Aside from Argentina and Chile, why is South America so shitty?

>what is Haiti

What a terrible continent then since Chile is insecure as fuck

The Argentine and Chilli are first world because they had strong Anglo influence in the 19th century from Britain. Argentine was almost a British dominion IIRC.

The rest of the continent was permanently fucked up by the Spanish culture and disdain for institutions and the rule of law. Even today Spain had to adopt the Euro to achieve low inflation, and they get a shitton of gibs from the EU funds.

Thank God for Farage, we are leaving that Eurosocialist ponzi scheme.

Are you Chilean?

yep

le English delusion

Well, still safer than the US.

Brazilian here.

French doesn't work too well either, Brazil was deeply influenced by France. Pedro II spent a lot of time in France, the Republic was founded under Positivism (thus the meme phrase that is still in the flag of the country) and neither had good results.

>>South East Asia
i say singapore is very successfull

Argentinian here, Uruguay is not shit mate.

I only know Montevideo but their life quality is higher than the one we have here in Buenos Aires but there's less people (less stuff to do) and its more expensive.

>tfw sunset in buenos aires while listening to piazzolla and eating milanesas

People will look for excuses to say it's not race-mixing, but it is race-mixing.

It only really got good after independence.

Chile is every bit as shitty as the rest of Latin America.

Don't know shit about Argentina.

Its full of niggers its not the same thing.

going for the easy explanation eh?

Only America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are white nations.

And who put the niggers there?

The Frogs.

Haiti as a plantation colony in how it was governed was a mess.

No its racemixing with niggers, if the damn Portuguese just raped the natives of Brazil the country would be a hellhole but much better because African genes are that horrible.

> Brazil was deeply influenced by France

Dafuq are you talking about
Napoleon literally expelled the royal family from Portugal to the Brazillian colonies
The Brits even had exclusive trading rights on Brazil for a while
Sorry man but that's just way too wrong

That's some pretty weak reasoning.

user non africans do better than actual africans in their ow countries.

An Amazon native majority Brazil would be far better than the nigger infested hellhole it is today.

It's not as if El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras are any better.

He is right, though. Brazil was and still is extremely influenced by France, specially it's elites.

Every single fashion the French invent we adopt it first. Anticlericalism, radicalism and the separation of Church and state? We did it first. Positivism? We did it first. Architectural modernism? Le Corbusier didn't manage to destroy Paris, but we let his minions here destroy our cities. Postmodern penal abolitionism? Foucault is a big influence in our judiciary and judges let criminals go free because they are "victims of society".

British influence was mainly commercial, but cultural and political influence was French.

The areas around the equator aren't chilly enough. Haha, get it? Chilly like Chile haha

Nice try, America is not white.

Your emperor loved Paris, your flag is Positivist, the dude who invented the airplane also did it in Paris, plus the scientific expeditions, the paintings.

Positivism mostly. When the rest of the world was developing for themselves they were developing infrastructure for export.

Argentina was different in that it was largely a nation of immigrants, so there was less ingrained traditionalism and like the US and Canada they could sort of build settlements in logical places.

Take a country like Brazil where they have people who think Planes are Gods and have never interacted with Brazilians, not even knowing the outside world exists. How are they supposed to develop as much as the West

How so? They d be treated the exact same either way and disadvantaged heavily.

And blacks are a minority in Brazil and in admixture and are concentrated in one area that has begin historically neglected. Blacks in Brazil were a complete non fact politically.

>Take a country like Brazil where they have people who think Planes are Gods and have never interacted with Brazilians
I don't see how that is an argument. The population of the ameridians is so low you probably have more people who believe in a flat earth in the US, and that never held them back.

>Argentina was different in that it was largely a nation of immigrants, so there was less ingrained traditionalism and like the US and Canada they could sort of build settlements in logical places.

That's less about being a "nation of immigrants" and more about having plains as a main feature of topography.

Countries like Colombia, Brazil and Venezuela are very unlucky in this regard because their main cities are separated by mountains and shit.

"Pardos" (half-blacks) are the majority in Brazil.
In the USA they would be considered Black because of the one drop rule.

So blacks ARE a majority in Brazil, from the American perspective. Don't be disingenuous.

mexico was p good until hte 60s or so

peru is okay too, uruguay too

Haiti's circumstances were exceptional, owing to how they got their independence. Anyone who didn't need a revolution is doing better than those who did not, owing the French being really vengeful when it was revolution. What happened to Haiti was pretty bad.

Actually blacks in brazil have much more white admixture than blacks in america

Considering all "pardos" to be "half-blacks" is a very dishonest tactic of the Brazilian black movement to inflate their numbers and influence.

"Pardos" are mixed-race people, that means any kind of mixing, including the kind that would produce "mestizos" elsewhere in South America.

CIA interventions is part of it, another part of it is due to prevalence of Authoritarianism early on in Latin Americas history that made to countries much less attractive to emigrate to than the US. Finally, Latin America had almost no educated middle class for the vast majority of its existence. The people in charge making the countries laws were the entrenched elite, not lawyers and businessmen from the novo inellegncia

Not by much mate

Pardo doesn't mean half black asshat.
Also pardo are mostly European in genetics and grouping pardon and blacks is pure idiocy.

Your picture says otherwise

>pardos are the majority
>posts a map for that shows pardos are not the majority
What did he mean by this

Colombian here.

you're all dumb american or yurofags retards with memes.

It's because of drug prohibition and american foreign policy.

Retards.

The /Pol/ explanation would be Argentina was populated by mostly whites at some point and Chile had Pinochet to avoid commies and populism ... All other countries were filled by chinks, japs, and aboriginals leading to over population, empoverishment and populist regimes

>Argentina
Italian, french and german immigrant influx to cities in times in which it was possible to prosper economically, plus lots of land for agricultural purposes. When native-mestizo peoples started to migrate to cities was during Peronismo so half of them integrated easily, the other half being what we call "negros", analogous to the russian term "Bydlo" (in Argentina "negro" is not a racial epithet to refer to african people but comes from "cabezitas negras" which means blackhaired people).
>Chile
Basque, german an british immigrant influx to cities in times in which it was possible to prosper economically, plus copper mines.
Europe moved to cities in times in which it was possible to prosper economically. Small Black population totally integrated in society. Pinochet will go into history as the only person that could make neoliberalism work, still lots of "flaites" around.
>Uruguay
Like Argentina but before the immigrant influx the county was basically empty. Nicest country in South America.
>Panama
Poor as hell, most of the money comes from the Panama Canal and the country being a fiscal paradise.
>Costa Rica
Uruguay 2: Caribbean Boogaloo

Won't give an opinion on Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil and Peru as many years on /pol/ may have biased me.

in Chile it should be
>Basque, german an british immigrant influx to cities in times in which it was possible to prosper economically, plus copper mines. Pinochet will go into history as the only person that could make neoliberalism work, still lots of "flaites" around.

that thing about black people was supossed to go on Uruguay

They were more developed than most of Europe in the 1950's.Then the cold war and socialism happened

Populismo.

Are Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay really first world?

Because of iberian influence. The european-born aristocracy perpetuated pre-modern conditions as long as possible because the classic aristocratic class in Europe lost its wealth and influence in the transition to industrial capitalism.

>Because of iberian influence
M8 in the XIX and XX century LATAM countries were amongst the wealthiest in the world.They just got fucked by the cold war and US/USSR proxy wars.
Cuba was as wealthy as Austria,Venezuela was unironically the 4th richest country per capita in the world recieving hundreds of thousands of inmigrants and Argentina and Chile were pretty decent