I don't buy it. China, both in modern times and ancient, is, broadly speaking, the opposite of the United States - hierarchical, undemocratic and historically rigidly conservative. Ancient China is sometimes held up as an example of meritocratic governance as officials were appointed by competitive examination, irrespective of class; however this doesn't pass a cursory inspection - significant and very costly preparation was required to have a chance of entering the civil bureaucracy, which would mean that the common person would effectively never make it into the Civil Service, no matter how apt a bureaucrat they would have been. Moreover, Imperial Examinations largely tested Chinese literature, poetry and philosophy, rather than skills directly applicable to governance. Modern China has plenty of superficial differences from the dynasties of old, but fundamentally has the same power structure as Ancient China. **And despite all of this, Ancient China was for centuries the world's foremost economic power house and Modern China is quickly shaping up to be a successor to its ancient legacy.** Which raises one critically important question: If it is ultimately inclusive, democratic power structures that determine long-term prosperity, how can China's growth be explained? I don't have a competing theory of relative prosperity, but I find the explanation presented in this video to be unsatisfactory. Moreover, I would argue that the United States is gradually drifting towards the Latin American style of governance, with the last semblances of democracy being watered down into oligarchy and government becoming increasingly subservient to elite economic interests. The only two parties capable of winning elections (mostly) toe the same pro-corporate, pro-elite line, differing cosmetically on Social Issues. The US isn't there yet, but I think it's fairly obvious in which direction we're heading.
@@austino5069 because of the shift in economic theory and simply cut, history during the last centuries, the contemporary age has been the age where democracy seems to simply work better than hierarchical and undemocractic systems. I dont know if you are aware there, but Latin america used to be by far more rich than north american, and even most of europe , it was after the revolutions ,and more importantly, the industrial revolutions that old orders like the spanish ( who were, indeed a system much like the chineese) and china fell on their faces, the problems that latin america faced where really problems replicated almost to the T in spain and most places were spain spread its dominance durin the modern age. And you nailed it entirely, the USA has a history absolutely loathing and at best ignoring latin america as non important, but they ignore that latin america is a society very much like theirs , and could be the mirror of their own future should they keep the oligarchization , the opening of the inequality gap, and the corporatism up. LAtin america is not some poor hellhole, they are countries designed to extract wealth for the benefit of some top families, wich is the path , unfortunately , the USA seems to be going right now, if i were anglo american , i would focus on the break up of monopolies, and aleviatin the wealth gap before it gets too late for you. Latin america is what the USA could be if they keep up their current road.
@@cseijifja I'm quite familiar with Latin America, or at least the Hispanophone parts of it, which is why it's quite concerning to see how its history parallels the current political development of the United States. I definitely agree that there's this sentiment in the US (and possibly the rest of the Anglophone world) that Latin America is somehow a foreign civilization and "not Western", which I find ludicrous - I think most Americans, putting aside yellow-filtered movies, racism and the language barrier would find that Latin America as a whole doesn't actually feel that foreign in the same way MENA or China would. I'd be interested to see perspectives on whether it's really possible for all countries to attain a developed standard of living. I haven't done enough research to argue it thoroughly, but prima facie it seems that it is the relative value of labor that countries labor. Infrastructure and technology obscure this relationship somewhat, but it mainly seems to me that there are only developed nations *because* there are undeveloped nations.
So the primary message I have interpreted, is that colonialism is the root cause of Latin America’s problems. This is due to the Spanish descendants or, “elites” stranglehold on capital and power. If that is accurate, how would this have changed when the natives appeared to already have exploitive economic and class systems in place? If they had never been colonized, would they have cast aside their own exploitive system? At what point? If they were on track in the 50’s, what happened?
“These countries aren’t poor. These countries are rich! Only the people are poor! They’re not underdeveloped, they’re overexploited!” - Michael Parenti
@@danielramirez8298 The "culture" you meant is the lack of education efficiency intentionally applied by the Elites, that went back from the colonization, which is the theme of this video;
In my country (Honduras), we celebrate independence on September 15. At schools we are always told that: "we didn't really got independence, we only changed from European masters to local ones" and that holds true
The truth is that during the Spanish empire you were also masters, because Spanish american territories and individuals had the same rights as the people from the Peninsula. I recommend you to read Marcelo Gullo's books, which clearly explain all this with data and examples.
In many countries it got worse for the indigenous people after the Spaniards departed. The colonial authorities would only collect a tax from the native localities and respect their customs in many instances. Once the countries became independent and whatever riches could only be found inside, the government used the army to move, push, subjugate the natives. There were instances in which their legal status went from being subjects of the crown to being stateless within the new republic as those in power would not consider them 'part of the country', just natives. There are parallels to this in the USA. Native Americans were better off under British rule, as the Crown, having Worldwide worries, would see keeping the peace with the natives as a long term goal. Once independent, the USA could only look inward for expansion and could only take from those within its borders. Although born here, Native Americans did not have American citizenship. That was reserved to the group in power. The same thing happened in a different shades of grey in all former colonies, British or Spanish.
@@ndjxisjenxjix9525 Good morning. Please elaborate. The native population had no means to move to Spain so I do not understand the question. Nevertheless, I would think given the logistics of the time persons just remain where they where unless moved out by outside circumstances (disease, floods, or by force or guns). Up to the invention of the automobile, most human beings remained within 50 miles of wherever they were born. In any case, in many instances colonial powers had a broader interest rather than local. In general, it was easier for France, England, Spain to respect a treaty with a local tribe all the way from Europe for the sake of not incurring into the expenses of military adventures. However, once former colonies become republics, their only concern is their immediate geographical region. Peace means less when the only alternative is to not expand within the only territory that is available. Hence a republic would have a greater interest in taking from the natives than a colonial power. Mostly because the ones enforcing the taking by force would also be the beneficiaries of the action.
As a Latin American, who has both lived my entire life in Latin America, and has studied the history of all the countries that compose it. I can tell you that the main factor in the lack of development is either Civil War and internal conflicts for power or rampant corruption and violation of the resources and the state.
In Brazil's case, the Elites. They dumped out the Emperor which was humble enough to at least make the country a bit better even for the poor, but no, the Elites gotta keep the country unequal and developed for the rich.
Let us not forget the cause for internal conflicts though, the overal structure of LatAm has been fucked due to how the Spanish ran their colonies compared to the british
The next question is: with so many violent uprisings in the history of Latin America, why couldn't one of those lead to a societal transformation sweeping out the corruption and establishing rule of law and economic rights?
@@jose13neo Since independence most of the Latin American countries reformed their legal systems, in countries like Venezuela, there has been 5 major reforms to the institutions that run the country, but the story is always the same, Civil Wars, corruption, etc, now it has very little to do with how Spain ran their colonies and how the british ran theirs, but has more to do with how people in LatAm has a tendency to choose warlords, populists, and so on, the exception i think would be Chile and Uruguay, but i don't know much of their history so i cannot say, hell, in Venezuela we had 10 presidents that were overthrown, thats an insane number and i'm not even counting the failed coup's, if so the number would increase. TL;DR: it has been more than 200 years that the colonies fell, the colonies have little to nothing to do in the modern political landscape, LatAm is poor because its leaders and institutions are insanely corrupt. P.S: also latinamericans like political fanatism and take it to the extreme, as you can see with the cult of personality that Hugo Chavez had
Well done! Having lived in several Latin American countries I’ve witnessed a lot of the unfortunate instances you talk about. Societies have huge hurdles to conquer to get to a more just society. It’s truly tragic. Keep up the great work!
*Yes, this video is spot on! I've also lived in several countries in Latin America, mainly Central America. I'm Salvadoran, btw. The person in this vid literally took the time to delve into the perpetual root causes of poverty in Latin America. In effect, he indirectly concurs with Francis Fukuyma's affirmation that a lack of strong institutions (i.e judicial system, weak and corrupt legislative body, etc.) is a major cause. In this manner, the weak institutions are the result of greedy and corrupt elites (Oligarchs in El Salvador) with their vast influence in government. For example, in El Salvador the old coffee oligarchs in the late 1800s through the late 1970s exerted ABSOLUTE influence and pressure over the conventional military, "Guardia Nacional" and "policia de hacienda" (the National Guard and Territorial Police that defended the rich land-owners) for approximately 100 years. In effect, the military was the tool of the oligarchs, which is why these ultra-greedy land thieves were able to finance a coup anytime they wanted so that they could install a puppet [mestizo] leader to bow to their will politically, legislatively, socially, and economically.*
bro missed a crucial factor though. you know, the factor which sets apart the "southern cone" from the rest of south america? the factor that allows the region to enjoy "very high" rates of human development and twice the per capita income as the rest of the continent, while also making it many times safer and less crime-prone? wonder why.
as a latin american, and as others have expressed in these comments I'd also agree to point the finger at corruption. It's so embedded into the culture and in all socio-economic groups that it feels depressingly like a battle that can't be won
It is funny to me the same people than complain about corruption are the first to find out who they have to pay to make a shorter line or get what they want quicker.
@@sabin97 Acaban de descubrir un túnel a San Diego. El gobierno está al tanto del tráfico de drogas. EE.UU. usa los países latinoamericanos como líneas de producción.
The biggest problem is corruption. I lived in Brazil for several years. Brazil is a rich country, as far as resources go. But every politician who rises to power does so solely to build wealth. A guy who was something like a school teacher a few years prior to taking a relatively influential politician position, that person would be a millionaire. Paraguay is a great example of this as well.
