5 ms·

Some needed contextualization here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions

Some needed contextualization here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U...

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
U.S. and European foreign policy has hurt Latin America. But that has nothing to do with Venezuela's present condition. Hugo Chavez was popularly elected in internationally-recognised elections. Through his and his successor's mismanagement, a formerly-wealthy oil nation--better off than others in the region--has fallen. This is a story of failed institutions and the destructiveness of populism, not of foreign interference.
- bshepard 8y ago
  That's one perspective. Another (perhaps broader) perspective is that there's been a generations long civil war throughout South and Central America between elites and oppressed populations, and throughout this conflict, the US state has sided with and supported elite rule, oftentimes including gross violations of human dignity. This goes back to the Monroe Doctrine.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    If the U.S. is responsible for Venezuela's present condition, then Venezuela never had a hope. "During the 1970s, Venezuela was the richest country in Latin America. With the region’s highest growth rates and the lowest levels of inequality, it was also one of the most stable democracies in the Americas" [1]. (Unfortunately, the economy failed to diversify away from oil before "the collapse of the 1980s and 1990s when global oil prices dropped.") Not only was Venezueala wealthy before Chavez, it ran proper elections. Its balanced, stable democracy reflected its population's will. The unfortunate truth is aloof upper/middle classes ignored Venezuela's poor. The latter got pissed off and, on their own volition, voted in a demagogue who then tore apart the country. Many problems in Latin America find origin in American meddling. Venezuela, today, is not one of them. [1] http://americasquarterly.org/content/venezuela-chávez-anatomy-economic-collapse-ricardo-hausmann-and-francisco-r-rodr%C3%ADguez http://americasquarterly.org/content/venezuela-chávez-anatom...
apotheothesomai 8y ago
All that context isn't needed. The relevant meddling in Central and Latin American has had two majors flavors: 1) the US manipulated, deposed, and built governments there for the last century, often triggering or at least backing civil wars. Much of this was done to further corporate interests, like The United Fruit Company. 2) During the Cold War, the US convinced the governments of the regions to retool their militaries as counter-insurgency forces to counter communist rebels. Those set the stage for any number of oppressive regimes and wars. The rise of Chavez could be seen as obvious, given the above, but Venezuela's specific problems today are due to Chavez' party and his successor.

Some needed contextualization here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U...

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

U.S. and European foreign policy has hurt Latin America. But that has nothing to do with Venezuela's present condition. Hugo Chavez was popularly elected in internationally-recognised elections. Through his and his successor's mismanagement, a formerly-wealthy oil nation--better off than others in the region--has fallen. This is a story of failed institutions and the destructiveness of populism, not of foreign interference.

bshepard 8y ago
That's one perspective. Another (perhaps broader) perspective is that there's been a generations long civil war throughout South and Central America between elites and oppressed populations, and throughout this conflict, the US state has sided with and supported elite rule, oftentimes including gross violations of human dignity. This goes back to the Monroe Doctrine.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  If the U.S. is responsible for Venezuela's present condition, then Venezuela never had a hope. "During the 1970s, Venezuela was the richest country in Latin America. With the region’s highest growth rates and the lowest levels of inequality, it was also one of the most stable democracies in the Americas" [1]. (Unfortunately, the economy failed to diversify away from oil before "the collapse of the 1980s and 1990s when global oil prices dropped.") Not only was Venezueala wealthy before Chavez, it ran proper elections. Its balanced, stable democracy reflected its population's will. The unfortunate truth is aloof upper/middle classes ignored Venezuela's poor. The latter got pissed off and, on their own volition, voted in a demagogue who then tore apart the country. Many problems in Latin America find origin in American meddling. Venezuela, today, is not one of them. [1] http://americasquarterly.org/content/venezuela-chávez-anatomy-economic-collapse-ricardo-hausmann-and-francisco-r-rodr%C3%ADguez http://americasquarterly.org/content/venezuela-chávez-anatom...

apotheothesomai 8y ago

All that context isn't needed. The relevant meddling in Central and Latin American has had two majors flavors: 1) the US manipulated, deposed, and built governments there for the last century, often triggering or at least backing civil wars. Much of this was done to further corporate interests, like The United Fruit Company. 2) During the Cold War, the US convinced the governments of the regions to retool their militaries as counter-insurgency forces to counter communist rebels. Those set the stage for any number of oppressive regimes and wars. The rise of Chavez could be seen as obvious, given the above, but Venezuela's specific problems today are due to Chavez' party and his successor.