Latin American countries never stood a chance. The mere existance of USA fucked them over...

/thread

>implying we ever adopted "lib shit" straight from US

c'mon it's kinda a consensus at this point on social studies that "democracy", "liberalism" and "enlightenment" were imparted very poorly (if/when they were) in Brazil.

Latour is kinda right on this imo (take it with a grain of salt) we were never modern

Literally the only reason European countries didn't just reconquer Latin America is because of the Monroe doctrine. Mexico was nearly conquered by France, Venezuela was nearly conquered by Britain, etc.

Venezuela chose oil and crony capitalism. Socialism has quite little to do with it. Most oil states also heavily subsidize everything, just look at the Gulf nations.

>When and if US fall, South America will be first to shine.

The U.S. is already falling, and South America is already shining.

South America is pretty much out of America's sphere of influence today, at least more so than any other continent.

In fact the US reestablishing ties to Cuba was pretty much so that the US can retain/reclaim influence over the South.

Only the most braindead 'Merican armchair strategists would refuse to see this.

The Monroe doctrine was more of suggestion. The US at the time had no way to enforce it, and subsequentially France would invade Mexico, Spain would retain their colonies, Britain would enforce asymmetrical "free trade" agreements with various Latin American countries that would give them a bad taste of such economics. Latin America has a shoddy relationship with free market economics why state interventionism was usually more popular.

During the reign of Dom. Pedro II of the Brazilian Empire, Brazil at the time was equal with the US in gdp and development. There was one difference, and that was capitalist investment. USA at this time was building WAY more railroads that the miserly amount Brazil was making. In addition to that, the political situation would destabilize with a coup after Isabella's rushed abolition of slavery. Political instability would also discourage foreign investment.

Then comes the 20th century and Latin America develops an affinity for socialism/communism. The occasion seizing or nationalization of private property would also discourage foreign investment.

>tl;dr
>Latin America hates capitalism, loves big government, politically unstable, likes socialism.

what is in the water down there that these dumb fucks can't stop falling for socialism?

Latin American countries are fucked up because they were never intended to be stable functioning states. The Spanish and Portuguese set them up to be resource extraction operations. They existed purely for the benefit of their master countries.

The USA and Canada didn't have nearly as much easily accessible wealth like the Aztec and Inca gold mines. They were settled by people looking to develop the land and create a better society.

Latin American colonies were a short term cash grab with no sustainability planning, the US and Canada were long term projects that sought to build wealth and society in the long run.

I need more of this character.

just like my viccy 2

>the fucking idiots didn't build liquor factories
They deserve their fate desu

They don't treat their workers well and unregulated capitalism has only produced corrupt oligarchs who hoard the countries wealth and lick the ballsacks of the big business overseas, elites from their own countries of origin or Washington's. It's really not surprising, when you hear someone talking about giving the poor and workers more rights that socialism sounds attractive.

Latin American strongman meme pretty much fucked their concept of politics for a century

It probably also doesn't help that Spain lost most of its human capital after striking it rich in Latin America

Argentine is white?

these pretty much sums it up

add racial tension as well

I fail to see how Brazil could have ever become a power. It was a slave society, more similar to Haiti pre-revolution than to other countries in America.

As for Mexico, I think a too great share of its population were Indios.

>I think a too great share of its population were Indios.
Historians won't even touch this subject but it is true that culture and genetics are reflected in the societies we build

It's really quite absurd. It's pretty obvious that the whitest countries in Latin America are the best, and the blackest are the worst, but we're supposed to ignore that.

Because their whole ideology is based on the concept that all humans are equal in every regard. Which puts them on par with right-wing evolution deniers in terms of their rejection of science.

>Tenochtitlan was founded on an islet in the western part of the lake in the year 1325. Around it, the Aztecs created a large artificial island using a system similar to the creation of chinampas. To overcome the problems of drinking water, the Aztecs built a system of dams to separate the salty waters of the lake from the rain water of the effluents. It also permitted them to control the level of the lake. The city also had an inner system of channels that helped to control the water.

>During Cortés' siege of Tenochtitlan in 1521, the dams were destroyed, and never rebuilt, so flooding became a big problem for the new Mexico City built over Tenochtitlan.