Politicians make too much money in Brazil. To be honest I think they should get paid a teachers salary. That way you separate the people that are into politics because they have an affinity for it from the people that want to get rich and an early retirement. By the way Brazil is not just rich in resources it actually has a strong economy which is why I don't understand how in God's name that Brazil is not fully developed
corruption is never going to be the biggest problem, there is corruption in all countries, did you know that tax evasion in Brazil takes 6 times more money than corruption???? Of course you don't know. You seem to be those people who repeat the same speech, worry about Bolsonaro destroying education.
The history of latin America is so complex that it is borderline impossible to explain within one video. They are so many tangent and factors that play a role on why we are what we are today, not just european colonial history Nevertheless, this video serves as a decent introduction. Well done mate
I think most world histoy is almost infinitely complex. Its like a fractal of knowledge. The more you dig into whatever time and place, the more detailed the web of historical facts becomes. And its all interconnected so vastly its unfathomable.
history documentary about Latin America is like watching a telenovela-full of drama, unexpected plot twists, and characters you can't believe actually existed.
In the course of my engineering career I made many trips from the US to our factory in Mexico. My impression of the Mexican people was that they loved life and were very close to their families and friends, but a legacy of weak and corrupt governments had given them little motivation to trust authorities or respect laws. In the factory, this manifested itself as something less than strict reverence for manufacturing procedures, and our "fixes" tended to break down as soon as we flew home. Corporate finally threw in the towel and moved the whole thing overseas.
They lack a moral compass which has lead to lots of issues in their society. Your impression is spot on. Culture is their limiting factor, currently. If they could just break from their bad traditions, and habitual stupidities, things would change for them. Sadly, this will never happen. Their culture rewards the dumb and not the intelligent unfortunately. Those that are intelligent notice this and immediately seek refuge in another western country such as the US, UK, Germany, etc. This leads to a massive brain drain from their society and they creep lower and lower as a result.
I´m a Canadian who has been living in Buenos Aires, Argentina for the past 20 years. Honestly I can say that corruption on many levels is tolerated here much more than in Canada or the U.S.
Lamentablemente es así. Cómo usted dice. Los políticos argentinos son los más corruptos y mentirosos, y la mayoría de la gente se deja manipular o engañar fácilmente. Meten propagandas política de izquierda en todos los colegios. Festejan que todo sea público, pero es cada día más decadente, desde los jardines de infantes, escuelas, universidades, hospitales; todo va cuesta abajo. "De nada sirve que les den educación a los chicos, si les dan una pobre educación". Y no solo hablo de lo intelectual, hablo de los valores y respeto, eso se está perdiendo o ya se perdió. Tampoco tienen pensamiento individual, propio, muchos repiten siempre lo mismo. Es triste, porque el país tiene de todo para salir adelante pero vamos cada vez más para atrás. Saludos desde Buenos Aires.
Corruption exists everywhere. Therefore corruption alone is not enough to explain the disparity. Culture matters, much more than resources. For it is the minds of men, that is where the source of wealth and the disparities begins and ends.
During my first stint of working in Peru, a Peruvian told me more or less to expect Peruvians to try and trick you or take advantage of you. He said it was nothing personal, just the way things are in Peru. I worked there 3 years and at the end of the year one of the big papers would ask Peruvians what they like and dislike about their country, the #1 response for what they disliked was always Corruption!
In Latin America there are often people who try to hustle visitors for money and it sort of ruins the experience. Some examples: - Coming out of a Milonga in Bs As, as I'm trying to flag down a taxi, someone goes further up the street to flag a taxi first then expects me to pay him a tip for the "service" that I didn't ask for. I've always been able to flag down taxies by myself in every country I've visited, I don't need these "services". - Eating in a Restaurant in Buenos Aires and a kid comes in to stare at me while I'm eating. - As I'm listening to a tourist guide at Colón's villa in the Dominican Republic, a kid starts washing my sandals without me noticing and expects to be paid for the service that I never asked for. - Again in the Dominican Republic pushy sales people trying to sell you things you don't need or want who won't take no for an answer who follow you everywhere you go and perceive you as a walking money bag. When it's too pushy and excessive I can't enjoy my visit as much. On the weekend on Defensa street in Buenos Aires, artists sell their art and they aren't pushy, it's possible to chat with them and take your time while shopping. It's not something I was able to do in the Dominican Republic. I never went back to the Dominican Republic after the one trip the experience at the resort was fine except for the food poisonings but being hassled to purchase things while on a tourist tour while recovering having been sick for several days ruined the experience for me. My visit to Chile was limited to Easter Island but it was an enjoyable experience, I could take my time looking at the sites, no one bothered me in restaurants I was able to chat with the locals without being hustled. The only issue was on occasion, on some of the paths there were wild dogs that at times were territorial. Had fun watching chickens being followed by a large group of their hatchlings. Loved Mexico, visited Mayan archeological sites, Cancùn was great. One annoyance was men coming on to my then underaged sister right in front of my father.
Pretty sure that what you mean is we Peruvians tend to have this smart ass culture , I sadly agree, and always hated it, one of the reasons why I left my country.
Why Nations Fail is a book that gave me the root understanding of how institutions with falt foundations will ultimately crash and fail. Amazing book, amazing video.
As a latin American, I totally agree and finger to the corruption. On our schools we're not entitled to think by ourselves or becoming the change. We're raised in order to be employees from the world, educated to become servants of someone else... It's such a shame we've been suffering for so many years.
Corruption is not the problem ，that's a social representation My teacher researched latin American for many years and visited different place of there，even talking to many criminals there He concluded that ： Latin American countries generally lack Economic Sovereignty. No matter what kind of political system, Latin American countries will hit a hard Economic Ceiling. Such as agriculture and land, Latin America has very good land, but the crop's value of the land does not belong to the people, not even belong to the government. The main wealth of the land belong to foreign capital. Foreign capital can Shape Latin American countries to whatever they like. Once you want to remediate these foreign capital，some one will start a street revolution or simply a military offensive and take you down. This "some one" is the video maker's own country who telling you the latin American's problem is inside yourself and may be is "corruption" or something.
@@TK-my7jg While I generally don’t like to agree with Chinese policy (as someone who cares about decolonization), you are pretty spot on here. It’s probably a bit of a chicken and egg problem for which came first, but corruption and foreign capital feed each other to an extreme degree. Latin America needs economic sovereignty above all else.
I'm really glad more people are looking at the absolute genius and masterpiece of a book, Why Nations Fail. Nations do not get rich from their position in the world, they get rich from their economic bodies and political institutions.
@@Sultan-cf5wf depends on what was meant by geography. A landlocked country or a country with bad neighbors will always have fewer opportunities than one with plentiful ports surrounded by wealthy neighbors. We're walking on the scale of nations and not towns here. For example, Hungary's institutions are worse than those of a country like Botswana, but Hungary is much richer, even though both are landlocked nations.
@@Sultan-cf5wf Not really true. The most important aspect of any nation is its geography as it single handedly determines the way it will evolve internally and how it will project power abroad. The US is rich for basically being the best chunk of land in the world, period. The enormous amount of fertile land with temperate climate and navigable rivers to cheap transport the production with a protected delta in the Gulf of Mexico in the Mississipi Basin is one of the main things that catapulted the US into what it is today. Perfect location with very invinting climate and vegetation and with very low density of native americans helped the european settlers to reclaim most of the land pretty quickly with very little effort. This and the ammount of natural resources the US has like huge amounts of wood, minerals and one of the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world. For you to get how important the Mississipi river is to the US the only other comparable river basin in the Americas that covers this amount of flat land with navigable rivers is the Amazon river basin but instead of grasslands and temperate forests there is the biggest tropical jungle in the planet where diseases killed everyone when european settlers tried to expand inland. So, taking Brazil as a comparison as its similar in size to the US, around 70% of its territory was impossible to develop farming until the 80's because the tech didn't exist yet so, even though it technically has a huge amount of land, in practice they didn't have much so large scale colonization with free land for any settlers couldn't occur. It's hard to develop your nation from colony to superpower if most your territory is wastelands. Argentina is the same but with huge deserts so until the 1900 they couldn't settle the southern half of their country. Mexico is again way to arid and after they lost their nothern part to the US they had only left the worst and more arid lands and with the US diverging the flow of rivers that go down to Mexico like the Colorado River it got only worse. The countries in the Andes are hard to develop also as they have a tropical climate with jungle in some parts and in the others is mountains so no easy way out of poverty like the US with infinite fertile land. The list goes on and on and on. The geography of latin america sucks...
and geografi and interaction and intervention whit other powers, latin america have a long history of intervention why the usa in the 20 century an the result are show how can you have good institutuions when the bigest super power have organisated dictatorships in the region. latin america is like ester europa governed by most of the century by crony cuasy colonial goverments
@@Sultan-cf5wf That is what this video got wrong. North America (mainly USA) has the best geography in the world. Maybe back in the era of early colonization latin America was richer but as a modern nation state the USA has the best natural geography in the world no question. Look at how navigatable the rivers are and how abundant in the usa for example.
I’m a little disappointed here because this video left out the US as something of an innocent bystander to Latin America’s demise. Plenty of examples exist regarding incentivizing/forcing disenfranchisement. The term ‘banana republics’ is no accident, and the northern neighbor’s demand for drugs continues to stymie growth in other areas. To be clear, I’m not saying all fault lies with the US or even Canada, but there have been interferences in the progress of Latin America, when this did not align with the interests of its Northern Neighbors.
Oh no, pretty much everything since 1900 is actually America's fault lol. They're literally like an adult taking advantage of a kid, while they constantly talk about how good they are since they're against colonialism and pro democracy and more.
As a hispanic. I will say that hispanics need to stop blaming usa for our problems. Germany was under a dictatorship and completely destroyed and look at it now.
