Was the lazy tendency of Spanish and the ferocious nature of

>>1434160
Unironically communism.
See Argentina for the most recent and disheartening example

>>1434160
I'd say the cold war ruined South America

>>1434194

And Venezuela recently

>>1434160

It was the economic model the Spanish crown followed, where the colonies were resources to be exploited for maximum profit. Part of this is the imposition of rigid caste systems and feudal land ownership which maximised crown control but in the long term bred a nation of disenfranchised peasants who supported communism because frankly, it was better than serfdom.

Spanish here. I don't know why most of them look/are stupid and lazy as fuck (Yes, more than us)

>latino
>natives

>>1434194
>>1434204
Yeah but commies didn't rise to power by means of a coup, they were elected by the lazy masses who will always vote for gibsmedats no matter the ideology.

>>1434194
>Unironically communism.
>See Argentina for the most recent and disheartening example

Sorry, what? I miss something?

>>1434333
Nice trips.

>>1434201
>>1434194
>ruined over a century before the Cold War even began
>hurr it's the cold war's fault
Fuck

File: CHORIZO.jpg (240KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 720x960px

Europe's best (church criminals) colonizing the fuck out of already inhabited territories by artillery, small gun fire & rape

> see also Sub Saharan Africa
> see also South East Asia
> see also Your Momma

File: sexy_turds.jpg (37KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 300x400px

>>1434160
In order to explain why I think South America is shit I wilI compare it with the U.S.A.

In the beginning:
South America had conquerors searching for gold.
North America had colonizers searching for a new home.


In post-Independence Times:
Simon Bolivar and San Martin failed on the creation of the Patria Grande.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_Grande

North american leaders managed get together and write the constitution which became the country's basic law and welded it together into a solid political unit.

In modern times:
Every South American country had dictators who caused crippling difficulties in the democratic developmen of the citizens.

No, no, no...
As a Brazilian, I'll tell you.

First of all, Spaniards and Portuguese were looking for gold and things to sell.
All their colonies were EXPLOITATION colonies, they didn't come with families or anything, they were here to WORK only, and they banged the native women, so they didn't develop.
This contrasts with the British colonies that were all SETTLER colonies, they had familiar and religious ties, so they developed.

Then, in 1888, millions of niggers were released in the Brazilian society because the slavery was abolished.

After that, Brazil had it's golden days under the military government, only to be overthrown by Commies.
Also, Commies were the ones who created the biggest criminal factions in Brazil, so this also turned our country into a shithole.

For example, look at the European immigrants that came to Brazil in 19th and early 20th century.
My family was one of them, they came from Italy with literally nothing, then they became rich farmers, had industries and everything. The other side of the family also came from Europe, all poor, and became commerce owners.
See how this contrasts with the type of colonialism? They were settlers, not exploiters, so they settled and developed instead of exploiting and destroying.

>>1435814
>Le exploited colony meme

exploitation and oppression are both spooks

>>1435709
This.

The notion that Latinos are inherently lazy is a racist myth, but I guess I shoudn't expect anything less being on a Rawandan parrot fan page.

File: usainlatam.jpg (3MB, 3300x1619px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3300x1619px

>>1435913
Is part of the colonization process.

File: 1459759386543.jpg (49KB, 480x443px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 480x443px

>>1435930
>literally nothing after the Cold War
>implying you shouldn't be thanking your heathen idols that the US was around to save your asses from the communists

>>1435950
You didn't bother to read it, then.

File: fredomz.jpg (20KB, 280x200px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 280x200px

>>1435950
you are so cute still eating the myth that the interventions of USA in LA were about communism and not about securing cheap resources

>>1435976
I looked hard for anything relevant at all after 1991

>hippies whining about the US helping to defend democratic governments against commie niggers
>hippies whining about the US embargoing a government that openly wants to destroy them
>hippies wining about military officers who were trained during the Reagan administration performing a coup, because clearly a latin American military wouldn't know how to perform a coup without US help

>>1435987
Nigger, they were about resources and communism.

We didn't want communists taking our resources.

You should count your faggot asses lucky that the US saw fit to hold the line, or you'd be Africa tier by now.

>>1436015
>We didn't want communists taking our resources.
who told you it belongs to you?

>>1436023
They don't.

You are, however, extremely lucky that the US wanted to steal them, because the alternative would be the Soviets doing it.

