5 ms·

So why didn't it happen in South America?

by kryptiskt 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
agumonkey 9y ago
Climate is different for once. I'm curious about the parallel history lines though.
michalskop 9y ago
One possible explanation is in the popular book Las Venas abiertas de América Latina (Open Veins of Latin America) by Eduardo Galeano.
pizza 9y ago
The settlers who went to South America with the dreams of plucking gold bars out of the fruit trees and using an enslaved population to make hard farm work a breeze met a harsher reality. I don't know for certain, but I assume that the land was harder to make arable, the weather was less forgiving, the rainforests brought additional problems (like persistence of mosquitos and ticks). Plus South America didn't unify like the USA did, which might have presented an obstacle. I think I once heard a statistic like at the height of slavery 50% of the USA's exports were cotton. The industrial revolution was a great driver of the demand for America's cotton. "The American South is known for its long, hot summers, and rich soils in river valleys making it an ideal location for growing cotton. By 1860, Southern plantations supplied 75% of the world's cotton, with shipments from Houston, New Orleans, Charleston, Mobile, Savannah, and a few other ports. The insatiable European demand for cotton was a result of the Industrial Revolution which created the machinery and factories to process raw cotton into clothing that was better and cheaper than hand-made product." [0] It might be the case that this prosperity didn't happen in South America because they were not strategically fulfilling cotton demand of the industrial revolution. The reason that the conquistadors had started slaving was to fulfill a "gold revolution"; and they did at least gain prosperity in doing so. But the demand of the "gold revolution" for their monarchies was much smaller than the demand of the industrial revolution. However, Egypt and India also had significant exports of cotton. The effect that did happen is that the Civil War led to great increases of prosperity due to cotton exports for those countries [0][1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton [1] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-american-civil-war-built-egypts-vaunted-cotton-industry-and-changed-country-forever-180959967/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-american-civil-war...
- ghaff 9y ago
  Doesn't really explain Argentina to nearly the same degree as e.g. Brazil-/which The Economist has written about at length over the past couple of years.
  - thesmallestcat 9y ago
    Argentina is a great place for ranching and certain crops, but it has very little mineral wealth. I would hazard that the two most likely reasons for South America's slow progress are that its colonies were attached to ailing empires, and that a rugged and challenging geography made unification difficult to unimaginable. American history has no analog to the horrific War of Triple Alliance, a historical microcosm of the continent's diplomatic challenges.
    - Apocryphon 9y ago
      Not to mention that Argentina was doing quite well for itself at the onset of the 20th century- unfortunately political instability and other challenges hamstrung it since then. If some rolls of the dice had gone differently, it would be solidly in first place status by now, same as Chile.
      - ghaff 9y ago
        That was my main point. Given different political culture and other factors along those lines, southern South America may not have the great resources and land mass that the US did and does, but you can't really write them off for geographical determinism reasons. Were those countries really in a worse position with respect to resources, climate, etc. than, say, Australia?
      - notfromhere 9y ago
        Argentina's economic miracle fell apart due to constant shift in power between the agrarian landowners and the urban workers.
- sremani 9y ago
dboreham 9y ago
Catholicism
notfromhere 9y ago
Niall Ferguson had an interesting thesis on property rights and the style of colonial gov't is what made all the difference. Argentina had a good run, but internal politics have shit the bed in that country for a good century

So why didn't it happen in South America?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

agumonkey 9y ago

Climate is different for once. I'm curious about the parallel history lines though.

michalskop 9y ago

One possible explanation is in the popular book Las Venas abiertas de América Latina (Open Veins of Latin America) by Eduardo Galeano.

pizza 9y ago

The settlers who went to South America with the dreams of plucking gold bars out of the fruit trees and using an enslaved population to make hard farm work a breeze met a harsher reality. I don't know for certain, but I assume that the land was harder to make arable, the weather was less forgiving, the rainforests brought additional problems (like persistence of mosquitos and ticks). Plus South America didn't unify like the USA did, which might have presented an obstacle. I think I once heard a statistic like at the height of slavery 50% of the USA's exports were cotton. The industrial revolution was a great driver of the demand for America's cotton. "The American South is known for its long, hot summers, and rich soils in river valleys making it an ideal location for growing cotton. By 1860, Southern plantations supplied 75% of the world's cotton, with shipments from Houston, New Orleans, Charleston, Mobile, Savannah, and a few other ports. The insatiable European demand for cotton was a result of the Industrial Revolution which created the machinery and factories to process raw cotton into clothing that was better and cheaper than hand-made product." [0] It might be the case that this prosperity didn't happen in South America because they were not strategically fulfilling cotton demand of the industrial revolution. The reason that the conquistadors had started slaving was to fulfill a "gold revolution"; and they did at least gain prosperity in doing so. But the demand of the "gold revolution" for their monarchies was much smaller than the demand of the industrial revolution. However, Egypt and India also had significant exports of cotton. The effect that did happen is that the Civil War led to great increases of prosperity due to cotton exports for those countries [0][1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton [1] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-american-civil-war-built-egypts-vaunted-cotton-industry-and-changed-country-forever-180959967/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-american-civil-war...

ghaff 9y ago
Doesn't really explain Argentina to nearly the same degree as e.g. Brazil-/which The Economist has written about at length over the past couple of years.
- thesmallestcat 9y ago
  Argentina is a great place for ranching and certain crops, but it has very little mineral wealth. I would hazard that the two most likely reasons for South America's slow progress are that its colonies were attached to ailing empires, and that a rugged and challenging geography made unification difficult to unimaginable. American history has no analog to the horrific War of Triple Alliance, a historical microcosm of the continent's diplomatic challenges.
  - Apocryphon 9y ago
    Not to mention that Argentina was doing quite well for itself at the onset of the 20th century- unfortunately political instability and other challenges hamstrung it since then. If some rolls of the dice had gone differently, it would be solidly in first place status by now, same as Chile.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      That was my main point. Given different political culture and other factors along those lines, southern South America may not have the great resources and land mass that the US did and does, but you can't really write them off for geographical determinism reasons. Were those countries really in a worse position with respect to resources, climate, etc. than, say, Australia?
    - notfromhere 9y ago
      Argentina's economic miracle fell apart due to constant shift in power between the agrarian landowners and the urban workers.
sremani 9y ago

dboreham 9y ago

Catholicism

notfromhere 9y ago

Niall Ferguson had an interesting thesis on property rights and the style of colonial gov't is what made all the difference. Argentina had a good run, but internal politics have shit the bed in that country for a good century