Does literally nothing of note for its entire existence

Don't bother, leftypol doesn't care about reality

Ummm sweetie, the whole continent is called America, not just los estados unidos

>what is the pacific war
>what are the independence wars
>what is the war of the triple alliance
>what is the wierd paraguayan incatard dictatorship that preceded solano lopez dynasty's regime
>what is empire of brazil
>what is the chaco wars

to add further
>who are pedro i and ii
>who is getulio vargas
>who is juan manuel de rosas, dicator of argentina for 25 years
>what is argentina's miraculous growth period
>what is chiles and argentina's solid records as parliamentary democracies (of course those failed eventually)
>what is colombian drug trafficking

Paraguay is one of the most under-studied nations on earth, it was like the whole place was a weird experiment.

The caste systems were implanted by Euros though, and you're talking about Mexico only.

He's unironically arguing that latin americans would be more wealthy and relevant if they had murdered more poor farmers, he's not very bright.

no, my argument is that if they were either fully Spanish or fully Native they would be more successful

Agreed. And so it´s the other Guay too but a different kind of experiment.

???

>A bunch of worthless villages in the middle of shitty nowhere
>A state
Hahahaha. The army could have ended the uprising with ease by killing all the rebels, but international pressure forced the government to give them 'autonomy'. It was hardly a Civil War or a significant uprising at all, it only became relevant thanks to the media; you might be thinking of Colombia's FARC.

>Giving a flying fuck about Pooraguay.
Their only claim to relevance is getting BTFO by their neighbours.

But this doesn't apply to most of the caribbean and the southern cone. Just for mexico and central america

>Hahahaha. The army could have ended the uprising with ease by killing all the rebels, but international pressure forced the government to give them 'autonomy'.
I'm not praising them or anything, I think they're fucking retards, but they exist and they're an interesting anomaly. I'm sure they COULD have wiped them out but the fact remains that Mexico lost control of a region in their own country to wack Mayan communists

>the Caribbean
they're not on OPs map and aren't 'South America' so I wasn't talking about them
>the southern cone
If you include Paraguay they absolutely suffered from their demographic mismanagement and Chile has an extensive indigenous population, the Mapuche were never even conquered until the 1860's

> Mexico lost control of a region
not really, it worked out as something similar to indian reservations in the US and lots of tourism

>The army could have ended the uprising with ease
Then why was the uprising's existence so traumatising to demand its immediate destruction? What was it a threat to?

>???
South America has the great misfortune to share some geography, a cultural ambience, and a language with the absolute dungheap that is M*xico. Like most of the rest of the world, simple proximity with the Eternal Bean has mentally, spiritually, and even physically stunted them, but as their proximity is greater, the effect is more pronounced, leading to an entire continent of worthlessness.

The government was paranoid as fuck of communist uprisings since the 60s (one of the reasons behind the Tlatelolco massacre) and the army was angry as fuck for the soldiers killed at the start of the 'rebellion'. Also, it was close to two very important events , NAFTA and national elections.

Where are you from? Argentina or one of the 'nations' of Central America?

>Where are you from? Argentina or one of the 'nations' of Central America?
I'm from the Ukraine originally, although I now live in the United States.

100% European American reporting, you're just historically illiterate.
Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire, Paraguayan war, Chaco war, just to name three.
South America is pretty rich in history and honestly even though I have 0 ties to it I find it more interesting than most corners of Europe.

The Paraguayan war honestly compares to America's Civil war and that's high praise coming from me. The Conquest of the Aztec Empire is like a 16th century WWII with various Allies working together with a lesser enemy to topple a violent regime.

Not to mention the various cannibal tribes that existed well into the '70s, the Boer migrations among other things.

Attached: 1512870628049.jpg (409x409, 60K)

Oh, so american propaganda got you, Quite sad tbqh.

Mundus Millenialis is not propaganda, certainly not American propaganda.

What with the lack of deadly wars in XX century South America? Africa, Europe, Asia... They all got their share of bloodshed.

Attached: fd729ec043c8b4a953f982514de96680.jpg (792x567, 120K)

>uninteresting and irrelevant
Implying this is a bad thing
If the entire world was like this there would be peace

Right wing dictatorships, sponsored by the USA, were too busy killing their own people to engage into war.

Some countries in South America have historical golden ages worth knowing.

>Empire of Brazil (1822 - 1889) or just the Second Reign (1840 - 1889)
>Argentina (1860s - 1930)
>Ecuador under García Moreno
>Venezuela under Pérez Jimenez

There are exceptions.

>Colombian Civil War (one of the deadliest in South America)
>Peruvian conflict (similar to above, but less known)
>Chaco War
>Falklands War

In the twentieth century, the boundaries between South American countries were well defined. The internal conflicts of these countries discouraged international wars. There were quasi-war moments, though. Such as the Argentinian invasion of Chile or the Brazilian war against France to annex Guyana.

