4 ms·

last 2? weren't they toppling latin American governments since Teddy Roosevelt?

by caycep 2y ago

lazide 2y ago
Banana republic the term was coined in 1904 - right when Teddy was in charge. Excellent reference!
dventimi 2y ago
Yes. That's why I wrote, "Through at least two administrations". Personally, I consider the scale of injustice in Latin America alone at the hands of U.S. policy to be vast and unsparing in the culpability it lays at the feet of every American. I recognize that not everyone will be joining me out on that limb, however, so I chose to make my opening bid smaller but more unassailable.
- snypher 2y ago
  There's not really anything the average person can do to influence this policy, so by saying "of every American", the blame is diluted across the population, instead of held directly against those responsible. So what is the answer? Large scale protests against imperialism are just shut down and the protestors get doxxed or arrested and the band plays on.
  - dventimi 2y ago
    > There's not really anything the average person can do to influence this policy, so by saying "of every American", the blame is diluted across the population, instead of held directly against those responsible. Assign for yourself whatever share of the blame your conscience will allow. > So what is the answer? I have no idea, but whatever it is I suspect it's not yelling at strangers on the internet.
  - eyelidlessness 2y ago
    Probably the best example I can think of where a vast injustice was halted, while assigning broad social culpability, with participation of some of those deemed culpable, and without substantial reliance on external force… would be the end of Apartheid in South Africa. Notably, the assignment of broad culpability was probably an essential component of that… and so probably was the limited application of consequences for that culpability. There are other historical examples I can think of which involved mass violence as a significant part of the means to halt the vast injustice. Those examples are probably not what we’d want to model, but they’re notably more readily available for reference.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    > There's not really anything the average person can do to influence this policy, so by saying "of every American", the blame is diluted across the population, instead of held directly against those responsible. Latin American countries wouldn't have become banana republics without Western demand for bananas. There are different levels of culpability but the rest of us aren't blameless - our collective demand drove these policies and I don't know about you but I've enjoyed a lot of tropical fruit in my life. To be honest I can empathize. I'd totally support going to war with Mexico if it threatened my year round supply of avocados.
    - dventimi 2y ago
      What refreshing candor!
refurb 2y ago
Absolutely. The Monroe Doctrine was a clear statement that foreign influence in the Americas was a non-starter. The USSR was funding leftist rebels in several central and South American countries throughout its existence - Argentina, Grenada, Guatemala, the list goes on. Doesn’t seem odd to me for the US to come in and back the current government? Even if those governments weren’t democratic, I don’t think anyone can argue the Soviet backed ones were going to be beacons of liberty either.
- dventimi 2y ago
  I'm willing to accept a lot of the blame, but that stops at the border. I may not have much political influence in America where I live, but I'm pretty sure I have no political influence in Russia.
- elktown 2y ago
  It's both worrying and refreshing that reactionaries of today are comfortable enough to just say "Yeah, so what if we did?" instead of the usual weaseling.
  - refurb 2y ago
    I mean, what was a good alternative? Let the USSR overthrow the governments instead? Install a far left authoritarian state? Would those people really have been better off? Would the US be better off? Would the world be more stable? What I see a lot with the left is “well if it can’t be perfect we shouldn’t do it”, ignoring the fact that doing nothing is actually a worse outcome than intervening.
    - elktown 2y ago
      False dichotomy
      - refurb 2y ago
        It's not. These countries were not thriving democracies. So saying "if it wasn't for the US, these people would be living in a democracy" is false. The options are basically US-aligned dictator, or USSR-aligned dictator. I see no issues with the US supporting the first.
FactKnower69 2y ago
The JFK admin and CIA were openly committing terrorism on Cuban soil ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose ), at the same time the Joint Chiefs of Staff were begging Kennedy to let them perform terrorist attacks on Americans(!), to be blamed on the Cuban government ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods ); that plan was apparently just a little too far over the line to get green lit

last 2? weren't they toppling latin American governments since Teddy Roosevelt?