The main flaw in this presentation is the omission of the American South, which was an extractive system based on slavery more similar to the Carribean or Latin America then to the Northern states. That these states remain poorer and with higher crime rates however reinforces his point.
British Barbados was settled by English royalists who instituted a particularly brutal system of plantation slavery. African slaves were plentiful and inexpensive. Some of the Barbados planters brought the same system to South Carolina.
I do need to make the point that before the civil war the American South was more prosperous and wealthy than their northern counter parts. It wasn't until after the war, occupation, and reconstruction that the American South was considered poor. Turns out destroying a generation of young men and the culture of a highly independent system and divesting the people of that area of much their wealth will destroy a place for generations to come.
Very true though I'd argue the American South has undergone an extreme change/economic growth over the last 60 years, largely thanks to affordable A/C and federal projects such as the Interstate that allow the South to compete for businesses throughout the United States. There's a reason so many Americans and business have moved to the South in recent decades
@@dripfeedtothebrain Yeah next time dont try to seccede to keep your slaves next time. The south did that to itself. Not to mention they oppressed half their population for most of their history after the destruction which they themselves caused. They made themselves poor.
It's also notable that Argentina and Brazil were wealthiest at the turn of the 20th century when like the U.S., Argentina encouraged European migrants to settle sparsely populated lands. Mexico tried to do this within sparsely populated Mexican territories in the north shortly after independence--mainly from German and U.S. settler migrants. However as history shows they were cut off early from this when American settlers rebelled in Texas. All the German settlers that settled in the southwest ended up becoming Americans rather than Mexicans.
Brazil also encouraged European and Asian immigration to South and Southeast regions of the country. Actually Brazil received much more immigrants then Mexico and about the same amount of immigrants of Argentina.
All these “poor nations” adopted socialism/communism political systems. Once they did that, they were doomed to failure, pain, and suffering. Look at Venezuela today. Prime example.
@@mcahill135 You have no idea what any of those terms are. BTW there were socialist and communist parties in Latin American countries, just as in Europe, since the early 1900s--and many were defeated and disappeared from their political histories.
Im from Argentina, and i only disagree in one detail only: i think it became cultural too. Let me explain breefly (and poorly provably because i lack of the terminology to make it short 🤣) The corruption of the politicians and state institutions feeds the untrust of the worker/popular class in the system, so no one respect the rules or avoid them. Like you explained, having weak and corrupted goverments over time is the key, because the society dont trust the goverment and now it begis to feed the corruption, and the cycle goes on... It became cultural... 100%
Absolutely. Corruption is so engrained that, a revolutionary who hates the status quo, starts as a liberator, but always ends up a tyrant when they get to the top. No one or document of law was there to break the cycle, like in the USA.
I’m from Brazil but have spent most of my life in the US. I’m currently visiting Buenos Aires. I can honestly tell you it’s the best city I’ve ever been to. I’m in love with the Palermo neighborhood. Today I drove from Canning to La Plata, past the farmlands. It feels like America back in the 80s, before the overpopulation. Argentina’s problem is socialism and a government that’s more powerful than it should have been. The day socialism dies in Argentina, and the government becomes less controlling, the country will become developed again quickly.
Social awareness , culture and education. For example , if politicians in East Asia countries like China , Japan and South Korea are exposed by media or the court of law to be corrupt , they would have to apologize , resign and even commit suicide because of shame and dishonor brought upon their family name.
@@fabyn1633 I drove further than 10 minutes away (from Canning to La Plata and then to Buenos Aires). I drove past some less affluent areas between Canning and La Plata, and saw favelas on my way to B. Aires. But they are far from being extreme like poverty in Africa or Brazil. Argentinian favelas are limited to a certain areas of the country - not widespread like in Brazil, for instance. It’s impossible to get rid of poverty - even the United States has its poor areas, especially if you consider native territories as well as parts of California. My point is, Argentinian infrastructure is well-developed and the people in general have high levels of education. Argentina needs to get rid of their Peronist mentalities and quit electing left-wing politicians. If that ever happens, I’m sure that in 2 decades or so afterwards they’d achieve developed status once again.
i loved this video. it sums up what i have learned in my history lessons. i'm both brazilian and venezuelan, and i have lived on both countries, i have seen this culture of corruption and inequality that keeps us from moving forward. i hope that, like many asian countries the past decades, in the next coming years latin america will stabilize, grow and protect our resources and populations responsibly. not using the economic riches to benefit only those in power.
Think many Asian countries had more established civilizations too before colonialisation, which instead meant that their native cultures were influenced less by colonial powers e.g. the countries that were formerly French Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos) don't speak French, unlike northern African countries formerly colonized by France, though Vietnamese did switch from the Chinese to the Latin script. Also heard that the Mongols learnt Chinese after conquering China during the Yuan dynasty. In particular HK & Singapore have more ambivalent/benevolent attitudes towards the UK (their former colonial master) probably as they were colonised for their strategic shipping/trade ports' locations, which unlike natural resources (the common reason for colonialisation) is non-rivalrous
Wait a second. Chinese government is also corrupted as hell. Xi is just another dictator. Chinese people work hard. If not for the corruption, China could be much better.
@@craigwright3902 Are you more on? Spaniards brought a ton of forced help to work on their plantations. It was the Spaniards that ran the forced help trade.
Everyone should read "Why Nations Fail" to get a grip on this topic. I see you have utilized some points from the book in the video as well. Good job! Please continue making videos on topics such as this which get overlooked so often by most youtubers.
Costa Rica is an important exception to the rule of Latin American poverty & dictatorships - it has had a relatively stable democracy and prosperous economy. According to Wikipedia the lack of native Indian labor meant the encomienda system with large plantations didn't take root in Costa Rica. It became a province of small landholders working the land on their own, much like the northern American colonies.
@@alexisantoniolopez1002 a poor country that didn't have their male population tortured and exterminated, where women and children weren't raped into mestiizaje, that didn't impose a culture of self hatred and didn't elevated a particular caste above others. Violence in Latin America is the result of colonialism, even my parents have been witnesses of these scars, people are still being sold, systematically raped to outbreed other castes, denied basic human rights and are treated worse than animals. The thing about human rights is that it takes a lot more of energy to grant them than it takes to remove them, and no one, quiet literally no one has motivation or the courage to grant these rights to people.
@@alexisantoniolopez1002 Panama/CR/Uruguay/Chile are relatively well off, with GDP’s per capita close to that of Eastern Europe. Definitely not rich compared to Western Europe/USA/Canada but a LOT better off than most of their neighbors
Great video, well researched. Outstanding analysis of private property rights. One point I'd add is that the Spanish model reflected the top down Catholic Church while the American model reflected the decentralized Calvinist/Puritan Church and moderately decentralized Anglican Church. Colonization took place at the same time as the Reformation, which in many ways was a reflection of governance as it was theology. There was no way the Spanish were going to allow others access to land or capital, it was a completely foreign concept to them at the time. New England town meetings, for example, were a result of a decentralized church most belonged to, and would never have happened under Spanish rule.
@@jorgefs300fs7 Some countries like Venezuela or Argentina were very rich in recent points of their history, richer than countries like Sweden, Ireland, South Korea or Japan were on those same times. Europe as a whole was destroyed 80 years ago. And Mexico was comparevitily rich during the "New Spain" period, richer than the first 13 English American colonies. But colonization.
One of the things that has made Western countries so successful is a strong adherence to Contract Law. If someone doesn't keep their word to me they've agreed to in writing, I can take them to court and force them to keep their word using the rule of law. Literally nothing happens in business in the US without a signed contract, and the courts are aggressive in enforcing the agreements. This makes a huge difference when it applies across an entire culture and economy. The fear of being sued is a strong motivator in the Western business world.
I think we American men must do our part to help these Latin American countries. That is why I often visit Latin America and help out very beautiful Latinas to earn a little cash if you know what I mean.
The reason why western countries being rich is MILITARY… first UNITED KINGDOM then UNITED STATES forget all textbooks says, prosperity comes after power They don’t care if authoritarian or Muslim, AT ALL
Three reasons from someone that lived, studied and worked in the U.S. half of my life and then came back to my latin american country thinking things are the same and that I could start a bussiness and live the rest of my life here : corruption (everyone is corrupt from the traffic cop to the biggest judge), burocracy (all laws can be twisted against you and burocrats are only extortionists that will only help you for money) and cheap populism that make it impossible to plan ahead and give the normal people no way to defend yourself and your property from corrupt authorities (no sense of private property, no respect for long term contratcs or agreements, you can start a bussiness today with a set of rules and they will change them tomorrow), if you are a latino living in the U.S. or the E.U. do not come back
@Diego Gaspar Did you hear what he said? Everyone is corrupt. Latin Americans are leaving due to the unsafe conditions as well. No one is fighting or uprising against this. They are just leaving. It’s in the Caribbean too.
Eres ciego o tullido si piensas que eeuu esta libre de corrupción. No se donde vivas, pero a mi no me vengas con cuentos. Que ese pais NO es el paraiso. Dream on bud.
Once again you are spot on sir. Please keep up the great work. You are one of the only people to piece together facts, to lay out the"why" as acurately as possible, all without emotional or political diatribe.
Yet doesn´t mention the real problem. what if... the USA independence war, were made by mixed race between brithish and north native americans?. That´s the big idiosyncrasy difference between USA and latinamerica. Hispanic ppl are a mixed race. British wipe out the north natives and stole their lands. They had their european background and they had a better understanding about ambition and wealth. Meanwhile Spanish enslaved natives, the society becomes a mixed race without a strong background. In few words, british colonies had "more experience" about greedy, ambition, economic, rich, and how make it last, than a confused mixed race society.
