> I’m certainly no leftist (DLS: please believe me that I do not own a
> Che T-shirt! LOL)

It’s a Mao T-shirt? Fidel looks more cool with the beard and the cigar, you know.

> nor do I think that the problems of LA are all the fault of the US.

B-b-b-but that’s not what the Usual Suspects are saying.

> But I clearly saw in Guatemala that the history of US relations has been
> detrimental and that the narrative of US as scapegoat is widely accepted
> by the populace. I also saw that there was some reason for that.

With the West it’s not colonialism (hasn’t been for centuries) but economic exploitation does happen (joined by those in power, who are not only authoritarian
but corrupt, in Latin America). That’s even accounting for Latin America’s own problems that are self-made (and I am no cultural determinist — but culture is highly important).

It can be said to go all the way back to the Monroe Doctrine, though I’d quibble and say it really started with Manifest Destiny. (A few were 100% “pole-to-pole” eager expansionists.)

How did Panama materialize conveniently for us to dig the Panama Canal afterward?

Interestingly, a friend (self-professed radical) sent me a book on the post-revolution goings-on against Castro as a Christmas present and I’ve enjoyed it. In there is the short story of Arbenz and how we arranged for that government to be replaced by a more friendly (to the USA) government. It’s not so much that United Fruit Company was some huge, dark, evil creature (a book by a cultural determinist I have written even took the somewhat radical position, in government, academic, and media [liberal] circles, that United Fruit Company was one of the best things that ever happened to Latin America).

No, this book points out more straightforward facts about United Fruit and the land reform program that would impoverish it. You see, some US government officials at topmost levels affecting foreign policy happened to be stockholders in the company or have other connections to it. Hindsight says it’s inevitable something would be done about a threat to it.

As far as other interventions or intrusions — probably the best source on that as to why it was done was Nixon’s “The Real War.”

As a side issue, that book (which discusses the need sometimes to deal with really bad people and governments) may be applicable to Iran and Syria if those two nations one day could start engaging in some reforms, at least in Iraq.

Obviously this is an issue on which I’m quite a bit more to the left than I am on other issues. There are several areas where this is true, though some readers here seem to fail to notice that.

or US missionaries

Especially important is your observation that it will be a long time before we can expect any major results. This is long term investment of money and smart politics. I just hope we retain the lessons learned for the long term, so that we can cash in some time down the road.

I’m certainly no leftist (DLS: please believe me that I do not own a Che T-shirt! LOL) nor do I think that the problems of LA are all the fault of the US. But I clearly saw in Guatemala that the history of US relations has been detrimental and that the narrative of US as scapegoat is widely accepted by the populace. I also saw that there was some reason for that.

It’s really the same story the world over. I see LA just as in the Middle East, that the locals have not solved their own internal problems but because the US has interfered in ways that exacerbate problems, the people have a convenient scapegoat. That narrative isn’t all true or all false, it’s partly both.

And nic, while I agree with you that the answer is that we should now stop bullying, I also know that if the schoolyard bully stops beating up kids he is still going to be feared. It will take a long time before other countries stop reacting to us as though we are a bully even if we stop acting that way, so the solution isn’t that simple.

C Stanley: Agreed, Chris, but the question is what should be done about it now.

This answer is that we should stop bullying them!. In order to find our country’s War on (some) Drugs, we continue to funnel taxpayer dollars to governments in South American so that they can shoot down the planes of suspected narcoterrorists and dump poisons on the crops of peaceful coca farmers.

In places like Peru and Boliva, people have been growing the coca leaf for hundreds of years, dating back to the time of the Inca Empire. But Americans can’t control their addiction to blow, so that somehow justifies our using taxpayer money to destroy their crops.

And we wonder why they hate us.

Most in the USA are ignorant of it. Only Africa and parts of Asia probably are “treated” worse.

This leftist movement in Latin America (for now, mainly in South America), which the Usual Suspects blame on the USA (the USA is in fact the straw man in that part of the world to foment agitation by the ignorant, as is true here in the USA itself) would have probably been entertaining not only to Arbenz and more importantly here, Allende, but also of course to the nose-pickers’ and campus PC brown-shirts’ time-honored favorite tee-shirt and cap character, none other than Che Guevara. (Has Chavez given Che’ an honorary medal and “Bolivarian Republic” citizenship yet? *chuckle*)

The USA has done that for ages. We’ve hardly treated everyone like Arbenz or Allenda (who were no angels, incidentally).

Birds of a feather — leftists engaged in post-modern pathology

Will Dr. Z be palsies with Ahmedinnerjacket next?

“LOL, yes, thanks.”

Wow, Mike, you sure know how to please the ladies!

Yes. Plus Mexico, which is in North America. (There is no question there.)

The interesting thing is (not here in the USA but elsewhere), Central America is included in North America in some places by some people. (An example I have is in Quebec.)

The culturally-oriented organizations outside the USA might argue Mexico is in Central America. It is not. Almost all of it. You can reasonably argue that part of Mexico, the Yucatan Peninsula, is in Central America. (Tehuantepec separates North from Central America, roughly speaking. For more precision, examine the terrain and even the geology.)

C. Stanley, what is the difference between Latin America and South America beyond the fact that Latin America includes both South AND Central America?

I’m not sure why but I always equate LA with CA, but I’m probably wrong and your point is most likely correct that CA+SA=LA. I stand corrected!

So bravo to our State Dept for seeing the light.

One question: why is there one policy for SA and another for our own citizens? There are areas here with lousy medical care. But Americans get lectures about individual responsibility instead of help with clinics.

We are not learning the lesson that the scenes of angry crowds in SA are trying to teach us.

C. Stanley, what is the difference between Latin America and South America beyond the fact that Latin America includes both South AND Central America?

Finally, a photo that came out today in one of Spans leading web news pages:
http://www.20minutos.es/galeria/2190/0/0/

Now does that look like two leaders of populous nations or two buffoon cops in a bad comedy movie?

P.S.
To Christine, who requested this post: I hope you’re satisfied.

LOL, yes, thanks. I’m sorry I missed some of your earlier posts on the topic and just generally feel that SA and LA don’t get enough coverage.