US Interventions In Latin America

shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
957
I will check it out...
Though I definitely recommend reading the book, I will try to give a summary of what I remember.

Basically, when the Spanish arrived in South America and the British in North America, it wasn't like there were just a few Native Americans living in primitive hunter-gatherer societies. In North America there were tribes who lived in basically small cities, sometimes with structures accommodating as many people as a small apartment block. They were extremely skilled in cultivating lands, crop rotation and such, probably more advanced in this respect than the Europeans were. Because of their tradition of hospitality, they welcomed the British, helped them to survive, just the same as the Aztecs in South America welcomed the Spanish.

Now these were times in which the Europeans lived in filthy cities, and never bathed in their entire lives. Compared to European cities, Tenochtitlan was effectively more modern, clean and beautiful. Essentially the whole notion that the Indians were "savages" is a lie, they had organized societies. Of course many tribes didn't have the European concept of property rights, which was probably for the best, but considered to be a sign that they were primitive by the incredulous Europeans.

They didn't fight wars like Europeans did. In both North American and Aztec society, if a war was to be fought then the belligerent party would visit those who they intended to declare war on, giving the reasons why war was being declared and allowing them to make redress and prevent the war. Hence when Montezuma allowed the Spanish to enter Tenochtitlan with their armies, he didn't expect them to start slaughtering people during a public meeting and dance. With the North Americans, when they fought the wars were basically symbolic, perhaps a few people would be killed over the course of a war lasting years, and it was considered most honorable to go into battle without weapons. Europeans on the other hand were accustomed to "holy war", fighting like the deity of the old testament, sparing no-one, destroying everything. Of course their old testament also justified them killing women and children, which they did en masse.

In fact they believed that large numbers of Natives dying was a sign that deity was on the side of colonizers, and was thus destroying the evil non-Christian peoples.

So effectively they literally just massacred the Natives. They believed them to be less than human, and born only for slavery. The Spanish didn't massacre so many actually, rather they enslaved them and worked them to death (it was cheaper to replace a slave than feed one properly). In any case vast numbers were killed, there were many who died from disease but also an actual genocide. There were likely between 75,000,000 and 100,000,000 on the whole American continent, of which more than 90% were wiped out.

The thing is that all this went on long after American independence. George Washington ordered massacres of Native Americans, and they continued long into the 19th century (and maybe beyond, I don't know). Of course then they were shoved onto reservations, and the history of oppression continued, as it does to the present day.
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
957
@Tidal, please post responses here....

Mate, I'm a moderator at a military forum and like to think I know a little bit about war stuff, so it might be a good idea if you narrowed down what US interventions you're talking about so that we can examine your claims in detail.. :p
Also you've already admitted you're glad you're not an American, so perhaps you could tell us what race you are, and what country you live in, so that we''ll be able to understand what your agenda is.. :)
The "counter-insurgency" (death squads) and overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala.
The US-backed coup against Allende leading to the installation of Pinochet.
El-Salvador death squads.
Nicaragua anti-Sandanista death squads.
Disappearance of Aristide in Haiti.

These are the ones that I know a little about.

As for where I'm from, well actually I quite like the anonymity of the internet. But you can imagine that I'm an Afghan posting from a cave in the mountains if you wish, seeing as according to the narrative everyone who opposes the USA is "against freedom" and likely a terrorist.
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
957
What happened @Tidal ? Is the notion that America is not the benevolent guardian of democracy against tyranny too shocking for you?
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,243
What happened @Tidal ? Is the notion that America is not the benevolent guardian of democracy against tyranny too shocking for you?

Surely it's not rocket science? As I see it, America only busts tyrants asses if they're unfriendly to Uncle Sam, sounds good to me..:)

 






Last edited:

Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,243
He's EDL so probably standing guard at some statue

Nah mate, it's FUN to sit munching my popcorn and watching lefty snowflakes on TV going bananas on toppling sprees..:)

PS- Hey I bet sooner or later they'll want to put up statues of career criminal Saint Floyd.. :D
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
957
Surely it's not rocket science? As I see it, America only busts tyrants asses if they're unfriendly to Uncle Sam, sounds good to me..:)

You're still failing to understand, these were interventions in which democratically elected leaders were replaced with military dictators and peaceful activists were killed by death squads.
 






Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,891
You're still failing to understand, these were interventions in which democratically elected leaders were replaced with military dictators and peaceful activists were killed by death squads.
He's not failing to understand, he just doesnt care. Ask him what that "red cross" represents/represented...
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,243
You're still failing to understand, these were interventions in which democratically elected leaders were replaced with military dictators and peaceful activists were killed by death squads.
Were the dictators and death squads anti-American?
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
957
Were the dictators and death squads anti-American?
No, they were basically pro-American and more specifically pro-Capitalist (the neo-liberal kind). Otherwise the USA obviously wouldn't have supported them.

Such as Pinochet, for example, who had the economists of the American "Chicago School" drawing up economic policies as the tanks rolled, or so the story goes. Pinochet altered the country's economic policies to allow large-scale foreign investment, made the country a paradise for foreign financial speculators. Of course this didn't mean that the people of country became richer, as neo-liberal policy always begins by causing suffering for the poor with the promise that after some time of this "shock therapy" they will start to get richer. Which generally doesn't actually happen.
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,243
Tidal asked- Were the dictators and death squads anti-American?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, they were basically pro-American and more specifically pro-Capitalist (the neo-liberal kind). Otherwise the USA obviously wouldn't have supported them.

Wait, this is getting complicated..:)
Churchill once said "In war, one has neither friends nor enemies, only interests"
So whenever America supports anybody, they must have decided it was in their interests to do so, right?
I mean, it wouldn't make sense for them to support anybody who was anti-American would it?
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
957
Tidal asked- Were the dictators and death squads anti-American?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Wait, this is getting complicated..:)
Churchill once said "In war, one has neither friends nor enemies, only interests"
So whenever America supports anybody, they must have decided it was in their interests to do so, right?
I mean, it wouldn't make sense for them to support anybody who was anti-American would it?
There was no question of war, the USA was not at war with those countries, they simply wanted to stop any kind of non-capitalist alternative model from developing. By that logic you could excuse all the crimes of the tyrants who you apparently detest, because after all it is in their own interest. Do you not see any moral problem with overthrowing democratically elected governments and replacing them with dictators? Or with killing activists simply to repress any voices which don't accord with the US agenda? Or do you just believe that "might makes right"?

If the USA is going to make a claim to represent democracy, freedom etc., isn't it vastly hypocritical to act like that?
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,243
Do you not see any moral problem with overthrowing democratically elected governments and replacing them with dictators?

Surely if a "democratically elected" leader is anti-American it's good to be replace him?
PS- Hitler was "democratically elected"..;)
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
957
Surely if a "democratically elected" leader is anti-American it's good to be replace him?
PS- Hitler was "democratically elected"..;)
You have a seriously distorted perspective. You think that governments should be overthrown because they are anti-American? (Due to the actions of the USA, such as in overthrowing other governments). Do you believe that the whole world should be ruled by a neo-liberal capitalist empire and all alternatives which develop should be suppressed and destroyed violently? Those Latin American countries just wanted to attempt a different form of economic organization, they were harming no-one.
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
957
He's not failing to understand, he just doesnt care. Ask him what that "red cross" represents/represented...
Right, symbol of the crusades. Of course the so-called "islamic State" made a lot of propaganda about crusaders, and it's pretty obvious that sheer bigotry and cultural insensitivity offends people, and may even lead them to becoming radicalized if they start to think that the whole of the west has the same attitude. But perhaps Mr Tidal would not like the idea that people may react to him in such a way, and thus that he is in fact in a certain sense encouraging "islamic" terrorism.
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,243
You think that governments should be overthrown because they are anti-American?
Trump thinks so, and who can blame him? He says to them-


PS- Let us know specifically which countries and rulers you're talking about, so that we can google them.
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
957
Trump thinks so, and who can blame him? He says to them-


PS- Let us know specifically which countries and rulers you're talking about, so that we can google them.
Well if you believe in democracy and freedom of speech and belief, obviously that should include the freedom to be anti-American, is it not so? Because if the much vaunted "human rights" which the USA is always demanding others respect is really a thing, then that includes the human right to disagree with the USA? Including the right to have an economic policy which isn't primarily about enriching large capitalist enterprises. Would you agree?

The countries and rulers I was talking about were the ones I already mentioned in Latin America, though we could also include Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, among a number of others. The reason I didn't originally include such countries isn't because US actions there weren't clearly unjust, in Cambodia they overthrew Sihanouk simply because he didn't want to take sides in the Cold War, bombed fields with napalm to make them infertile, and even gave support to the Khmer Rouge.

But we can limit our discussion to Latin America.
 






Maes17

Star
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
3,455
Trump thinks so, and who can blame him? He says to them-


PS- Let us know specifically which countries and rulers you're talking about, so that we can google them.
Wanna jump the pond to this side?
 






Top