I live in Latin América. Its poor because the people here arent obsessed with material wealth like westerners. Latinos love their families and they enjoy life. Americans are the poor ones. Poor in spirit. Broken families. Moving across the country to serve bosses that dont care about their workers.
Define Poor. I’m a chilean living in United States and I don’t see any big difference compared to my homeland . Americans always refer to Latin America as one country and there are different realities . Usually their opinions are based in Mexico or Central America . I think poverty in US is better concealed. The prices of healthcare are outrageous, the public transportation system is zero and if you visit rural areas you can see the real thing. I’ve noticed that US is not what they show us on tv at all. We were part of the kingdom of Spain, not colonies.
Because in the last few years they've been going though a crisis that has increased the number of people in poverty, a lot of people are barely getting by even with work. It's not what it once was and social mobility has never been lower for them. Their Healthcare is a scam and it's infamous around the world. However, Latin America is still worse. It has less social mobility, more corruption, and violence. Healthcare and homes are less expensive but still not as good. The standards of being poor in Latam and being poor in the USA are different, and a higher percentage of LATAM population is poor when compared to the USA. So the Americans are having problems but there's a higher chance of them getting out of it than LATAM escaping this cycle we've been living for 500 years
@@joseluis5055Culpar a loa españoles que pasó hace 500 años no se solucionará el problema de la corrupción y pobreza de Latinoamerica. Nosotros tenemos que hacer el cambio y claro no va ser fácil.
@@luismanuelpotencianonorato9672 no se trata de culpar, simplemente explicar. La historia te da contexto de todo. De porque las cosas son como son, porque piensas como piensas y te ayuda aprender para mejorar el futuro. México es un país del que nunca ha podido escapar su propia naturaleza, la cual fue adoptada de su antiguo dueño. Lo que debemos hacer es reconocer estos patrones y ciclo en el que estamos y buscar formas de escaparlo
I've been to Potosi in Bolivia. For me it was one of the most eye opening places in South America. A city built around this silver mine living and working around it. Such an inequality is seen here. Just horrific.
It's been like that since the Spaniards got crazy at the discovery of the silver mines, the precious metal production never ended. By the way Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, said that worthy things "valen un Potosí” (are worth a Potosí). Ah, the silver and the goollddddd ores ...
Good politicians, good business man's, a good intention in health and education. Protect the police power and justice. And a mind to make products, good, cheap and for all of over the world. That's the reason that the Latin America failed. The bad monopoly is just one.
As an Ecuadorian I’ve seen the corruption first hand my dad got stopped by the police for having too many people in the car. And my dad understands how the police and people with power work my dad offered him 10 dollars to let us go and the cops said no… make it 20 for my buddy too and my dad did so. When they finished my dad came back and said that what I just saw was corruption first hand and politicians do it too but with thousands of dollars.
As a fellow Ecuadorian I have to say: do not give in to corruption. If we (everyday citizens) take part in corruption then we automatically become part of the problem. Know your rights so crooked cops won’t dare to illegally stop you and ask for money, and record them if you need to. I know it’s hard, but fighting corruption on that small everyday basis is the only way we can contribute something to solve the corruption issue.
such a shame. Ecuador is so beautiful. the citizens must stand up to the corruption but of course that most likely will never happen. sadly, this same scenario is played out through the world.
This is straight from the book, "Why nations fail". It is an excellent read. Full of examples of prosperous states that failed and the reasons behind it.
This depiction of Spanish colonization is blatantly biased as it just recapitulates the narrative of the spanish black legend. Best example is the ridiculously simplistic and biased reference to Hernan Cortes. Unambiguously, this demonstrates that those who made the video either didn’t dedicate time to investigate beyond a bunch of stereotypes or wish to perpetuate the same old biased narrative.
The point being is that Spanish colonization was extractive with corrupt institutions. The 13 colonies were productive and innovative colonies. Nothing changes that fact. Acéptalo
The video really started strong and the more distant past was quite interesting but I was wondering why there is no mention of US invasions, coups and boycotts in South America since mid 20th Century? That’s probably a major reason why some of the countries couldn’t catch up over the past ~80 years.
The real question that always remains is : why could the US be able to invade, coups and boycott most latin american countries ? Why were latin american countries NOT ABLE to do the same to the US ?
As a Chilean (south-western part of Latin America for those who don't know where we it is), this hits straight to heart... so many times I've seen my country (and neighbors, like Argentina, Perú or Bolvia) fall into the ideology of demagogic leaders trying to impose their view of the land, where power is not to be resided in the people for free elections, but rather used by charismatic leaders that influence the masses for personal benefit. Never could I find a more accurate explanation to it, than what I'm hearing here right now.
One of my co-workers (Venezuelan Immigrant) said that one of the biggest problems of South American is that anytime economic or developmental progress happens it is quickly devoured by corrupt politicians, criminal overlords, or foreign corporations. He himself fled to the states because his home town was being taken over by a violent gang demanding tribute from businesses. The situation got so bad that many businesses and civil services closed down, turning daily life into a constant search for food and shelter for many people. Police were doing nothing about it because they were payed to act as body guards for the few local wealthy individuals.
I know a Mexican man (now deceased) who came to the US and worked as a landscaper for 30 years, with the intention of retiring to his tiny hometown in central Mexico. He accumulated $50K, returned to Mexico and bought a small convenience store to run and maintain himself. Within two weeks, the local cartel took him hostage, forced him to withdraw 80% of his money from the bank at gunpoint, and then released him with the threat that he now had to turn over 25% of his revenues to them every week or they would kill him. He quickly sold his store for a deep discount and returned to the US and continued working as a landscaper. The same story you told, just a different country.
@@ingenieroriquelmecagardomo4067 I knew this man for 31 years, from 1987 to 2018, when he passed away from a heart attack. He worked for me on an occasional basis, but I saw him regularly, as his fiancee was my housekeeper. I knew his two sons and his daughter, whom I now see infrequently. They were like family members to me. He had no reason to make up stories. He was from El Platanar in Malinalco, Mexico. I never saw this in a movie; I heard it from the lips of a man of lived it. No jusgues, por favor. Hay cosas que no has vivido.
I live in Latin América. Its poor because the people here arent obsessed with material wealth like westerners. Latinos love their families and they enjoy life. Americans are the poor ones. Poor in spirit. Broken families. Moving across the country to serve bosses that dont care about their workers.
One correction I'd make is the statement that latin American has better geography than the USA. This is fairly false as Latin America's geography actually sucks. It's got a massive rainforest that once cleared isn't even all that good for farming (still better than nothing) massive geography barriers like the Amazon river and differences between its elevations. Meanwhile the us has the largest navigable water way in the world right on top of some of the best agricultural land
You can see something similar in Europe where ancient powers were Mediterranean but as civilization progressed Northern Europe became a better place for civilizations to exist.
To help some people understand: geographical advantage googled is "In their effort to understand the spatial patterns of development, they emphasize not only the climate and the resource endowment of various regions, but also their locational advantage, such as the access to navigable rivers, seas, and oceans, as well as the strategic importance of straits and valleys." When you say geography it refers to the land not the animals or people even if they can influence the land. So saying south America is more geographically gifted because it has llamas is like saying my friend's car is better because it has groceries in it
Just british bias revisionism because they were in fact develop for self-sufficiency colonies, the richest of all the eropeans colonies for centuries. Just look at how many universities and amazing picies of colonial architectual churches, cathedrals and institucional urban buildings are all over hispanic american countries.
Probably worth pointing out that in 1900 several South American nations were actually quite wealthy relative the rest of the world, so for some countries the question should be why they fell behind
@@michaelflores6445 I'd like to add too that perhaps, the region also fell out because they couldn't keep up with economic and trade relevancy with the rise of trade, economic and politcal activity pivoting to Asia, and still continually happening. But today, Africa is also rising, which makes me think that South America might lag a little more, but it will all depend on the future leaders of Latin American countries on which direction they want their countries to go. 🤔
There a misunderstanding how the US and Mexico become modern nations. The US committed concise against the Natives, removed them from their lands, implanted themselves and their culture with no resistance and developed their world class economy on the back of slavery. Mexico endured genocide and destruction of it's ancient and developed civilizations. But Mexico was able to kick out the invaders and from the ashes establish the modern Nation of Mexico. But since it's birth incursions from European nations to conquer it were non stop but every time Mexico was victories over the European powers. But then came the US, robbed half of Mexico. There has been about 10 military intervention to Mexico from the US, always destabilizing Mexico politically and economically.
Man, let me translate this video to Spanish to make it available/understandable to Latin American people. It is extremely educational, and perhaps two or three of us could learn from it. Great job btw.
I'm argentinian and this video is very interesting but I have the advantage that I can understand English. Would be interesting if this content would be available on Spanish
This videos is full of trash and only presents excuses as to why it got this bad, it is a very complex situation but it can be defined in two main subjects, foreing intervention and local corruption, divide and conquer is the modus for the europeans and US, they provide the best for a class "politics" and help them with propaganda in exchange for concesions, the corruption generates on this inner circles that have support to send the money abroad by this capitalist governments that help them to get the power, so my summary, even if they have screw us badly the main problem resides in our ignorance of the facts and the divisive culture they drags us into, like (socialism and populism is bad only real democracy bla bla) and this keep us from making an agenda that could destroy their plans of hegemony.