>Mexico City suffered from periodic floods; in 1604 the lake flooded the city, with an even more severe flood following in 1607. Under the direction of Enrico Martínez, a drain was built to control the level of the lake, but in 1629 another flood kept most of the city covered for five years.

>Eventually the lake was drained by the channels and a tunnel to the Pánuco River, but even that could not stop floods, since by then most of the city was under the water table. The flooding could not be completely controlled until 1967, with the construction of a Deep Drainage System.

>The ecological consequences of the draining were enormous. Parts of the valleys were turned semi-arid, and even today Mexico City suffers for lack of water. Due to overdrafting that is depleting the aquifer beneath the city, Mexico City is estimated to have dropped 10 meters in the last century. Furthermore, because soft lake sediments underlie most of Mexico City, the city has proven vulnerable to soil liquefaction during earthquakes, most notably in the 1985 earthquake when hundreds of buildings collapsed and thousands of lives were lost.

>inb4 stop posting pasta
stop pushing your supremacist bullshit
you're worse than wewuzing niggers

>the savages who ripped the still beating hearts of children out of their chests then kicked them down the pyramid steps built some good damns
>whitey BTFO
Get the fuck out of here faggot

I fail to see what your post has anything to do with what I've said.

Tenochtitlan was an impressive city, we can all agree. And?

Barely 42 sacrificed children have been found in the most important temple of the empire. 42 children in 200 years.
The Spanish slaughtered 8 000 nobles and their children on the same spot in a couple of hours, without a declaration of war and thus starting hostilities with the Aztecs while being guests in the empire's capital.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_in_the_Great_Temple

>defending one of the most barbaric cultures in human history
/leftypol/ needs to go back

This thread is about post colonial nations, you seem to have mistaken it for a pre-columbian thread.

This.

>That didn't stop Spain and Portugal from establishing global empires.
It did help them get completely overshadowed by the Anglos and Dutch

The population being more indio in mexico doesn't hinder it at all. Thats just being unironically racist.

Reality is unironically racist

>That didn't stop Spain and Portugal from establishing global empires.
Their retarded economic policies based literally just off collecting and hoarding gold did, though.

Democracies ruined Latin America this is a fact.
They operate better under dictatorships or even Imperial kings.

Aztecs were doing fine all things considered and you know it. The old world in general had a big head start by being settled much sooner and by larger groups than the Americas.

this belongs in int, also, fuck south america, really

Compare the Aztecs with the Nordics and you get a similar picture.

>Aztecs were doing fine all things considered and you know it.
Okay? What's your point? How does that comment have anything to do with the subject at hand, namely the fact that Mexico's demographic structure is holding it back?

It's really not.

Indians aren't what's holding Mexico back, if anything not embracing the culture, which is the nations roots is what is holding it back. Since it has no pride in it's own culture, it looks elsewhere to copy forever being slaves to foreign influence instead of determining their own destiny.

Thoughts on this man?

What would a modernized Amazonian country in Brazil look like today?

A big meme, he did some things right but his faults eclipse his achievements imo. He was also a paper tiger, the original revolution to depose him triumphed in less than a year, after that it was nearly a decade of senseless inter-warlord violence and more uprisings. His biggest mistake was trying to be the a king instead of setting up actual institutions, once again proving strongmen rule can be effective in the short term but in the long run is a terrible idea.

What does Mexico's demographic have anything to do with anything at all? The Natives particularly in that region were self-sustaining and civilization had reconstructed itself numerous times. If the Aztecs didn't last, something would have replaced it down the line, that shows through Mesoamerica's previous history. People can point to whatever instances of human sacrifice, which in larger amounts is only unique to the Aztecs and no other group of Mesoamericans, but in no other way does the word barbaric even apply to them in a historical sense.

Spain and Portugal had a pretty strong trade systems

>Indians aren't what's holding Mexico back, if anything not embracing the culture, which is the nations roots is what is holding it back.
What? Embracing a human sacrificing cannibalistic culture would make Mexico more prosperous?

>What does Mexico's demographic have anything to do with anything at all?
It has a huge number of people who are not fit for Western-type civilization.

>Latin American countries never stood a chance
yeah, because they're mongrels with a room temperature IQ

>That didn't stop Spain and Portugal from establishing global empires.
European nations without huge amount of indio and negroid admixture

>The U.S. is already falling, and South America is already shining.
South america is growing slower than the US.They are doing as bad as ever

>Latin American countries are fucked up because they were never intended to be stable functioning states. The Spanish and Portuguese set them up to be resource extraction operations. They existed purely for the benefit of their master countries.
>This meme again
Spain invested way more on the infrastructure of its colonies than any other colonial country.