If you look at the experience that countries like Ethiopia, Mozambique, or Angola had with Soviet sponsored "revolutionaries" when the US didn't bother to stop them, you'll realize that Latin America is extremely lucky the US saw fit to steal from them.

And now that there are no Soviets around to threaten our monopoly on Latin America, we even let you guys have democratic governments.

Shit, I think half of Latin America is only democratic because of US lobbying, because we don't want any more embarrassing friends. It's sure as hell true for Grenada and Panama.

>>1434233
Uruguay>Spain

>>1436047
better a nationalist communist government than a ''democracy'' that only benefits corporations.

>>1436055
Meh. Uruguay is basically spaniards + south italians

>>1436047
Good, you are recognizing the imperialism of the USA I'm gonna call it a day.

Soviets were never a threat in LA .

File: 1073335.gif (310KB, 500x272px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 500x272px

>>1436047

>we

Like you have voice in the matter.
North Americans kill and die in war for multinational's best interests.

>>1436068
You'd be wrong though.

In fact, this kind of political naivete is precisely why we have to pick your governments for you.

If we didn't, you idiots would consistently pick a Castro or a Chavez and end up permafucked.

Meanwhile, countries like Colombia and Costa Rica that decided to actually cooperate with the Yanks instead of feeding their inferiority complexes have seen vast improvement.

>>1436079
Considerable amount of Germans, French and Brits. But it is not about ethnicity, it is about Spain being a political backwater and Uruguay being more progressive, certainly more progressive than America for example. Life quality is also great in Uruguay (in Montevideo it is comparable to that of Czech Republic).

>>1436055
>>1436110
Nice try. Spain has a higher GDP per capita and HDI.
>>1435709
>>1435814
And what about white-european South American countries which still perform worse than European ones.

>>1434194
Communism is fit with their lazy habit too

"Work as much as you can, And earn as much as you want"

That was a lie, and they fail for it.

Chile only sorted their shit out when the ritish and prussians took an interest in them

>>1436089
>Soviets were never a threat in LA

Cuba?

File: freebait.jpg (40KB, 699x637px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 699x637px

>>1436015
>>>/pol/

File: this.gif (4MB, 298x224px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 298x224px

>>1436047
Do you know how shit it is there? Nobody should be patting themselves on the back for Latin America.

>>1437205
Not him, but
Worse than Ethiopia? Or Mozambique?

>>1437211
Worse than Cuba?

Absolutely.

File: distances-of-major-cities-from-cuba.jpg (3MB, 4278x2973px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4278x2973px

>>1436089
>Soviets were never a threat in LA.

Hohoho

File: 0.png (178KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 480x480px

>>1437218
>US having nukes in Turkey within firing range of Moscow is A-OK.
>USSR having nukes in Cuba within range of the US is unacceptable.

>>1437223
Are you actually implying that America should have let the Soviet keep their missile bases in Cuba because it would have been "fair"?

You're a naive fool

>>1437223
That's not what the topic is about you dense vodka nigger.

>>1437239
No, they should have done what historically happened at the end of the Cuban missile crisis which was have the USSR remove nukes from Cuba whilst the US also removed their nukes from Turkey and Italy.

>You're a naive fool
You're right, only the US should be allowed to threaten other countries with nuclear weapons because America is so special and exceptional.

>>1437239
And you're pretending to be stupid on the internet again. Guess which one of you two is more pitiable?

>>1434160
go look at natives.

File: median wealth.jpg (175KB, 449x779px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 449x779px

Spaniards are one of the most richest nations in the world.

>>1434160
Neither
>>1434215
Partially alright, the only part I don't like is where the peasants supported comunism because it was better than serfdom. In many countries, particullary in the southern cone, the serfdom was non-existent
>>1435709
Nice answer. The lack of institutions is one of the main reasons.
>>1435814
>First of all, Spaniards and Portuguese were looking for gold and things to sell.
All their colonies were EXPLOITATION colonies,
>This contrasts with the British colonies that were all SETTLER colonies
Not all spaniard colonies were extraction-oriente and not all british colonies were settler-oriented.
>Then, in 1888, millions of niggers were released in the Brazilian society because the slavery was abolished.
Fucking dropped.

>>1437278
Every conquest is exploitation, tribal conquests are no different.