by caycep 2y ago

last 2? weren't they toppling latin American governments since Teddy Roosevelt?

lazide 2y ago

Banana republic the term was coined in 1904 - right when Teddy was in charge. Excellent reference!

dventimi 2y ago

Yes. That's why I wrote, "Through at least two administrations". Personally, I consider the scale of injustice in Latin America alone at the hands of U.S. policy to be vast and unsparing in the culpability it lays at the feet of every American. I recognize that not everyone will be joining me out on that limb, however, so I chose to make my opening bid smaller but more unassailable.

snypher 2y ago
There's not really anything the average person can do to influence this policy, so by saying "of every American", the blame is diluted across the population, instead of held directly against those responsible. So what is the answer? Large scale protests against imperialism are just shut down and the protestors get doxxed or arrested and the band plays on.
- dventimi 2y ago
  > There's not really anything the average person can do to influence this policy, so by saying "of every American", the blame is diluted across the population, instead of held directly against those responsible. Assign for yourself whatever share of the blame your conscience will allow. > So what is the answer? I have no idea, but whatever it is I suspect it's not yelling at strangers on the internet.
- eyelidlessness 2y ago
  Probably the best example I can think of where a vast injustice was halted, while assigning broad social culpability, with participation of some of those deemed culpable, and without substantial reliance on external force… would be the end of Apartheid in South Africa. Notably, the assignment of broad culpability was probably an essential component of that… and so probably was the limited application of consequences for that culpability. There are other historical examples I can think of which involved mass violence as a significant part of the means to halt the vast injustice. Those examples are probably not what we’d want to model, but they’re notably more readily available for reference.
- throwup238 2y ago
  > There's not really anything the average person can do to influence this policy, so by saying "of every American", the blame is diluted across the population, instead of held directly against those responsible. Latin American countries wouldn't have become banana republics without Western demand for bananas. There are different levels of culpability but the rest of us aren't blameless - our collective demand drove these policies and I don't know about you but I've enjoyed a lot of tropical fruit in my life. To be honest I can empathize. I'd totally support going to war with Mexico if it threatened my year round supply of avocados.
  - dventimi 2y ago
    What refreshing candor!

refurb 2y ago

Absolutely. The Monroe Doctrine was a clear statement that foreign influence in the Americas was a non-starter. The USSR was funding leftist rebels in several central and South American countries throughout its existence - Argentina, Grenada, Guatemala, the list goes on. Doesn’t seem odd to me for the US to come in and back the current government? Even if those governments weren’t democratic, I don’t think anyone can argue the Soviet backed ones were going to be beacons of liberty either.

dventimi 2y ago
I'm willing to accept a lot of the blame, but that stops at the border. I may not have much political influence in America where I live, but I'm pretty sure I have no political influence in Russia.
elktown 2y ago
It's both worrying and refreshing that reactionaries of today are comfortable enough to just say "Yeah, so what if we did?" instead of the usual weaseling.
- refurb 2y ago
  I mean, what was a good alternative? Let the USSR overthrow the governments instead? Install a far left authoritarian state? Would those people really have been better off? Would the US be better off? Would the world be more stable? What I see a lot with the left is “well if it can’t be perfect we shouldn’t do it”, ignoring the fact that doing nothing is actually a worse outcome than intervening.
  - elktown 2y ago
    False dichotomy
    - refurb 2y ago
      It's not. These countries were not thriving democracies. So saying "if it wasn't for the US, these people would be living in a democracy" is false. The options are basically US-aligned dictator, or USSR-aligned dictator. I see no issues with the US supporting the first.

FactKnower69 2y ago

The JFK admin and CIA were openly committing terrorism on Cuban soil ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose ), at the same time the Joint Chiefs of Staff were begging Kennedy to let them perform terrorist attacks on Americans(!), to be blamed on the Cuban government ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods ); that plan was apparently just a little too far over the line to get green lit