say that the US has had a Catholic majority from the turn of the last century onward. Every population center was located in the north, and the population centers will filled with Catholics. In the present time, Hispanic migration has only widened the gap. An American Catholic is almost like an Aparteid-era Black. They have the population numbers, but the media, big business, and government are controlled by the WASPS, so they are a sociological minority.

Also, I would consider all Protestant denominations separately, as they consider themselves to all be the one true faith. The Catholics do outnumber the entire Protestant group lumped together though.

So Pirate Scum,

Your argument is that because England, Lutheran Germany and New England are such horrible places to live, the population had no choice but to be industrious, as they had no opportunity to sit around and sunbathe, as peoples who live in warm areas do??
I would agree somewhat, as people in my neck o' the woods tend to work longer during the winter, as there in nothing else to do, but work less during the summer, as there is more opportnity for fun when the weather is good.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Brycon:

I believe you have bad data about church membership. Scum is correct that Catholics are a plurality, but do not outnumber all Protestants together.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by BRYCON316

So Pirate Scum,

Your argument is that because England, Lutheran Germany and New England are such horrible places to live, the population had no choice but to be industrious, as they had no opportunity to sit around and sunbathe, as peoples who live in warm areas do??
I would agree somewhat, as people in my neck o' the woods tend to work longer during the winter, as there in nothing else to do, but work less during the summer, as there is more opportnity for fun when the weather is good.

Regarding Christianity in the U.S., I think that the numbers are a matter of record and can be easily verified.

As for the differences in work ethics between temperate vs. tropical regions, yes, I think that there is a correlation.

For people who live in the tropics work is important, but having fun is vastly more important. The concept of quality of life revolves around pleasure, not around work.

Even character varies from region to region. Latins consider Germans humorless and dry. But Germans consider Norwegians humorless and dry.

* Ducks his head waiting for Germans and Norwegians to beat him to a pulp *

 

[unmerged(9571)]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi: I am less willing to concede that US multinational activity in GENERAL (including the big mining operations and petroleum operations) somehow hindered the ECONOMIC development of the region. [/B]

I see it as the same general pattern followed by the spaniards and portuguese years before: to exploit the natural resources without allowing the development of a manufacture industry, so all LA exports low-value raw materials (through US multinationals) and has to import high-valued manufactured materials.

 

[Duque de Bragança]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum


Uruguay followed a process similar to Argentina's. German immigration to Chile (Catholic Germans, BTW) appears to have been significant and it has been extensively studied. There were fewer than 10,000 German immigrants by the turn of the century, mostly located in the south of Chile. However, I'm unaware of anybody making the link you are making (I don't think it's wrong or un-PC to posit it), but it still is a long way from being a strong argument. Somebody would have to prove that they became influential beyond their numbers in education, politics, somewhere.

Not only Germans immigrated to Chile. Bretons and Basques went there as well : Catholics !

Never heard of this Breton family : Pinochet ?

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Rumiñahui
I see it as the same general pattern followed by the spaniards and portuguese years before: to exploit the natural resources without allowing the development of a manufacture industry, so all LA exports low-value raw materials (through US multinationals) and has to import high-valued manufactured materials.

I agree that the foreign investment was in extractive endeavors, but don't see how this leads to the HINDERING of manufactoring development.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by BRYCON316
I would venture to say that the US has had a Catholic majority from the turn of the last century onward. Every population center was located in the north, and the population centers will filled with Catholics. In the present time, Hispanic migration has only widened the gap.

The US has never had a Catholic majority. It has had a Catholic plurality for a long time, but this is essentially meaningless because US Protestants belong to an extraordinary number of different denominations. Please check church numbers.

An American Catholic is almost like an Aparteid-era Black. They have the population numbers, but the media, big business, and government are controlled by the WASPS, so they are a sociological minority.

Catholics are forced to use completely separate facilities like blacks in post-WWII South Africa? And if you think the "Anglo-Saxon Protestans" are involved in a conspiracy to control the media, you might want to check the ethnicity and race of the people who actually work in the media. If you want to keep making bizarre statements like these, then take it to the OT forum.

Also, I would consider all Protestant denominations separately, as they consider themselves to all be the one true faith. The Catholics do outnumber the entire Protestant group lumped together though.

Very false. Not to mention that even if they did, this wouldn't indicate thay they constitute a majority of the population (probably Chinese Catholics outnumber all Chinese Protestants, but this certainly doesn't mean that Catholics are a majority of the Chinese population).