Si haces eso créeme que estarás incurriendo en un grave error al propagar la leyenda negra para beneficio de los anglosajones. Todo lo que explica en este vídeo es una gran mentira. Hispanoámerica no siempre fue pobre, los Virreinatos fueron los lugares más prósperos del mundo en su época mientras las 13 colonias eran puebluchos donde la gente mal vivía, ciudades como Mexico o Lima se erigían con fastuosos palacios, universidades y hospitales. Mientras los españoles se mezclaban con los indígenas los ingleses y americanos extinguieron a toda la población nativa. La causa de la pobreza en Hispanoamérica radica en lo que sucedió después de la independencia y como pasamos de ser Virreinatos poderosos del imperio Español a colonias informales de Inglaterra y Estados Unidos.
I visited Nogales 20+ years ago, both sides, and remember the stark contrast. There were thousands of corrugated, steel shanties up and down a hillside. Children were selling chicklet gum to visitors. It was eye opening. Funnily enough, I'm from St. Louis, the city you compared Nogales to. Although, I'm in one of the counties, which is much safer.
For those that say America sucks(not saying you lol)....go to the Mexico side of Nogales. Lol exactly, now you don't wanna ha. I was apart of a private contractor team that provided security for the new wall at the Nogales border. Mexico side will take pop shots at the construction workers. Which is why I and my team were sent there. So much drugs and human trafficking comes across this section. Most of the woman get sexualy assaulted and would try to find us to surender to us for help. We would catch at least a dozen MS13 gang members trying to cross at Nogales. So no....it's not just good people coming lol. Out of a 5 month deployment we caught, 98 MS13 gang members(verified) and another 156 gang members from 8 different gangs(verified) and we were shot at, including construction workers on average, twice a week. CNN ain't reporting that lol.
@@nexpro6118 That's one thing that drives me crazy about some people, especially the American left. Many honestly think the US is a 3rd world country, that we have some of the worse crime, that the country has freedom on par with the 3rd world, that you're liable to be shot, and that the workers rights are on par with the 3rd world. They often compare the US to the best parts of Europe and they're always careful to cherry the wealthiest parts of Europe. They seriously blow things out of proportion simply because the US actually reports on their problems rather than sweep them under the rug and since the US dominates global media it makes the problems seem far worse then they are. For example: 1. The US actually ranks pretty low on crime, #56 globally (higher rank, more crime), and lower than parts of Europe. France for example ranks at #46 and Sweden #54. 2. The US is also pretty free. Depending on who does the ranking the US usually ranks around #15 lately, again beating out many parts of Europe and above average compared to Europe as a whole and even better than countries like Japan. 3. The US's homicide rate, despite all the cartels moving to the US and despite suffering a migrant crisis on par with what the EU has been dealing with for the last few years, only for America its been going on for decades. The US ranks #58 by homicides, which is relatively high but again beats out parts of Europe. 4. Workers rights in the US arent as good as parts of Europe but you've also got more freedom. It's pretty easy to start your own company, it's easy to jump careers (I've known people who got fired in the morning and got a job with similar pay by the end of the work day), and the US has one of the highest average/median wages. 5. People also often bring up the US healthcare system, which does suck, but is still above average. The US has some of the best hospitals, best medical schools, ranks above average on per capita physicians and nurses, #39 by average lifespan (again, somewhat lowered based off the rush of people from 3rd world countries, average lifespan for white Americans who make up the smallest group of immigrants for example would make the US #25 at 78 years). They also ignore the fact that while many countries do have universal healthcare in most cases it's almost impossible to see a doctor since the system is under funded, under equipped, not very advanced, and under staffed. In China for example it can take months to see a doctor and much of the rural parts of China have little to no access to doctors at all and many 3rd world countries are the same. No matter how you look at it the US is a first world nation and by many metrics is better off than parts of the EU. the US has it's problems but often they're not nearly as bad as people make them out to be simply because the US media always tries to make things out to be far worse than they actually are to draw in more clicks and views. When you actually look at things like human rights (large parts of Europe dont recognize and/or allow gay marriage for example), income (American poor people earn more than the average income of most countries), or freedom the US is still pretty highly ranked and superior to even parts of Europe.
Would disagree with one aspect near the end: the results were impacted by the nature of the country colonizing it. England, while still a monarchy, had limited elitist power and more power to the common man, mostly because of the Magna Carta. Spain’s monarchy was more of a traditional monarchy. While England still had its issues with a ruling class and very little upward movement, it did value its workers significantly more than other colonial monarchies in Europe.
Even so, that did not stop England and its later form the British Empire from committing atrocities against colonists or indigenous peoples. Take Ireland for example. Indeed the British were far less brutal than the Ottoman Turk, Spaniard, French, Belgian, Dutch, Russian and Japanese in treating colonial subjects. Except in southern Africa where the British had a mass murderer in the form of Cecil Rhodes.
Well, the British valued their workers so much that they had children aged 5-12 working in the coal mines of the industrial revolution, sometimes for a plate of food, until 1850. Children and women of the Spanish empire could not work in the mines since the 16th century. 90% of the Commonwealth is India, Pakistan, Botswana, Zimbabwe. Even the regions of the British empire in parts of Central and South America are Jamaica, Belize, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago. They are as poor as Guatemala, and less rich than Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Panama or Costa Rica, which have very high human development (among the 66 most advanced countries in the world). The USA, Australia, New Zealand or Canada are rich like the Spanish empire in the Netherlands, parts of Germany and France or Italy: lands with a majority European population, already civilized, but with even more natural resources for a small population, in Australia or Canada. If Australia (3 inhabitants per km2) had the population density of Mexico (65 inhabitants per km2) it would be directly poor, with 600 million inhabitants living in inhospitable and poorly communicated areas.
@@abellyold4859 The British removed crops from large regions of India, in the 18th-19th centuries, to plant cotton for the English textile industry. That produced 20-30 million deaths in more than 7 major famines. Churcill still ordered the burning of many Indian food crops in 1942, to stop the Japanese advance, because he did not trust the British Army to stop the Japanese invasion of India, after the defeat at Singapore. That caused 2 million deaths in India, due to hunger. All local, indigenous empires have made mistakes. Even local empires had human sacrifice, sometimes cannibalism, and slaves.
@@abellyold4859 If you read Latin American history and compare with the English history in the north part of the American continent , the Spaniards were not brutal at all , let me tell you , the Spaniards founded the first University in the American continent ( Cape Horn to Alaska )in May 1551in Peru and the second in September of 1551 in Mexico , to educate whom? the first Civil Rights , Human Rights declaration in the history of the world by the Queen of Spain Isabel The Catholic , defending and protecting the people of America , you need to read a lot
Excellent video Casual Scholar. You have explained what many of us in my country Guatemala learned about the roots of our failures in Latin America. At some point we as young students, I'm no longer one, come to question what made the US richer than our countries. Considering that it was a much younger nation. The way you described that part of our socio-economic system refreshed my memory from my days in College. Thanks and best regards!
The core explanation here is correct. But, in modern Latin America you also need to consider what foreign countries gain from Latin America’s underdevelopment. Consider for example the relationship between the US, Colombia and Panama in the early 20th century and during the Cold War. The independence of Panama from Colombia came from US interest, America benefited from Colombia’s unstable government and helped instigating political conflicts to build the Panama Canal and gain control over the new country. And during the Cold War, it is quite obvious the US was involved in the assassination of Jorge Eliecer Gaitan, which led up to Colombia’s ongoing civil war (all because the US was not interested in the Conservative Party losing power over Colombia, while the USSR was doing its part in Cuba and Argentina).
I would say that in 90% of the cases that the US got involved in latin american politics (think Chile, Venezuela or Panama) it has been for a good cause and eventually led (or will lead to) more economic stability. To think that US involvement is bad just because, it's silly. In fact I would say the US does not get involved enough because they don't want the region to challenge them in any way shape or form.
@@CarlosRodriguez-bh2ey That means you know very little about history, my friend. I do not deem the US as a huge monster set out to destroy everyone and everything, but to deny that it has messed with Latin America to gain more out of it than what would benefit the country itself is ignorant. During the early 20th century, Colombia was coming off the end of a massive civil war. The US went to Panama (a Colombian department) and offered to assist them in starting the war again and gaining independence in exchange for building and having total control over a canal that connected the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Do you really think they did that to give Colombia better stability? Panama was severed from Colombia, and remained under US control until 1999. There's your "good cause". In the 1990s, they also armed Colombian paramilitary forces to destroy the Medellin and Cali cartels. The result? The distribution chain of drug trafficking was dispersed into thousands of micro-grids that were impossible to trace or contain. Paramilitary forces later took over some of those grids and turned on the people, they have massacred over 200,000 individuals.
@@CarlosRodriguez-bh2ey I'm absolutely sure that Argentina didn't need the intervention of the US in the 70's when Videla organized a coup that led to a dictatorship. The whole "Plan Cóndor" was a move that the United States made to control and organize the southern part of Latin America. Do you really think that Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Brasil had dictators at the same time just by casualty? They got help from a bigger entity that worked secretly.
I read that book in college, the Korean case in that book is very good, and I think overall it makes very good points about the importance of institutions in economic development.. but in the case of Latin America I think the book is making a huge stretch by linking modern failures with colonial times and it is also very reliant in black legend (not saying that none of that is true, but it is presented in a totally bias way) I’m an economist from Buenos Aires, Argentina and I studied a lot about Argentina’s economic history.. I think most of the problems we currently have originated in the XX century, although some cultural and institutional aspects date way back
I live in Latin América. Its poor because the people here arent obsessed with material wealth like westerners. Latinos love their families and they enjoy life. Americans are the poor ones. Poor in spirit. Broken families. Moving across the country to serve bosses that dont care about their workers.
i'd say the top 5 reasons why Latin America is the way that it is (keep in mind that some overlap) In no particular order (meaning i dont know which ones have more impact/influence than the others): 1) Sizable systematic corruption at all levels of governance 2) Exploitive effects from developed countries, i'd say mainly the USA since it has been, and contines to power project all throughout. Of course it also wants to control them so other countries (russia, china, etc) dont swoop in an do likewise in USA "neighborhood". 3) Catholicism, insomuch that it teachs people to be obedient, sub-servient, etc. Feel guilty all the time, etc. AND it historically has been heavily involved in governance, power, control, etc. 4) Globalization - via the continuation of centralization and consolidation of wealth and power at the global level. This one has crippled the middle and lower classes throughout the world. Extremely powerful, and spout out propaganda that peoples of the world are actually doing good economically (per cap income, etc.)using mainly pseudo-statistical models, etc. (various organizations, multi nat. companies, and others are within this). 5) colonialism. im sure this has played a part in all of this as well.