File: 1429973062585.png (10KB, 427x451px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 427x451px

>>1437279
>Every conquest is exploitation, tribal conquests are no different.
And that is relevant to my post because...?

>>1437286
The natives there were conquered by each others tribes, Spaniards reduced instability and facilitated trade and developed the economy from stone age to modernity of the time.

>>1437291
Slavery was also forbidden on the natives, thus they were paid wages based on their value.

>>1435709
What happened:

>Spain discovers the New World, finds immense natural wealth and enslaves the local natives to harvest it
>the English see the Spanish success and try to emulate it on the eastern seaboard
>except there's no natural resources worth shit
>and the native population is so sparse you now literally have to import niggers to work for you
>nobody wants to go there except for criminals, religious lunatics and some poor fuckers you literally have to capture in the port and force onto a boat

It's actually nothing short of a miracle that the US ended up being a global superpower and not some forgettable shithole

>>1437291
>>1437286
It also means that the settler/exploiter dichotomy is redundant, as both are forms of exploitation.

>>1437306
settling is not exploitation.

The natural affinity of the peoples that live in the Americas is the reason for their shared state of being, see the contrast of places peopled from elsewhere, it's affinities are those of their genetic identical.

>>1437291
>The natives there were conquered by each others tribes, Spaniards reduced instability and facilitated trade and developed the economy from stone age to modernity of the time.
So what? Even if spaniards did improve the trade routes, there were still several problems caused by their intervention. Mita and Encomienda systems were heavily detrimental to bring the americas to the modern times.

The conquerors didn't create a legal system that ensured institutions that were positive to economic development, but instead designed those that were rent-seeking. Their effects could be seen for centuries, up to the 1950s and beyond, you just have to compare countries that were heavily affected by Mita and Encomienda to other latin americans that didn't, or weren't as affected by it as the others.

>>1437330
>Mita and Encomienda to other latin americans that didn't, or weren't as affected by it as the others.
There is literally no difference between one latin american country and other fundamentally.

>>1437330
>mita
>encomienda

I don't think he knows what those things are.

Aztec technology was remarkable similar to Egyptian technology with the exception that the Egyptians had bronze. This places the Aztecs about 3000 years behind the Spaniards technologically.

>>1437335
>There is literally no difference between one latin american country and other fundamentally.
I'll help you out.

Compare Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador to Argentina, Uruguay and Chile.

>>1437351
Peru/GDP per capita
6,661.59 USD (2013)

Bolivia/GDP per capita
2,867.64 USD (2013)

Ecuador/GDP per capita
6,002.89 USD (2013)

Argentina/GDP per capita
14,715.18 USD (2013)

Uruguay/GDP per capita
16,350.73 USD (2013)

Chile/GDP per capita
15,732.31 USD (2013)

>>1437351
There is no magic place where suddenly there's equality with Europe.

>>1437360
The peoples of the Americas were always behind Europeans, you either settle for the truth of the history and status's of the Latin America's peoples, or you shit post for 2,000 years complaining you aren't equal to Europe.

>>1437360
>There is no magic place where suddenly there's equality with Europe.
What the hell are you even talking about?

>>1437371
You are saying that Latin America would have been equal to Europe if not for a certain reason, you aren't content with comparing Latin American nations to one another you believe that Latin American countries can reach the same level as Europe.

>>1435386
Ever heard of the phrase "rich as an Argentine?"

Nationalist mercantilism is what killed LatAm economically wise, while KGB made a mess out of everything in it, politically wise. Free enterprise, private property and generally any sort of laissez-faire ideology falls short among the population. Chile had Pinochet but that is not going to last long because there is a socialist in power. Argentina got their shit together after a hundred years of socialist bullshit, but it's going to take maybe two or three decades for them to get back on their feet. Brazil is a shitstorm every couple of decades, then they start getting things right again, only to be hit by another populist commie fuck again. Uruguay is a weird, because while they are not rich enough to become a regional superpower, they are not poor enough to be completely irrelevant. Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela and (sometimes) Colombia falls for the same shit time after time.

>>1437380
>You are saying that Latin America would have been equal to Europe if not for a certain reason,
No, there are several reasons Latin America isn't equal to europe, but the lack of institutions is one.
>you aren't content with comparing Latin American nations to one another you believe that Latin American countries can reach the same level as Europe.
I have to believe in a world where every country can get to high levels of development. Knowing what made europe succed and others don't is the first step in achieven that.