 

[Dark Knight]

It's also a pity that I missed so much of this conversation. I'd like to point, though, that Argentina around the turn of the last century was one of the world's most prosperous economies following rapid population growth spurred by immigration from Spain, Italy, Britain, and Germany. However, beginning in the 1930s, they adopted retrograde economic policies intended to combat the effects of the depression and also entered a period of much more profound political instability and adherence to demagogic populists (Peron). Immediately following WWII, Argentina still had a per-capita income about equal to France (although France was about to recover from the devastation of the war), but it has fallen far behind in the decades since.

I think that the fundamental reason for the relative poverty of Latin America derives from institutional causes, some of which are the result of geography, and more of which are cultural and historical. However, I rather doubt that Catholicism vs. Protestantism is hugely important in this. One is about as good (or bad) as the other). Also, US intervention was extremely important in many Mesoamerican and Caribbean countries, but, barring a few exceptions like complicity in the overthrow of Allende, was relatively limited in South American countries and even in Mexico (where the PRI used to be very proud of its anti-Americanism).

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
It's also a pity that I missed so much of this conversation. I'd like to point, though, that Argentina around the turn of the last century was one of the world's most prosperous economies following rapid population growth spurred by immigration from Spain, Italy, Britain, and Germany. However, beginning in the 1930s, they adopted retrograde economic policies intended to combat the effects of the depression and also entered a period of much more profound political instability and adherence to demagogic populists (Peron). Immediately following WWII, Argentina still had a per-capita income about equal to France (although France was about to recover from the devastation of the war), but it has fallen far behind in the decades since.

I think that the fundamental reason for the relative poverty of Latin America derives from institutional causes, some of which are the result of geography, and more of which are cultural and historical. However, I rather doubt that Catholicism vs. Protestantism is hugely important in this. One is about as good (or bad) as the other). Also, US intervention was extremely important in many Mesoamerican and Caribbean countries, but, barring a few exceptions like complicity in the overthrow of Allende, was relatively limited in South American countries and even in Mexico (where the PRI used to be very proud of its anti-Americanism).

I agree with many of your points Dark Knight. I actually made the point about Argentina's prosperity up to the immediate postwar. IIRC, Argentina sent aid to Italy after WWII.

 

[unmerged(6657)]

Originally posted by Dark Knight

The US has never had a Catholic majority. It has had a Catholic plurality for a long time, but this is essentially meaningless because US Protestants belong to an extraordinary number of different denominations. Please check church numbers.


Catholics are forced to use completely separate facilities like blacks in post-WWII South Africa? And if you think the "Anglo-Saxon Protestans" are involved in a conspiracy to control the media, you might want to check the ethnicity and race of the people who actually work in the media. If you want to keep making bizarre statements like these, then take it to the OT forum.

The heads of Viacom, NBC, AOL time-Warner, Disney, USA Programming, King World Entertainment, and Newscorp. are all non-Catholic. I didn't mean to imply a conspiracy, just the fact that non-Catholics do control the media. The Aparteid statement meant that Catholics don't have politcal power in proportion to their numbers, hence only one Catholic President in history.

Religious population of US 1998:

Catholic: 69,536,000
Protestant: 69,437,000

What? And the gap has widened since 1998, and this doesn't include undocumented Hispanics and Eastern Europeans.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by BRYCON316

Catholic: 69,536,000
Protestant: 69,437,000

What? And the gap has widened since 1998, and this doesn't include undocumented Hispanics and Eastern Europeans.

What about the rest??? I don't think over half of US population is non-christian (bar orthodox)....

 

[unmerged(9571)]

Hmmm.... Going back to the topic, I largely agree with Pirate Scum's idea of geographical and climatical determination. I find it hard to accept the religious idea catholic/protestant. India and great parts of Africa were colonized by the english but they are equally backward and have similar problems as those of Latin America (although the two situations are not entirely comparable).

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by BRYCON316
Religious population of US 1998:
Catholic: 69,536,000

This is a quarter of the US population.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Rumiñahui
India and great parts of Africa were colonized by the english but they are equally backward and have similar problems as those of Latin America (although the two situations are not entirely comparable).

Actually, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are far worse off than Latin America. Latin America contains many countries that are considered to be 'middle-income' economies (for example, Mexico has a per-capita income of of $9,100 and Brazil of $6,500), whereas almost all South Asian and Sub-Saharan countries are low-income, often extremely low (for example, India has a per-capita income of $2,200 and Nigeria of $950).

Note: The source for income is the CIA world factbook, which converts for purchasing power parity.

 

[unmerged(8399)]

Well, I see here at least 4 classic historical theories

1) Max Weber, and the calvinist ethic. How do you explain then the poor backward northern Germany against the industrial catholic Germany?

