those of you in other parts of the world may not care...

Spain. Spain and those dead sexy conquistadors in 1500's by far(mmmm baby, opression of disadvantaged people at its best)

But more modernly America. Are you trying to get a why people hate America topic? I know that your country as a whole is terribly hypocritical but again I suppose that's human. If you felt stronly enough about all that you wouldn't live in the US.

 

That name, 'Latin' America will never cease to piss me off...I mean what the fuck does it have to do with the Romans, or the original village or whatever?

</pointless rant>

 

That's what I thought. Your views have nothing to do with possible mistakes about punishing innocent people. The "mistakes" thing is just a smokescreen to cover a religious/ emotional/moral position that is not based on reason. You are entitled to an opinion, but I find it annoying when someone takes a religious/moral/emotional position and then tries to justify it by means of criticisms of the system in place, despite the fact they would oppose any system, even a perfect one.

 

Latin as in Latino. Get it?

People in Central and South America tend to speak Romance languages, derived from Latin. People in North America tend to speak Germanic languages, not derived from Latin.

In any case, other than Costa Rica, Latin American countries tend to suffer from a horribly inequitable distribution of wealth as a result of the feudalistic culture of the Spaniards who conquered them and remade their societies in Spain's image. Due to accidents of history and demographics, Costa Rica did not follow this "hacienda" model.

Outside intervention by Cuba and the USSR fermented communist and socialist revolutionary movements in these countries, which caught on quite well due to the lack of a prosperous middle class in these societies.

Outside intervention by the Catholic Church with its no-birth-control stance has resulted in overpopulation and mass poverty, contributing to the problems there.

So I put the Vatican, Spain, and the USSR at the top of the list when it comes to "why is Latin America miserable." The place was a cesspool long before the U.S. and United Fruit Company ever got involved down there.

Costa Rica has a large middle class and much more equitable wealth distribution and as a result, has enjoyed much more stability and prosperity than the other counties south of the U.S. border. The rest of the region is a lesson in what happens when the wealth is allowed to become too concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and the middle class is too small.

For our non-American readers, I should mention that most Americans have been conditioned to think of the working class as the "middle class," something of a con job by the upper classes who want the working class to think they are doing better than they are.

My conception follows the more mainstream historical/economic one, which is that the classes are as follows:

Upper class - live off their investments, independently wealthy. These people in the U.S. are usually worth $50 million or more. Note when the term "millionaire" was coined at the turn of the 19th/20th century, a million dollars was worth more than $100 million in 2004 dollars. To me a "millionaire" is someone worth $100 million or more.

Middle class - business owners and successful professionals. These people own their business operations, be it a large farm, medical practice, or retail store, and typically manage these operations themselves. They work for themselves, can't be fired/sacked and their net worth varies by age, usually from $1-$10 million, most of which is invested in the business.

Working class - people who would be in deep trouble if they lost their jobs for more than a year or in many cases, even six months. Employees of businesses owned by others. They struggle to put their children through college, find health insurance, and save enough for retirement. Often they are forced to declare bankruptcy after expensive medical procedures or after losing their jobs. Their biggest asset is usually a suburban house that they live in.

Lower class - people with no substantial assets, and either no jobs or else their wages are too low to live independently above the poverty level. Usually they have no health insurance, and rent, rather than own, their homes.

 

Only military unit that need to deal with they own man who commit crimes need to kill the man or woman who did it as you might be in aplace where you cannot lock then up. Most case involse than man rapeing children than they just put than bullet in his head.

 

So we're all a bunch of beggars except for Costa Rica, and the U.S. have no doing in it. Nice.
Besides, when the United Fruit messed things up in Guatemala, they were trying to mend things, and make an agrarian reform - which would have redistributed lands among the peasants, so as to ameliorate the situation of inequality. Of course they got invaded by USA's puppets...

 

I disagree on the influences causing Latin America do be poor-a bit

The USSR presented an ideal but didn't force it on anyone. Therefore the countries that turned communist screwed themselves up not the USSR. The USSR has only had a small and passing influence in Cuba. It is America's fault, I believe, for keeping these countries poor and exploiting them. America does make a large profit this way, pre-Castro Cuba was kept in the shit for America's benefit.

 

What nonsense. Cuba was nothing but a Spanish colony for 400 years until it was given independence by the U.S. after Spain was defeated in the Spanish-American war. After that followed U.S. capital investment in the sugar, tobacco, and tourism industries. The U.S. pulled Cuba out of the shit, they did not put them in it. The Cubans repaid this investment by "nationalizing" (stealing) land owned by U.S. companies and allowing the Soviets to place nuclear missiles aimed at the U.S. on Cuban soil.

The USSR had a long and lasting influence on Cuba since it supported the Communist regime's economy by effectively subsidizing the Cuban sugar industry for 33 years.

 

You really need to read up on the American backed dicatators of Cuba. America didn't directly put them in it but they didn't help it when they encouraged exploitation of people so they could get their exports. Castro was and is seen as a hero today for a reason.

 

The reason is, it is dangerous to think of him in any other way, given his human rights record and suppression of poltical dissent. The Cubans who don't think of him as a hero tend to wind up in jail or in Miami.

Batista fell because the U.S. withdrew its support from him. The U.S. recognized Castro immediately as the legitimate government in Jan. 1959 when Batista fled. Things went bad quickly after that due to Castro's actions in nationalizing assets of U.S. nationals a few months later, and introducing Soviet-style "reforms" of Cuba.

 

The Cubain terrorist that want Spain out blew up the Maine. The Bay of Pig have no real change of success as there was no popular support for it in Cuba. Fideo is than popularist dictorate with widespead support.

 

As someone who lives in a free country, I know there is no such thing as a politician who enjoys popular support for FORTY FIVE YEARS.

 

Most politician in america have that problem. The Fideo is than Stateman not than politician.

 

It is different when you don't have anyone attacking your credibility every election cycle. While there is no free press in Cuba, Castro also doesn't have to run the political gamut every half dozen years.
But if you look at how cemented Ted Kennedy has been in Massachussets, it's easy to see how a popular leader COULD generate a lasting amount of popular approval.
Of course, I am playing devil's advocate to a degree, there is no free press in cuba, so we don't know what it would look like if there were. But it is possible to maintain public approval, just imagine if FDR was in politics for 45 years. It's sacrilege to compare FDR and Castro, however the point is made that it isn't impossible to have a lasting popular figure. Even in a free society.

 

Even Hilter in the 1930's in Germany have approval rateing of 98%. The Germany General thought the 1930's have to cancle 3 or 4 coup against Hilter after he was strongly support by the common germany solider. Coup
donot happy against hight poplar leader or when than issue has wide spead support. In the run up to the Iraq war the Turkey parlianment didnot approval of Turkey being use to attack Iraq and 98% of the population support the Parialnment decision. America NeoCom was hopeing for than Turkey military coup which never came.