In Korea, you are blessed and praised if you study. In Brazil, you are attacked if you study and wrathed if you are intelligent. The ethics almost do not exist in Latin America.
Colonialism does have a huge impact on modern politics but people do often put too much emphasis on it since it allows for an over simplified good vs evil narrative and shifts all the blame on outside influence and against groups no one is keen to defend. Another Asian power worth looking at is Taiwan: they went from a barely populated backwater island to a Japanese colony to a military dictatorship, to one of the wealthiest countries in the world all despite the fact they have almost zero recognition as a country and despite having to deal with constant threats of invasion from the PRC who are 100x their size. The ROC/Nationalist government didnt even have much pedigree: they'd only existed on the mainland for a couple decades before experiencing one of the bloodiest civil wars in human history and then spent around a decade fighting the Japanese in the bloodiest war in human history. They also lacked much development, little outside trade, nearly zero land, and nearly zero natural resources. You can also look to Eastern Europe and the Baltic states to see how post colonial politics can go. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland had only existed for a couple of decades between 1990 and the 18th century with some like Estonia never really being independent countries until after WW1. They also faced total devastation and centuries of occupation by imperial powers but a bunch of them became some of the most developed countries in the world in the space of a couple decades.
Sadly, I think some of these factors have even gone on to influence the cultures of the very countries they plague. Now, I can only point to my personal experiences but I will say that it's scary to see the level at which people in many of these countries tend to downplay the seriousness of anything legal. What I mean is, almost ANYTHING can be done "under the table", you just need the right connections and/or money. That's not to say everyone's like that, not at all, but I've seen honest, good-hearted people be criticized by family members and neighbors for something as simple as getting their license renewed or paying full price for a legal service. Some problems are just so deep-rooted that people need to change their way of thinking for any real change to come, no politician or law could force it.
100% agree with this, this is innerent to the latin america people minds, seriously, sometimes my family act and think like this and they're really dont try to be a "bad people" they treat the corruption as something normal... too normal ,they're just like you mention but in a natural way... and me too , it's a fcking seed in the deeper of the people mind, and, this "corruption seed" was a problem from ages, im not gonna mention the stupid "spanish black legend" , but this problem in my point of view is comming from a lot of years.
Excellent comment. Sadly, that mentality is starting to become all too prevalent in the US. People seem to think that it's OK to screw insurance companies, the government, etc. , etc, . thinking to themselves "well... everyone else is doing it"... such a shit attitude and way to live.
I would love to add that at the time of becoming independent the Spanish colonies were even richer than the 13 colonies and I include the United States, but internal instability and wars was what made America fall behind, but that did not stop progress, even after independence. They came to mean problems for the USA such as the pact and what you say about Spain bothers me since Mexico and Peru, when they were colonies, came to possess the first world currency, while in independence the robberies of the national coffers made Hispano-Ameruca start with the foot left
@ 14:00 re the development of the British colonies in New England - you've left out the importation of slaves from Africa, and the significant role played by the plantation economy. Also, you overlooked the decimation of the indigenous population in the US through disease, sheer slaughter, and forcible relocation to reserves. I very much appreciate your summary of the development of Latin America, and this is very helpful to me - I've never understood how their problems developed, but wish you had given a more accurate overview of the development of the American economy, that was much influenced by the slave economy, and the disappearance of the indigenous, opening up huge territories to white settlers. Again, William Faulkner's remark that "the past isn't over; it isn't even past" applies well, which is just sad.
I think overall the US and Canada both have a more fair economic and legal systems to allow wealth to reach more people than Latin American countries. No governments are not corrupted or no people are saints but the legal foundation in the US and Canada allows more people to benefit from its economic growth and prosperity.
Yess and that is the main objective, did u know that the U.S.A putted dictatorships in Latinoamerica? The fist country to do the experiment was Chile, they put a dictatorship, mantained people afraid (til2019), they would infiltrate in the military with Pinochet and he became the dictatorship, so now we are like puppets to usa and they have many of our resources, they destroy our ecosystems and well they do corrup stuff as they want, that's why that part of the world is more whelthy, because the goverment stills, kill and harras countries of the 3rd world, not letting them grow, becauze that is not convenient to them, it's a shame and it's fault of an especific group of people.
You ever notice how the US and Canada seem to always use China as a manufacturing hub, while Latin America seemingly never gets used for anyhting but Cars? Face the facts. Its the culture that often leads to countries staying shitholes. Russia has had 3 regime changes, and still is constantly under authoritarian rule, no matter the economic climate. China went from being a third world shithole, to being a potential world superpower. As an Asian myself, its in our culture to study hard, and make money, while being impartial over politics. I noticed massive parralels between Americans and China, as America had genuine inspiration from 1980's Japan on their work ethic, and emphasis on success. Latin America has no where near the culture required for success than China has had. Latin Americans that were smart enough, simply leave the country for America. Economic prosperity comes naturally, with a uncorrupt and reliable legal system. American companies shouldnt need to hire guards for their factories, when setting up shop in Mexico. China is simply the better option in so many cases.
@@honkhonk8009 I agree that culture is a main factor. But politics/economics matter. For the reason that you said smart Latin Americans would just go up to America. It’s the system that allows them to prosper. You need to be economically free to prosper. That combined with good cultural values and you have yourself a flourishing country.
I would like to add that in Mexico we had a 1 party government for almost 70 years till year 2000, although even if we had in recent years a 2 party sistem, the decisions were already made by the clients of these 2 party's so it didn't matter if the red party or the blue party won, they were essentially the same. It seems like here in Mexico and all of Latin America we have a lot of work to do to undo a lot of the damage that has been done to us over the years. And just a reminder that the us had an interest to keep all of Latin America poor so we could be the backyard of the us. Search for the so called "Banana Republic" and the "Operation Condor". There have been somewhere between 60 to 70 interventions from the us in Latin America in the last century.
Thank you so much for the video. As a Brazilian history teacher I’ll give details on Brazil and how it differs from the rest of Latin America. 1) different from Spanish colonies with lots of Indians to explore, our Indians were kind of sparse and primitive (like in North America). So the Portuguese colonizers brought African Slaves (10 times more than the USA. In fact, black slavery was the backbone of our society). At least northeast Brazil was this way. Southern Brazil was poorer. It was inhabited by frontiersmen known as “bandeirantes”. They were like the Brazilian version of Cossacks of Russia. Except that they were a mixed race folk who inherited the Portuguese conquistadors’s prowess and the indigenous cunning of living in the wild. They had no money to buy African slaves so they enslaved Indians (even though they had Indian blood themselves). Some went on to live off of cattle raising (especially in the southernmost regions of Brazil. And others became subsistence farmers). ---------------- As Brazil became indedepent in 1822, our first ruler was actually the son of the king of Portugal. His dad said: “son, proclaim the independence before some revolutionary man does it”. So Brazil during the monarchy had a dichotomy where local elites wanted more independence from central imperial control. And monarchy wanted some law and order to make Brazil a strong nation. It was because of the monarchy that Brazil didn’t break up into several small republics like Spanish America. ---------------- In 1889 a year after the monarchy abolished slavery, plantation owners who felt betrayed made a coup and overthrew the monarchy. They installed a puppet republic that only served the needs of the elite plantation owners of São Paulo state (the richest state). There almost no middle class in Brazil until then. ------------- It was like this until 1930 when a revolution driven by opposition elites and lower ranking military officials made another coup and tried to install a government that would modernize Brazil and industrialize it. This was the birth of Brazil as an industrial country. Unfortunately up to this day, the elites have tried to stall the country’s development and the improvement of the population. They even made deals with the most powerful left wing party led by Lula da Silva so as to make the lower classes vote for elitist politicians.
@@MultiBigman007 Trying to be as neutral as I can be, because Lula is one of the most controversial characters of Brazil recent history. The worker's party government (Lula and Dilma) that took place between 2003-2016, brought great advancements to the brazilian economy and society, in great part due to the exponential growth that the country had exporting grains to countries like USA and China, but this growth caused a process of deindustrialization of the country that made Brazil more dependent of the international market. In the side of politics, in 2002, when the worker's party was elected, Lula was badly recepted by the brazilian and international elite, that caused a crash in the brazilian economy that was already weak by some decisions of the government before his, part of the crash was caused by these elites pulling investment from the country and to quell the economy Lula had to start making conection with these Elites that already had control of great part of the legislative, as Kaleo said, these connections brought more stability to the government but made it less radical in their changes, these relationship also brought the government into giant corruption schemes, that in the long run destroyed their reputation and created grounds for the movements that brought the actual government. Before concluding I want to reiterate that even though these things happened the Lula government was one of the most important governments for the people in Brazil, it reduced giant problems that were caused by inequality, like taking the country out of the HungerMap and poverty line and democratizing higher education. In summary, the worker's party government brought great advancements for Brazil, but they were at the cost of the brazilian industry and helped by corruption schemes and relationship with the elites. (sorry for the long text and for possible errors as I made these by memory, I also tried to be as Neutral as possible considering that this topic is super controversial in brazilian politics and we are in presidential election year and Lula is one of the biggest candidates)
Hoje aprendi que os nativos norte americanos eram tão primitivos quanto os congêneres brasileiros e menos que os seus parentes sul americanos rsrs. E a causa da desindustrialização do país não é um processo antigo e gradual de concorrência dos produtos chineses mas devido ao foco no agro rsrs.