Attached: Buenos Aires.jpg (957x595, 188K)

What you said is not true. These dictatorships existed mostly in the 60s and 70s. Argentina and Chile nearly entered in war against each other. Chile and Peru too in the 70s. And Brazil came close to invading Uruguay.

i live there, don't come here this a shithole nothing interesting, not like Mexico but is trash, our history lessons are the same in each year of the school, the triple alliance war and the chaco war, and we don't learn nothing worth knowing, more than our leader was a fucking warmonger who decided to go full autistic and declared war on 2 different nations more than triple in size just to be betrayed later by the guy he tried to help

i learn all about ww1 and ww2 by myself, we learned a little about ww1, not even October revolution, we never even get lessons of what the fuck happened in ww2, this happens in all American countries education is trash you don't learn shit

Result is that nothing worth giving a shit will happen on this side of the continent so nuke us pls desu

Attached: f8f44a4676983307f57930657d2c54f61dc5c0e1f11514c4c203f1899c5c9e82.jpg (575x380, 49K)

It is true, the US has a history of fucking over the rest of the continent, specially in that time they could get away with pretty much anything, that's when they learned the best torture methods. US is worse than Hitler, but they need a meme villain

Not violent enough and the US keeps them in line.

>latin americans would be more wealthy and relevant if they had murdered more poor farmers
This is unironically true. The Anglos genocided the shit out of the natives and their colonies are much more successful.

Colombia had it coming

Attached: Teddy.jpg (1076x870, 799K)

this, there would have been no world wars if not for potato

Maybe fully native or fully spanish would've done better than mixed, but there are examples of countries with a mix that were well on their way to development and then came the US and fucked everything up, normally using the excuse of communism so that they could keep having slaves in those countries and exporting stuff from those countries without paying any taxes

> Reliance on colonial masters for defense and economic prosperity
> Hardly any resources to become a powerhouse industrial economy
> Small population
> Unstable governments
> Basically left on their own to modernize after independence
> Very little European involvement after independence because why would Europeans care about backwaters full of Catholic Amerindians
> Constant US involvement even if it was to the detriment of South America
> Ran by incompetent, unstable, and declining colonial powers for 300 years who didn't really give a fuck about improving their colonies since they had to focus on even bigger issues than a few angry Latinos

Try recovering from that. The US really had it on easy mode when you take a step back and realize just how fucked South America was once it broke away from Spain and Portugal.

Attached: Shaggy11.jpg (600x600, 24K)

>argentina used to be the richest country in the world
>they through it all away with populism
Latin Americans are complete shit when it comes to choosing politicians.

If FDR went through with his court packing plan, the US would be in the same place.

If the Hispanics had unified into a couple of strong countries instead of dozens of autistic and irrelevant micro-states, they’d have been players.

Attached: proper Latin America.png (1057x1442, 224K)

That is one of the most ignorant and stupid maps I have ever seen, fuck off back to R*ddit and/or your paradox map painting simulator

I tend to say the we're the conserva-guay. or the texas of south america. the stuff that goes on here politically to this day is ridiculous

aprende del internet temboto. Se el cambio que queres ver en el pais

Americans probably care more about that region than Europe.

Statistically those right wing dictators have killed less of their own citizens than actually "free" democracies or communist ones

>Chile has an extensive indigenous population, the Mapuche were never even conquered until the 1860's

Hear. The Mapuche were extremely good warriors, certainly better than any of the natives in the US at guerrilla warfare, and the Chileans' success in war is entirely born from the continuous experience in the 19th century, fighting the Spanish, then the first Peru-Bolivia confederation and the Mapuche pseudo state forming in the south. I think that the fact Chile never fully integrated them until way after the fact is a huge factor in it's success.

underrated

>what was Gran Colombia

>Pooraguay
>Not worse than Mexico in every way
Pfft, keep dreaming, Lozano; hasta la basura se separa.

I don't know much about South American countries but I'm pretty sure Venezuela and Argentina wouldn't work out. Also, why give Suriname and the Guyanas to Brazil? Is it a token to compensate for its loneliness in the continent?

Australia is a whole continent as well

Argentina was basically a small Spanish-speaking USA, one of the wealthiest economies. Certainly more relevant than Australia historically. Just because they didn't take part in the World Wars and this board is obsessed with them doesn't mean it wasn't influential.

In the 1920s your typical UK businessman was more interested in what happened in Argentina than in Australia. There was more British capital invested there.

Italian or German emigrants were debating whether to go to Buenos Aires or New York.

The two most influential music styles of the 1920s dancing craze that swept Europe were the Charleston and the Tango.