>>1437384
>bachelet
>socialist

>>1437392
Do you honestly believe in the "social democracy" meme?

I meet many Latin Americans, the reasons for their societies ills are all in their being.

>>1437405
No, democracy failed. When a lazy minority outgrows the people who actually do something in the country, the lazy minority gangs up on the people by outvoting them with some socialiost retard and things go to shit, at least until money runs out. It's a vicious cycle.

>>1437405
You've got it backwards. Poor people don't give birth to poor countries, poor countries give birth to poor people.

>>1436696
Are you dense? The point was about the contrast between the shit spanish politics and the avant-garde Uruguayan ones. GDP has nothing to do, bloody hell, the remark on life quality came after an "also". Work on your reading comprehension, cunt.

The war of independence is what made some former wealthy regions poor,as they had a huge burden of debt,as foreing powers didn't absorve the debt for the war,unlike Spain and France did for the US.This for example hit Mexico the hardest.Also the countries became very small,and were bullied by foreing powers all the time,like the US or Britain.All in all the best option for the region would have been the 1812 constitution,which would have made them Spanish provinces and allow them to develop industry.

>>1436103
>I know better than you because I said so
>Because I know better than you're not allowed to choose your way of life

Being an arrogant idiot helps no one, stop

>>1437218
America forced Cuba to align with the soviets because they wanted protection from the Americans who were slightly upset at having their puppet government overthrown, it is a terrible example because you pushed them into it

>>1437278
He is right though.

Millions of blacks, way more than in the US, with close to zero educated blacks, most had been treated worse than in the US, there was zero infrastructure to handle them as free citizens, in a nation poorer and less organized than the US.
What did you guess that led to?

File: Gold_reserve_changes_1993-2014.png (157KB, 1701x1127px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1701x1127px

>>1437358
thats only whats on the books (drugs,guns, gold)
also gold reserves for south america

you could argue the effectiveness of governments based on the directly proportional relationship to change in gold reserves. usually a fairly accurate indicator.

america has like 8k tonnes in gold reserves
germany 3k, china & oic both have about the same at 2k.~

http://www.relbanks.com/rankings/world-gold-reserves

File: wwiii.jpg (186KB, 1425x742px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1425x742px

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=448016&CategoryId=10718

Venezuela Repatriates $11 Billion in Gold Reserves
Venezuela's first shipment of its estimated 160-180 tons of gold held abroad was received at Maiquetia International Airport outside the Venezuelan capital and escorted under the security of 500 soldiers to the bank’s headquarters in downtown Caracas

pic related some scrap i was drawing last month.

commonwealth has a combined gdp of around 16t etc.

>>1438456

Commonwealth - 14t
USA - 18t
EU - 16t
OIC - 16t
CNY - 16t

these are the major players thats all.

sth america will stay as it is... im surprised there arent more economic hitman and dictator shenanigans going on in sth america desu to be controlled by global hegemony.. take down brazil and anything else that isnt "yes manning" etc

>>1434194
Latin America was in a dire state before Communism was even a thing.
Sorry /pol/, try another scapegoat.

>>1434194
Argentina was never ruled by communist.

>>1438892
people here thinks Peron was commie.

>>1438462
thats combined total GDP figs btw.. economic worth comparative for current epoc

File: Set_of_Mesoamerican_bronze_axes_2.jpg (299KB, 1606x1004px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1606x1004px

>>1437346

>>1435427
the 1900 were the golden era of Argentina and Uruguay
don't know about the rest of SA though

>>1435709
This

North america was for hard workers, entrepreneurs, and religious outcasts.

latin america was for people that wanted power and exploitation

>>1438427
>you

I love how retards assume that every anti-communist poster is an American.

>>1439071
Barely and they quickly crashed once their largest trading partner, Germany, was cut off by the British blockade and neither America nor the rest of Europe had any desire to pick up the slack. Either way, exception and not the rule.

>>1437304

>forests to build the british armada
>coal and iron in the Appalachians
>fertile farmlands near the great lakes and in the south to grow food, cotton, tabbaco, hemp.

>>1437300
Slavery was indeed forbidden, but Indians were still slaves. The Crown could do nothing to stop this. Hell, a great percentage of cubans today are descendants from the northern indians mixed with blacks and natives!