>It has a huge number of people who are not fit for Western-type civilization.
How? Give some good reasons.

>Embracing a human sacrificing cannibalistic culture
Are all of your judgments on civilizations based on emotional woman reasoning? That wasn't the only aspect of their culture, nor was it a common one in groups other than the Aztecs. I guess the Romans were shit because they threw people in arenas with wild animals and criminals to watch as entertainment, right?

Human sacrifice was like 80% of Aztec culture. The other 20% was wars and enslaving. I don't know how stupid or how much of a LARPER you are, but if Mexico started doing this it would get invaded by the UN

Not him, but the average IQ in Mexico is barely 90. You can't function in a modern western civilization to any reasonable extent with such a pathetically low IQ.

There is not even one Latin American country with an average IQ of even 100.

Agreed, but pic related is 100% Brazil

>How? Give some good reasons.
Low IQ, and behavioral characteristics which are more fit for hunter gatherer type civilizations (especially extreme violence).

>Are all of your judgments on civilizations based on emotional woman reasoning? That wasn't the only aspect of their culture, nor was it a common one in groups other than the Aztecs. I guess the Romans were shit because they threw people in arenas with wild animals and criminals to watch as entertainment, right?
What was the other part of their culture? Mass slavery?

And the Romans were certainly brutal. I wouldn't recommend Italy starting gladiator fights again.

>literal great depression-tier crash in the modern era
How?

>nationalize companies on a whim
>not socialism
lmao

> Brazil at the time was equal with the US in gdp and development
Do you have a source for this? Because turn of the century US was the most industrial country in the world with more steel production and railroad track laid than most of Europe put together.

>Human sacrifice was like 80% of Aztec culture. The other 20% was wars and enslaving.
It wasn't, it was a large part but it certainly didn't account for everything. The entire infrastructure of Tenochtitlan wasn't made from the blood of sacrifice. If you don't know anything about Mesoamerica other than human sacrifice, you shouldn't talk about it.
I don't know where you got the idea that I think they should revive human sacrifice, I critized that statement for that reason and that reason only.

>Architecture is culture
Do you seriously believe that replacing cathedrals with pyramids would solve anything?
>I don't know where you got the idea that I think they should revive human sacrifice, I critized that statement for that reason and that reason only.
Because Aztec culture was heavily based around slavery and human sacrifices.They often raided and attacked other tribes to get enslaved and sacrifice fodder.

>defending
Not an argument, buddy.

Maybe niggers are inferior, but savage europeans couldn't compare to mayans and incas.

Hispanic American countries never stood a chance as their >liberators were a bunch of edgy masons that went full fedora on a society that loved the church and was only held together by Spain.
Bolivar failed to realize that the only thing keeping Peru and Venezuela in the same country was Spain.And as soon as they got rid of Spain meme countries spawned out of nowhere due every minor dispute.For example as Venezuela was more conservative than Colombia they decided to secede from Colombia all along.
Charles the IV was planning on creating a loose confederacy in which one relative would become the king of each Viceroyalty and Spain would keep all the islands of the empire.This would have been a nice corner stone for the formation of their countries and would have created real powerhouses due the huge waves of inmigrants that would have settled in places like California or Texas.
The independence wars empobrished all the countries involved and created very weak countries in which any foreign power could intervene if they wanted to.

>but savage europeans couldn't compare to mayans and incas.
kek.This delusion

>Architecture is culture
It kind of is. You ever notice how every culture throughout the ages had their own distinct style? Anyway, you're also completely ignoring other factors that would need to maintain a city of that size. Besides that, I'm not the one who said that Mexico should revive it's original culture, so you can stop arguing with me based on that.

>Spain invested more
Yea on its mining, and plantation operations.
They didn't invest on any long term wealth building institution though.

>Charles the IV was planning

Oh, for Christ sake... Carlos IV would've had trouble planning how to get out of a wet paperbag. He spent his whole life being an miserable failure as a man, an abject trainwreck at governing, and it's best to keep silence about his qualities as a father.