2) Geographical determinism, Why countiries with the same climate, like Argenitne and the US, or Poland and Germany, or Austria and Romani, had such a different development level.

3) Marx and the Asian production system, related to hidraulic systems (the hidraulic trap). Although I find the Marxist historiography rather ridiculous, I find this particular theory well sounded.

4) Inmanuel Wallerstein theory of unequal development, very interesting read, sometimes a bit too superficial but in general a good general theory on the subject.

And there is the race theory, where there is always the point What is a race?" and we get into rather slippery ground.

I would say there are many causes interacting to keep LA backwards, I think all this discussions always go nowhere because people try to find and defend THE cause, and no multiplicity.

 

[unmerged(4755)]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum
In 1492 you also had a very wealthy urban merchant class in Castile growing rich off the wool trade in Castile, and about to grow even richer with the trade from the Low Countries (dynastically linked to Castile and Aragon in 1516, as you know).

Indeed. Colonization of South America, and the plantation system is the result of pretty advanced capitalistic structures, and is based upon the very capitalistic observation that sugar was the produce which had the most extraordinary progression in terms of demand, at the time (thus commanding high prices). The Spanish westward progression and experiments in Sicily and the Canaries were funded by the - quite sucessful "capitalists" I might add - Italians.

The difference between North and South America wasn't between "good place" to live and "bad place" to live. The North wasn't a bad place: it just wasn't a place where economic development followed exploitation of luxury commodities (which were, after all, the basis of early-modern economies and economic theories of the time). The shift of Britain policy - and French as well - happened during the second half of the XVIIIth century, by which time it had become apparent that the role as a market of North American colonies (the southern states excluded) outweighed their role as providers. South America was also an important market, mainly because it provided merchants with a commodity of nearly constant value: Spanish silver. In fact, one could argue, as Louis XIV did, that the Spanish Succession War was about determining the power that was to control the supplying of the South. I would agree, however, that the economic development of the North was mainly because the communities there "had" to provide themselves with means of survival, instead of having to rely on government supplying, as was the case where the colonies were state-induced.

 

[unmerged(4303)]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum
[I would contend that it had more to do with climate, geography, and the nature of the societies already there than with the European peoples or their mindset.[/B]

I agree 100% - all of Us and most of canada are in temperate zone, most of Latin america is in the tropics.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by Aryaman
Well, I see here at least 4 classic historical theories

1) Max Weber, and the calvinist ethic. How do you explain then the poor backward northern Germany against the industrial catholic Germany?

2) Geographical determinism, Why countiries with the same climate, like Argenitne and the US, or Poland and Germany, or Austria and Romani, had such a different development level.

3) Marx and the Asian production system, related to hidraulic systems (the hidraulic trap). Although I find the Marxist historiography rather ridiculous, I find this particular theory well sounded.

4) Inmanuel Wallerstein theory of unequal development, very interesting read, sometimes a bit too superficial but in general a good general theory on the subject.

And there is the race theory, where there is always the point What is a race?" and we get into rather slippery ground.

I would say there are many causes interacting to keep LA backwards, I think all this discussions always go nowhere because people try to find and defend THE cause, and no multiplicity.

Ahah, good summary. If you have read carefully my posts, you will notice that I tend to downplay 1, base myself largely on 3 (although why you emphasize the Asian mode of production over other aspects escapes me), and add some 2 for good measure. After all, any competent Marxist analysis has to begin with a study of nature and initial conditions (look at Engels's notes on the history of Ireland for a good example). The many causes to which you refer must always be kept in mind in Marxist analysis ("totality", not just the economy, as some misinformed people tend to believe).

 

[unmerged(6657)]

If the discussion moves to industrialization, Latin America and Africa are backwards because they are neolithic European cultures that were colonized by late comers to the industrial game. The US and Canada were lucky to have England as their mother country. England's textile mills plans were basically memorized by an American and taken to New England, where they were copied. As a result, the US became an industrial power, and moved towards a tertiary economy more quickly than other parts of the world.

Latin America had Spain and Portugal as mother countries. There was no opportunity for anyone to steal Spanish industrial plans. Latin America fell behind Anglo-America in industrialization, just as the Iberians fell behind the English.

However, this begs the following question. German states lied their first railroad of note in 1845, and by 1900 were already very close to the US and England as far as economic supremacy. Why didn't Latin America and the Iberians catch up to the Anglos?? The Iberians and Latins had similar resources, and Latin America had countries with a similar population to Germany, so why couldn't they catch up??