@@rolandtours8404 This topic is an ongoing discussion but there are some similiraties between bolsonaro's and trump's ascension. Both basically came with the same discourse of being outsiders that spoke their minds and are not sided with the corrupts of the older governements. Because Brazil suffered from 2 giant corruption scandals between 2006 and 2015 (Mensalão and Lava-Jato Operation), both in the Worker's Party government, the population became exausted from corruption, that exaustation was the breeding ground for far right populist movement to rise and when bolsonaro, a minor politician from Rio de janeiro, appeared in the spotlight saying that he was an outsider ( in reality he was deep in the brazilian government for more than 20 years) and that he wasn't corrupt (since his election he and his family appeared in a bunch of corruption scandals with possible ties with a crime organization from rio) the population took his word and elected him. Other factor to put in motion both presidents candidacy was a great influence of fake news in their political campaigns to smear their opponents reputation.
I’m not some sort of apologist, but shouldn’t this video have at least included a mention of United States foreign intervention into many of these countries politics?
Your analysis leans heavily on Why Nations Fail, as you have sourced. I believe since it is basically a synopsis of their thesis for Latin America you should have given more shoutouts to the book in the video. Overall good video though
The USA for the last 100 years have been robbing Latin America of all its resources and sending CIA to assassinate any politician who tries to make their country better and strong. The (renamed) School of Americas was a training ground for all the dictators who would kill people for the USA in order to achieve that goal. Brazil for 4 consecutive mandates had left wing politicians in power and Brazil jumped from 14th World Strongest Economy to 6th. The payment of the IMF debt the end of hunger, etc... So the USA send a CIA operative to place the front runner of the next election in jail without one shred of evidence ( the UN and the Supreme Court have concluded that recently ) Created a smear campaign to foment the impeachment of the president and placed a CLOWN a PUPPET in power and this CLOWN would even salute the American Flag and be seen entering the CIA headquarters in the USA. Brazil's OIL reserves (3rd largest in the World) were GIVEN for FREE to the USA. Who wouldn't even have to pay taxes to explore their OIL for 25 years. Brazil's economy took a massive dive and today not only inflation is at 100% a year, extreme poverty, hunger have all returned and Brazil dropped to 12th in GDP worldwide in 3 years. The MEDIA in Brazil is owned by USA companies so the public opinion is easily controlled. That is how the USA keeps stealing all of Latin American's wealth and getting richer. Very simple! Noam Chomsky speaks about it in lengths in his talks as well as former CIA agents that worked in the region. But it was never a very well kept secret. The CIA proud itself for destroying democracy in Latin America for decades
but corruption that has been nurtured and mantained in place by the USA's goverments or even worst, the sanctions of the US and their rich friends from Europe
The USA for the last 100 years have been robbing Latin America of all its resources and sending CIA to assassinate any politician who tries to make their country better and strong. The (renamed) School of Americas was a training ground for all the dictators who would kill people for the USA in order to achieve that goal. Brazil for 4 consecutive mandates had left wing politicians in power and Brazil jumped from 14th World Strongest Economy to 6th. The payment of the IMF debt the end of hunger, etc... So the USA send a CIA operative to place the front runner of the next election in jail without one shred of evidence ( the UN and the Supreme Court have concluded that recently ) Created a smear campaign to foment the impeachment of the president and placed a CLOWN a PUPPET in power and this CLOWN would even salute the American Flag and be seen entering the CIA headquarters in the USA. Brazil's OIL reserves (3rd largest in the World) were GIVEN for FREE to the USA. Who wouldn't even have to pay taxes to explore their OIL for 25 years. Brazil's economy took a massive dive and today not only inflation is at 100% a year, extreme poverty, hunger have all returned and Brazil dropped to 12th in GDP worldwide in 3 years. The MEDIA in Brazil is owned by USA companies so the public opinion is easily controlled. That is how the USA keeps stealing all of Latin American's wealth and getting richer. Very simple! Noam Chomsky speaks about it in lengths in his talks as well as former CIA agents that worked in the region. But it was never a very well kept secret. The CIA proud itself for destroying democracy in Latin America for decades
Because the Spanish Empire abandoned their colony. If they were to claim it as the British counterpart it would have been something like Canada unless its colonists go on strike then it could be like America.
Excellent video, you touched on a lot of extremely important topics really accurately IMHO. Another important factor that impacted the post-conquest differentiation of the two continents (or sub-continents as we say down here) is just the geography, the lack of navigable rivers and the topology of Mesoamerica and most of South America did not allow for large tracks of land to be industrially farmed and developed. Flying over the Missisipi or driving through California Central Valley shows you that come the industrial age South America was no even in the same league to develop it's land the way the North did. Cheers from a fellow casual scholar in El Salvador.
Well not true. South America has far more navigable rivers than Africa. South America has two major drainage system - the Rio De La Plata and Amazon. Chile's entire length has coastline. South America has good temperate climactic areas as well.
we have el rio de la plata and la amazonia which both are navegable, but you should consider that oppossed to the britain colonialization that focused and empowered the discovery and expansion of the people to all the available land, we have very centralized capitals and everything else is just land, mostly for farming, im from argentina and is incredible that capital federal (the capital city of argentina) is so rich and advanced, contrary to some random town in the inner country where people dont have basic education
@@juanmanuel7305 Argentina used to be rich, but then they had a recession. Instead of reforming their economy they went for socialism and ever since the country is poor. Chile used to be as poor as the others, then Pinochet reformed the economy and it became the richest country in South America. I know the country had inequality issues but I hope the socialists are not going to destroy one of the only okish country in the whole continent.
The USA for the last 100 years have been robbing Latin America of all its resources and sending CIA to assassinate any politician who tries to make their country better and strong. The (renamed) School of Americas was a training ground for all the dictators who would kill people for the USA in order to achieve that goal. Brazil for 4 consecutive mandates had left wing politicians in power and Brazil jumped from 14th World Strongest Economy to 6th. The payment of the IMF debt the end of hunger, etc... So the USA send a CIA operative to place the front runner of the next election in jail without one shred of evidence ( the UN and the Supreme Court have concluded that recently ) Created a smear campaign to foment the impeachment of the president and placed a CLOWN a PUPPET in power and this CLOWN would even salute the American Flag and be seen entering the CIA headquarters in the USA. Brazil's OIL reserves (3rd largest in the World) were GIVEN for FREE to the USA. Who wouldn't even have to pay taxes to explore their OIL for 25 years. Brazil's economy took a massive dive and today not only inflation is at 100% a year, extreme poverty, hunger have all returned and Brazil dropped to 12th in GDP worldwide in 3 years. The MEDIA in Brazil is owned by USA companies so the public opinion is easily controlled. That is how the USA keeps stealing all of Latin American's wealth and getting richer. Very simple! Noam Chomsky speaks about it in lengths in his talks as well as former CIA agents that worked in the region. But it was never a very well kept secret. The CIA proud itself for destroying democracy in Latin America for decades
This extractive system seen in Latin America was repeated with a few variations by the Spanish Empire when it conquered the Philippines, which has experienced some of the same socioeconomic issues. The same social structure of Spanish, mestizos and natives, in that order of power, was likewise replicated. The main difference is that there were a lot fewer Spanish living in the Philippines than in Latin America, so there were some differences in who held power once Spanish colonial rule ended, which was complicated by the United States stepping in as the next colonial ruler.
Philippines also has some cultural influences from China and Japan too, so they get the worst of that culture plus the Spanish’s issues combined. So the Philippines is getting the corruption of Latin America + the harsh lack of freedom you see in mainland China.
@@josederibas9484 And I quote, "...[W]hich was complicated by the United States stepping in as the next colonial ruler." Reading is fundamental. Also, the United States ruled officially for only 45 years (with a 3-year Japanese interlude), while Spain ruled for over 330 years. Before that and afterward, there was and has been a continuing Chinese cultural influence also.
El Imperio español y España ya no tienen nada que ver con los gobiernos y economías de la hispanoamérica actual. No busques razones ridículas para la pobreza de tu país. Si alguna nación tiene la culpa de la pobreza en América, esa es Estados Unidos.
three points: ... In the first place you were never able to name the African slave labor force that never received a payment, which was free labor and that benefit American landowners to accumulate large sums of money, the abuse of the british colonizers who displaced and exterminated the indigenous people in the north of the American continent, reducing entire populations to simple reserves, and the political interference of the powers (Eurocentrist) in the countries to maintain the costs of raw materials in their favor, being a good example of Panama and its independence in exchange for appropriating the channel for 100 years agreement
Yes! He completely overlooked the involvement of united states' and other country's to manipulate governments and policy's to maintain the not only the prices down , they fought to retain the ownership of large amounts of land like in central America with the banana republics as well like Venezuela an his oil us is entrenched in a lot of these problems in Latin america, I loved the video but it's not considering big variables in the history
You can’t claim that European exploitation made them poor when they were already poor to begin with. If given the choice, almost no Latino would choose to live under the conditions that existed prior to European colonialism instead of what exists there today. This is something that’s always conveniently ignored by people with an axe to grind against Europeans.