>>1439647
>Hell, a great percentage of cubans today are descendants from the northern indians* mixed with blacks and natives!
Because theyw ere sold as slaves**

*from what is now Texas, Coahuila and Nuevo Leon.
**Forgot to write this.

>>1439571
>coal and iron
Worthless at that period
>forests
Temperate forest Europe also had
>fertile farmlands
Cool, but no spices

The whole point of his argument is that when the Brits came, they didn't find anything that could potentially be easily exploited like the Spaniards do, or the possibility to grow some exotic crop like the Portuguese did. When they actually did, it was on the South, where they instituted slavery to grow that crop with profit in mind.

>>1439699
>Worthless at that period
>Coal and Iron
>worthless ever
Are you retarded? I mean seriously mentally deficient. Coal and Iron haven't been worthless since the fucking bronze age ended, you ignorant niggerfaggot.

>>1435814
lol brasuca burro de merda

>>1439713
Are you sincerely implying that coal and iron, which were heavy, far away and thus probably had some prohibitive transport costs, would have been to any use to England, which already had good reserves of both?

>>1439733
Are you seriously implying they weren't? Colonists were selling American coal to fucking British coal towns for fucks sake.

>>1435930
>lazy commies are so buttmad they made a salty infographic

>>1437900
Having so-called progress and weed it's not anything to be proud of.

Every time Latin America starts to stand on it's two feet, something comes along and kicks them to the grown.

>>1440644
Not an argument

>>1438444
One thing is saying "A bunch of uneducated people due to slavery meant that the country lagged behind" and the other one is saying "FUCKING NIGGERS RUINED MUH COUNTRY"

I just can't take that seriously.

about spanish and portuguese colonies being about exploitation and english ones about settling is a very good argument but not entirely right (true exploitation ones are like belgian congo and dutch indonesia). spain was an empire that got rich very quickly thanks to its colonies, but found difficult to stay rich. people who immigrated where usually men who had family back in europe and planned to return. spain and portugal never worried about developing industry for themselves, much less for their colonies and didn’t even let them trade between them, all had to go to europe while the colonies were given barely enough to maintain themselves, also, colonies expensive to keep, even if they give you lots of money, but spaniards were never really good at economics (still aren’t).
independence wars ruined the new countries’ economies and loaners as the british and france called for payments almost immediately (which didn’t happened to the us) and sunk them more in debt, also they got into wars all the time, civil and international, with countries way more powerful than them. slavery was a factor more in some places than others, abolishing slavery was difficult for brazil since they had a large slave population and couldn’t afford them as paid employees, mexico didn’t had much slaves so there was not much a problem abolishing it.
things got better for some in the xx century like for argentina, paraguay and mexico (even with the revolution the economy wasn’t affected that much), while some basically becamewere us puppets like cuba and puerto rico.
the ussr never had a military power that could be compared to the us, that’s a myth, but they had equal political and technological influence. left movements were supported morally but not that much military like guatemala, chile or cuba, anyway that got them into conflicts with the us that ruined them more economically and even socially.
tl:dr fuck you, I edited this like 10 times, it’s as short as I could

Spaniards crossed with savage Arabs before colonizing Latin America.

>>1436103

We didn't pick our government here in the U.S. we instead fought for it. By choosing it for other American nations they don't hold the same regard for it that we do. Once Latin American nations have a revolution akin to ours then they will prosper. It is not a prosperity that we can install on any other nation.

>>1437278
Name one spanish colony that developed.

Name one spanish settler colony.

>>1436047
>you could have Cancer or AIDS
>you're lucky you didn't get AIDS and die
>now you only have Cancer and are still alive
>you should be happy

Latin America was ruined because it was dominated by large estates and farmers more often than not were just cottars instead of owning their homesteads. In North America (non-Spanish) land ownership wasn't skewed anywhere near as badly which fostered a more wholesome development of the society. It's why land reform was key issue in pretty much every Latin American country driving conflicts.

File: colonists_map1.gif (23KB, 423x383px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 423x383px

>>1441993
>Name one spanish colony that developed.

United States of America.

>>1441993
>Name one spanish colony that developed.
Up to 1950, Argentina.
>>1441993
>Name one spanish settler colony.
Argentina, Uruguay later.

>>1434160
>why do violent and lazy people fail to build great civilizations?
I don't know, you tell me.

>>1435709

Yes, in LATAM, federalism happened centrifugally, while in USA was on the contrary.