>savage europeans couldn't compare to mayans and incas
I hope you have your heart ripped out of your chest and thrown in a fire.

>They didn't invest on any long term wealth building institution though.
They invested a lot on ship building,education,cities and roads.In fact unlike the 13 colonies that were totally agrarian they had some manufacturing going on

>Oh, for Christ sake... Carlos IV would've had trouble planning how to get out of a wet paperbag. He spent his whole life being an miserable failure as a man, an abject trainwreck at governing, and it's best to keep silence about his qualities as a father.
t.mason
He was a decent king and was a reformist.It is not his fault that Napoleon chimped out

>manufacturing
How retarded do you have to be to actually believe that the Latin Americans were more industrially advanced that the Americans?

>How retarded do you have to be to actually believe that the Latin Americans were more industrially advanced that the Americans?
America had no manufacturing until independence.Hamilton had to put very high tariffs to kickstart American manufacturing as the Brittish had banned most non agrarian commercial activities on their colonies

>Spain, let alone its colonies, had anything resembling modern industry before the late 1800's
Have you been reading too much Jarrod diamond m8?

>this delusion
>tfw those humans arrived to america 15000 years later yet surpassed europe 2 times
Yeah bud. A (((delusion))) amIrite?

LMAO

So, try to guess where was built the largest warship of the 18th century...

Ehhh not true, although your overall point is accurate.

The USA and Spanish colonies were similarly "industrialized" in 1800. Yet, the type of industrialization/manufacturing was different, and this hurt the spanish colonies.

In 1800, New England and parts of NYC/Philly/Norfolk were quite industrialized. They focused on textiles and shipbuilding though, as well as small arms for the settlers out west.

Spanish colonies had manufacturing power in mining and forestry alongside some shipbuilding. Yet, their 1810-1830 period of wars and rebellions really screwed up their development and destroyed much of their manufacturing.
Let's not also discount the effect of the racial/cultural divide and the fact the USA was far more united than the former spanish colonies. Big united nations simply work better in the long run.

>Doesn't know what the navigation acts are
>Tries to talk shit
All British colonies werecbanned by Britain to compete with British industry. If it wasn't for Hamilton the US would be redneck central as Jefferson wanted

Cont*

In 1787, New England produced 50-60% of the capital goods used by the USA. That's a manufacturing base.

The racial/cultural divide still ravages the American south and cities to this day. It was even worse in most spanish colonies since the divide was much more cultural. Inequality in social mobility was insane in 1800 Spanish colonies.

>would be redneck central as Jefferson wanted
And this is a good thing!

I honestly think that tropical places were at a severe disatvantage before the invention of air conditioning. I live in the American South, if your AC goes out during the hot months, it saps your energy very hard and gives you brain fog. All you want to do is take a nap until it cools off a little at night.

In cold places, people could always build a fire to warm up their house. Cooling and dehumidifying hot air has only been around for about 50 years.

Here in the U.S, the South has been booming since the proliferation of AC huge amounts of federal investment, and big improvments in race relations.

By the time AC was around, Latin America was still running basically as giant plantations like Dixie, but they didn't have a rich federal government to spend billions on infrastructure, military bases, and government services to give them a boost up and kickstart a modern economy.

It's so damn hard to be productive if you're in a tropical or subtropical climate without AC.

>All of these convoluted answers for something that is so obvious

They're tri-racial people that are a mix of low IQ natives + low IQ black slaves + middling IQ southern european whites.

What else do you honestly expect other than a third world shithole?

Do large-breasted tribal women even exist?

...woah

Stop posting my wife you fuckin creep

Like New Jersey.

who was defending Spain?

t.Steven "please Tyron fuck my wife" Numale

The US actually stopped them looking like Africa by supporting Hobbesian leviathans and suppressing "revolutionary" warlords.

If only the US had the same doctrine in the Middle East.

>natives
Incas were superior to europeans. Deal with it.

>Incas were superior to europeans
It just took Pizarro and his dick to destroy the Inca empire.

>middling IQ southern european whites.
Italians have the highest IQ among Europeans you twit.

>96
>Highest IQ among Europeans

why doesn't latin america accept islam instead of the white christian imperialist religion?
being a christian is being a white bootlicker

We both know that is wrong, Italy is fairly average, if not somewhat mediocre. Finland is the strongest IQ in Europe, if not the world.