Pax Americana

[MrFun]

Originally posted by problem_child
By the way, Saddam Hussein was tricked into invading Kuwait that first time.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Although the US did meddle in Latin America, I would compare the eventual outcome today of US meddling in Latin America with European meddling in Africa any day.

The mess we see in Africa couldn't have been repeated in other places, especially in South America where much of the population comes from Europe and is used to western ways and values.

Africa is such a terrible mess today because the Europeans applied their thinking processes to Africans, who had radically different thinking processes (notably about the role of work, the role of politics, the role of knowledge etc.).
Much of the mess that is Africa today can be blamed on the fact that the notion of "States" was almost fully alien to African societies pre-colonization. That's why there is still massive corruption, massive favouritism towards the leader's one own ethnies etc.

[Dom Pedro II]

Damnit, no! America shall succeed where I have always failed!

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Africa is such a terrible mess today because the Europeans applied their thinking processes to Africans, who had radically different thinking processes (notably about the role of work, the role of politics, the role of knowledge etc.).

Yup. Just look at the US reservations. If they weren't right within the US, they'd look like much of subsaharan Africa.

[Dom Pedro II]

Africa has been a terrible mess for many generations... its worse now because they have more people... although I will add that AK-47s have helped to make it a lot worse.

It doesn't justify the unspoken genocide committed by the European powers there, but nevertheless, Africa would still be messed up without them.

[HershOstropoler]

I don't think Africa would be that messed up without Europeans carving it up. It varies with what colonial practices were like, but overall, just the borders we left there....

[Dom Pedro II]

As I said, the Europeans did A LOT of bad things there... but I don't necessarily see that that has made Africa into what it is today. Africa's problems today stem from factors that are centuries old. It is the tribalism in Africa that has doomed it so thoroughly. And albeit AIDs and modern weapons, gifts from the West, have made it much much worse, it is the old customs that have ensured a long and bloody history to come.

What they are doing now is the same thing they were doing three hundred years ago, only they're a lot more efficient at it today.

[HershOstropoler]

"It is the tribalism in Africa that has doomed it so thoroughly."

Europe had been engaged in tribalist wars for centuries. I think if Africa was still having it's tribal Kingdoms that expand, shrink and go away, it would be better than the current situation. You have the tribalism and the european nation state - plague and cholera at the same time.

[Dom Pedro II]

There are no nation-states in Africa. Take Nigeria, which is not much bigger than a European country... there are over 200 different tribes and language groups just within its borders.

Why would it change if it were just two hundred little Nigerias with one group killing another? Each one would be trying to extend hegemony over the other and in the middle would be fields of dead bodies. In fact, you can argue that that's what's been happening... each of the major tribes has been struggling for control over the larger government so they can rule over their neighbors, and they would be doing the same thing even if there were no "Nigeria" to speak of. I mean, they were very willing to sell each other off into slavery before the Europeans claimed their lands...

And if you look at more recent atrocities, are we really to blame the genocide in Uganda on the European governmental system rather than ancient tribal hatreds?

As I said, on some points I agree. Modern technology has made it easier and more efficient to exterminate another people, but the fact that such acts are going on are not the product of the European system set in place.

[HershOstropoler]

"There are no nation-states in Africa."

More precisely, entities modelled after the european nation state, but without a nation. Well who knows, maybe it would be even worse without them, but most countries are several ethnic groups forced together and cut off from their people in the next state. In state vs tribe, you have no working authority.

[GePap]

Originally posted by gunkulator


Again, the greatest contribution the US made to Latin America was keeping the European colonial powers out. South America did not become another Africa or India and that was partly, though not wholly, due to the Monroe Doctrine.

Srry, but the only way the Monroe doctrine worked was cause it was also in British interests. In 1820 the US could not have stopped any imperial power from taking over SA states, specially Britain. BUt Britian could keep them at bay, which was in Brisith interest cause then they could gain market share. So Latin America owes more to the UK than US until well into the 19th century. Even then, the US failed to keep the French adventuresrs out of Mexico, and it was the Mexicans who drove them out.

Although the US did meddle in Latin America, I would compare the eventual outcome today of US meddling in Latin America with European meddling in Africa any day.

The US meddled far far less, so the two situations are not compatible. You also ignore European meddling in Latin America and US meddling in Africa after 1945.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
Even then, the US failed to keep the French adventuresrs out of Mexico, and it was the Mexicans who drove them out.

Actually, I know almost nothing about this event, except that Napo 3 became megalomaniacal once again and tried to raise Mexico as a great catholic empire on par with the US. I have no idea as to why it failed, how in failed, and in what time...
Could you please teach me ? Th

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

Yup. Just look at the US reservations. If they weren't right within the US, they'd look like much of subsaharan Africa.

Been to one lately? Once the federal gov't granted Native Americans the right to put casinos on their reservations, it created what is essentially a native monopoly on an extremely lucrative business.

Many reservations also act as legal smuggling sites, since natives are exempt from federal, state and local sales taxes on highly taxed items like cigarettes and alcohol.

[HershOstropoler]

And "If they weren't right within the US", what would the point of having casinos? What do you think they would be like ""If they weren't right within the US"?

And how is the overall social situation regarding health, life expectancy, alcoholism, crime etc? Compare them to the remaining french DOM or TOM - they just have the benefit of subsidies, not of being right within France.

[Dom Pedro II]

The US meddled far far less, so the two situations are not compatible. You also ignore European meddling in Latin America and US meddling in Africa after 1945.

Yes, and also the Europeans went for territorial power in Africa while the United States was more interested in hegemonic power in Latin America. It didn't want to rule over these territories, it just wanted to make sure the circumstances in these countries were favorable to them.

Actually, I know almost nothing about this event, except that Napo 3 became megalomaniacal once again and tried to raise Mexico as a great catholic empire on par with the US. I have no idea as to why it failed, how in failed, and in what time...

The Americans forced the French out ultimately because they moved troops to the Mexican border and basically gave Napoleon an ultimatum.

But it is true, that the Mexican Republicans under Benito Juarez had made the situation all but unwinnable for the Monarchist regime. I do, however, feel sorry for Maximillian. Although he was a monarch, he was a liberal monarch. He had genuinely good intentions for Mexico, and in fact, he made sure that prisoners of the civil war were treated humanely until it no longer became possible because it had just become SO bloody. In fact, I think Mexico would have been A LOT better off if he'd stayed in power for a few years and then was forced out through a bloodless coup like Dom Pedro II. He could've done a lot of good things for Mexico. Although, in favor, of a republic, Juarez was a thug like most other Mexican rulers before and after him.