Biggest exporter of beef and wheat, numerous discoveries on medicine, first commercial radio station, first animated feature films, the ballpoint pen, etc.

And Brazil has always been an economic behemoth owing to its huge population and resources. In the 19th century the Brazilian Empire was extremely influential in European diplomacy.

Attached: 1519988473720.jpg (1167x740, 75K)

based spic dropping the real redpills

Countries such as? Are they just ones in Latin America, or do you mean ones all over the planet?

argies are not real hispanics they are wypipo mass murderers that stole their land and genocided the natives and the blacks

real hispanics are the brown folk with native blood running through their veins we are the real owners of the americas

all wypipo need to get their fucking pale asses back to yurop

Attached: ONE-NATION.gif (1201x893, 253K)

>Movie about Mayan Collapse
>Ends with Spanish landing in the Americas

More like spanish speaking australia. And face it, we are pretty much irrelevant, economically unimportant (and often isolated) pretty much since the mid 20th century.

Neither do you

>they are wypipo mass murderers that stole their land and genocided the natives and the blacks
And thank God for that, look how much better their country is than the rest of that fucking continent for it

*blocks your path*

why haven't you impregnated a qt native user?

Attached: 320px-Dr_francia.jpg (320x590, 58K)

Damned if you do, dammed if you don't

>Did nothing of note

It (the Andes in particular) is one of only a few places on the planet to independently invent civilization, urban cities, state governments, etc. If the Spanish hadn't burned all their records and demolished their cities, you'd get taught about them as much as you do other cradles of civilization and ancient cultures in school and would be as known in popular media.

The Spanish fucking the place up, dieases killing 95% of all people, and then that enabling corruption and exploitation for centuries has kept the place shit. Murica couping everythiing back in the 60's/70's didn't help.

>Mexico/Guatamala
>South american

You aren't wrong but they wouldn't be in that position to begin with without colionalism. Or at least the Andes wouldn't: The Amazonian nations and the most northern/southern ones might be as bad off still.

Attached: huaca-la-luna-mural-90.jpg (929x622, 165K)

>apocalypto
>mesoamericans were superior to europeans in everything including human sacrifice
Only western cucks don't reach this conclusion.

Attached: img-thing.jpg (300x300, 14K)

Amazonians would get forced by incans to adopt intensive agriculture with terra preta as they invade them and settle around the mountain rivers.

You see, incans forced their entire empire to adopt bronze metalworking, use quipus and the workforce based taxes. Cusco would probably be the main path to reach the amazonian settlements between Brazil and Peru.

> Bad for genociding natives and blacks
Hmmmm I don't think so

>replacing superior beings with eurangutan subhumans
>not bad
Hmm...?

>Look everyone I have a communal farming group
>Nevermind I don't produce anything more than it takes for me to survive, I'm a real south American
Mhmmmm

Attached: 1520867356196.jpg (1080x1050, 231K)

>incas are communal

Attached: 550.png (207x243, 7K)

>US has a history of fucking over the rest of the continent

America’s biggest disservice to the rest of the New World was opting for relative isolationism instead of imperializing the shit out of it.

>I'm personally disinterested in [thing] so [thing] should be excluded from any and all public discourse

Attached: 1512437967163.png (645x773, 107K)

USA's biggest disservice to the rest of the World is existing.

Yes, God forbid they create more Canals and Hawaii’s.

>certainly better than any of the natives in the US at guerrilla warfare
tbf the natives in NA were on economically precious land over a geographically expansive area and were overwhelmed by a rapidly multiplying white population. Mapuches were cool though

>Implying the French/English wouldn't create the Panama canal without taking 'Panama' from Colombia.
Fuck off, amerilard

>Very little European involvement after independence
not true. there was shit ton of british capital tied up in South America
>Constant US involvement
categorically false. US "involvement" was limited to central america and the caribbean, and even that wasn't serious until the late 19th century. Real US intervention in South America isn't until the 1960s at earliest. Until then it was, again, confined almost entirely to bullying central american and caribbean countries.
> Ran by incompetent, unstable, and declining colonial powers for 300 years
>what are the bourbon reforms
>what are pombal's reforms

> Small population
some states had larger populations than US at independence if i'm not mistaken
> Reliance on colonial masters for defense and economic prosperity
there was almost no direct military intervention in SA that I can think of past the Napoleonic Wars besides SA countries fighting each other.
> Hardly any resources to become a powerhouse industrial economy
you don't need resources necessarily to industrialize if you can trade for them. even so SA has shit ton of valuable commodities e.g. agricultural products from brazil and argentina, copper and phosphate from chile, guano (historically) and minerals from peru

tl;dr you might be right that SA has been a historic backwater but it's NOT for the reasons you claim.

>Bourbon reforms
>Not incompetent

>Not incompetent
explain. I'd argue that they had mixed results, but on the whole were a good step.

>Jesuits get BTFO, so indians lose one of their only real protectors
>'Alcaldes Mayores' get BTFO too, so internal administration and commerce gets even more shitty and inefficient.
And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

>And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
I mean, the Jesuits got expelled for political reasons moreso than reform reasons, so I'm not sure if I'd include that as part of the reform program (though it was arguably bad policy).
>'Alcaldes Mayores'
Didn't the appoint new types of officials though, the corregidors or something like that?

Most corregidores got eliminated too; they were replaced by a few Superintendentes & Intendentes*, centralizing administration is only a good idea to a certain degree; the spaniards never fucking understood that.

>Intendentes
yeah that's the official i was thinking of

You'd be surprised at how culturally influential we are in some respects not just in South America but also in Continental Europe, Israel, Russia, Japan... all those shitty Cris Morena teen TV shows (Erreway, Patito Feo, Casi Angeles, Violetta, etc) apparently have an insane following overseas.

When I was in Greece many schoolgirls had Patito Feo ("Patty") backpacks, it was pretty surreal.

Attached: violetta__fan_made_israeli_cover__by_hazmanot_azarim-d99oflh.png (800x800, 721K)

>Incas are representative of all native Americans everywhere
>That's not what native populations want now
See Mexico's 1917 constitution, when you give natives the land they want they don't produce shit with it

>Implying the French didn't try

Attached: IMG_20180314_172000.jpg (620x852, 102K)

>see mexico's
Amerindians have more civilization potential.

Replacing them with eurangutan subhumans was the worst event in all history.

South American wars of independence and Simon Bolivar was fairly interesting.

Motherfucker, you were the ones that started that shit? fucking narizones.

Too low demographic density to really care about clay (Colombia even gave Perú thousands of km of clay in the amazon AFTER they lost a war in the 1930s), and the countries in the continent didn't have the resources to have big standing armies, so most of the conflicts in SA were relatively mild (aside from the carnage that was the war of the triple alliance).

Besides the bunch of wars already mentioned there's also these forgotten interesting moments.
The Platine War is an example of that.
>be argentina
>1851
>now a confederation under Juan Manuel de Rosas
>caudillo that wanted to reform La plata
>start forming a army for his expansionist plans
>the rest of the platine was fucked as hell as well, civil war in uruguay and decapitation of civilians everywhere
>brazil supported the colorado party while argentina supported the blancos under Manuel Oribe
>civil war in uruguay start spreading to south brazil, little skirmishes here and there
>war
>a brazilian alliance is formed
>"south america's great liberator army"
>formed by brazil, Rosa's opossition, the colorados and some rogue argentinian provinces
>help from a "French legion" composed of frenchs living in Uruguay and Garibaldi's italian legion
>still brazil was the backbone of the alliance and the one to decide the war
>after less than six months the brazilian army marched into Buenos Aires
>just some days before the argentinians would celebrate their past victory over brazil in the Battle of Ituzaingó, during the cisplatine war
The argentinians felt like shit, Rosas took years to form an army he thought was able to fulfill his plans but it was still a small threat to brazil.
If weren't for the falklands the argentinians would still remember this shit nowadays
I mean, they showed less fight than fucking paraguay.

That isn't counted as a national defeat because we were in the middle of a civil war. Rosas did not control most of the country.

We did beat you to a stalemate in the Cisplatine War when the country was unified, with 1/5th of your population.

I love the war of the triple alliance

>That isn't counted as a national defeat because we were in the middle of a civil war. Rosas did not control most of the country.
Cry more.

I'm just explaining to you. You beat Buenos Aires province with the help of the rest of the Argentine Confederation, it wasn't a war against "Argentina".

Otherwise you would have annexed territory, no? Argentine historiography remembers it as a positive event. It is taught, as part of the Civil Wars that led to the unification of the country and the adoption of the Constitution.

>we were in the middle of a civil war
That's curious, I didn't know about that detail
How is the war seen in argentina nowadays? never heard anybody speak about it on Veeky Forums

Also, the cisplatine war was a huge mess.
Really, no one won in that shit.
Argentina was under a blockage during pretty much the whole conflict, the navy was gone by that time.
Meanwhile we lost a bunch of land battles, the argentineans were more experienced after all.
It's a by all means

Also, I couldn't care less if it was a defeat or not but the way I see is that when Buenos Aires had power over most of the confederation provinces, it's an Argentinean defeat, the confederation were the government that ruled at the time.
Also there's no reason to annex territory because having a friendly government were a far better option, like how it happened with Uruguay and it's not like we had interest in any part of the argentinian territory, we didn't even border you by the time.