@@michaelardito2022These indigenous people lived the life that were known to them for thousands of years, They were happy and didn't need Europeans to improve or make them happy. Instead of reflecting on a point that doesn't make sense acknowledge how many lives were loss in the hands of the Europeans.
@@fridaymanly Their immigration patterns suggest otherwise. Latinos are flooding into the (majority white) US and Canada by the millions on an almost annual basis so they can have even more access to those awful European oppressors. Maybe instead of acknowledging the lives lost to Europeans hundreds of years ago, we should acknowledge the lives lost at the hands of other Amerindians who were conquering, pillaging, raping and sacrificing each other.
@@asherlols 100 years of direct and indirect intervention, including cues, supporting death and torture camps, training the military of those countries on how to torture effectively, debt as a form of controll, etc... Look at plan condor, escuela de las américas, us intervention in Latin America and the involvement of the CIA with drugs as a way to finance paramilitary groups that caused death and instability.
@@asherlolsalso, many US based companies became involved in cues and massive killings of workers on strike, like chiquita banana (Pan-American fruit company).
You do make some very interesting points in your video, however there is a more straight-forward answer to your question. Latin America was still largely semi-feudal/medieval until the 1970s, basically the encomienda system which you mentioned that the spaniards implemented was later renamed as the hacienda system, and it condemned Latin American peasant masses to a life of medieval servitude, ignorance and misery. Unlike the US and Canada were industrialisation happened at the end of the 19th century, in Latin America elites were extremely old-fashioned and feudalistic and resisted to any social and economic change with a few exceptions (Argentina, Southern Brazil). Latin American masses tried to get rid of this medieval elite and imperalism during the cold war by supporting agrarian reforms and socialist of communist movements, which resulted in a series of unfortunate events, dictatorships, civil wars, deaths in which the CIA played a big role. In the end all the Cold war conflicts further destabilised Latin America and strengthened the backwards elites which are sadly today still in control of economies, which leads to Latin America still having the highest income inequality of any region in the world today.
Yes, but essentially because England and the United States so they decided, because in the 19th century England created conflicts between these countries, for which these countries were indebted with weapons and money sold by England, leaving them poor for the industrial revolution, and In the 20th century, the United States supported dictatorships in the so-called condor plan, which supported military dictatorships so that they could take away resources at affordable prices, killing thousands of people, essentially because of the Monroe Doctrine, when the Anglo-Parents left their ambitions in 1980 recently. there was an economic growth, so it's another one for the book of the horrible things the united states did
So, is there any hope? I understand the magnitude of the problem, but I don’t want to live in a world where we have Mars colonies and fully sentient AI while Latin America is still poor.
@@pachex2165 And if the US didn't do it, the USSR funded Communist parties would've been put in power which would've completely eradicated Latin America's future. American backed dictatorships were heaven compared to what the Marxists would've done.
@@casuallavaring there’s always hope, with the introduction and ease of access of technology people are able to educate themselves and form their own ideas and opinions. Generational improvement will probably the outcome with each generation living easier and better lives much like the west
Wow! I actually recently lived in Potosi Bolivia for a month and a half, I knew there was a famous silver mine but I didnt know it was exploited that far back! amazing to know the history of the city after I left, everything makes sense now.
This was a great video. If you are interested in the evolution of Latin America through the lense of exploitation of its resources, I highly recommend ‘Open Veins of Latin America’
"Countries whose governments are ineffectual, arbitrary, or thoroughly corrupt can remain poor despite an abundance of natural resources, because neither foreign nor domestic entrepreneurs want to risk the kinds of large investments which are required to develop natural resources into finished products that raise the general standard of living." - Thomas Sowell in Basic Economics.
Lots of such industries exist in these countries. Valuable minerals and oil have been sought after in the poorest of countries. The problem with this is the companies get the profit, not the people. To achieve a high status of development and standard of living, countries need to develop their own companies that can compete in the global market, otherwise wealth just leaves the country, rather than entering it.
@Some Idiot for that, you need to bring knowledgeable people from the industry to teach the first generation of local professionals. Also, of course, the companies get the profit. That's the whole goal of a company: to make a profit. The employee gets paid and experience.
@@GaJiarg Well the companies from developed countries in underdeveloped countries are not there teaching the locals, they're just there to extract money while paying slave wages. You think Apple is paying good wages to the children digging up cobalt for them in the Congo?
I live in Latin América. Its poor because the people here arent obsessed with material wealth like westerners. Latinos love their families and they enjoy life. Americans are the poor ones. Poor in spirit. Broken families. Moving across the country to serve bosses that dont care about their workers.
An impressive and good video. I finished why nations fail several years ago. And this video summarize the book beautifully and efficiently. Just about eleven minutes (2x speed), and I could recall most of chapters from it, plus some new infos outside the book. Thanks for this video
Sorry man, the Guarani made deals with he Spaniards to conquer their neighbors and the chief gave women to the Spaniards because he thought it was strange for them to not have women. it was very different story, the guarani where very friendly. We Paraguayans are very mix in because of that good reception we had to the Spaniards that our government had a lot of mix people and until now the Guarani Language is spoken by 95% of Paraguayans. I know the narrative of Spaniard been bad goes better for many reasons but here it wasn't like Aztecs or Incas, here they join forces, it doesn't mean they weren't treated a second class citizens, but is more like the tribes that join the Spaniards to conquer the Aztecs . The Guaranis were conquering the river banks by the time the Spaniards appeared, and help them conquer faster and better.
This is also the case of other tribes in Latin americans, the ones who helped the spanish were guarantee with lands an tittles. There are pictures of spaniards working for natives americans. Spanish empire was more complex one video can´t explain that.
the same happened with incas but peruvian history constructed spain as the evil because they had to build a national identity in a country that was invaded and was made independent by force. spanish because they were completely different in their conquest. many tribes like guraranis had also these benefits all across the continent. indeed no empire can sustain itself by repressing their people for so long. other european empires didn't last that long.
Just because you are mixed does not mean the Spaniards weren’t mean. Your ancestors were mean and evil. The fact that you were considered second class citizens says it all. Stop acting like colonizers were nice. It basically was join us or we kill you. How is that nice? Enslaving people. Raping their women. Forced marriage. How is that nice?
@@1lyxbollyvykn714 I can't speak for the Guarani but you are speaking rubbish, the Spaniards actually we're well received if with distrust and Pizarro took advantage of that, kidnapped Atahualpa and held him for ransom. Then all kinds of wrongs followed. So not, "the local population were to blame for not bending over" is not an argument for anything.
@@virgisignotierra no paso eso, los 165 hombres de la isla del gallo por propia fuerza no podrian haber hecho caer a un imperio de 7 millones en su apogeo. Segundo Pizarro tuvo de aliados a muchos grupos como cañaris chancas chachapoyas aymaras no por algo llegaron a cuzco. Incluso el famoso rescate más caro de la historia en Cajamarca físicamente era imposible lo que sucedió fue que muchos objetos ceremoniales fueron fundidos en oro, y no todo era oro. Ademas Atahualpa fue correctamente ajusticiado por fraticidio a quien fuera legítimo gobernante huascar. No sólo eso sino que incluso a la nobleza inca se le reconoce titulos nobiliarios y es a través de las reservas autonomías y el respeto al orden anterior que los españoles pudieron establecerse. Lejos de eso los incas fueron de los grupos nativos reconocidos con mayores privilegios, tanto es asi que carlos ii es reconocido como inca descendiente por la misma realeza inca, a cambio se les daba protección y trato preferente. Tal como indica Garcilaso de la vega la cosmovisión andina era similar con la cultura hispana razón la cual muchos grupos pudieron integrarse rápidamente ya que muchos de los principios eran similares, cabe recordar que los incas eran una monarquía absoluta tal como lo fue el imperio español.
I think citing policy in Jamestown as the beginning of the United States' course towards democracy and capitalism without considering or even mentioning the Puritans and Separatists in New England is a huge oversight. Understanding the development of the Puritan colonies is absolutely vital to understanding the later course of US society, government, policy, and culture.
what i learnt from this video is that despite a change in policy/government/political ideology countries typically have inherent and defining characteristics that are extremely hard to change. Thats why even after going through 3 vastly different political ideologies, Russia always seems to be ruled by autocratic leaders. From the authoritarian Tsarist monarchy, stalin's authoritarian form of communism, to Putin's Authoritarian form of capitalism. nations/countries tend to be governed by a specific logic that is largely informed by their history.
Putin authoritarian form of OLIGARCHISM*. Notice the Fact that he literally changed former oligarchs for more prone oligarchs that would support his agenda.
Russia is too large and has too many ethnic minorities. If compacted to European Russia it would probably do better. But like Roman Emporers they can't see it.
As a Honduran, something that you forget to add here is that slavery was por a short period of time, most of the slavery were exported from africa and being used as a slave force in the coast region in the late 18 century, the native people wasn't slave already due to the accord that abolish the encomienda institute giving the rights to the indians in 1544 with new laws that avoid indians to be slave thanks to the contact that the fray Bartolome de las casas has been in touch with. something that in the US didn't have. moving to the independence era, it was a completely joke, most of the son of spanish people born in america called criollos, were unable to get power bc the power belongs only for the representation of the spain kingdom, so the independece was an excuse to take the power but without a war also in that moment was in war with france so the spain kingdom was weak. Most of latin american countries started developing good economy liberal ways starting with argentina that in fact in 1890 Argentina was having a huge better economy than the US. and most of latam in the 50's, but with the socialdemocrat and the rise of the communist idea gave the power to the polititians something that in the US didnt happened due to the second amendment, this started a bucle of corruption, civil wars of ideology, the spread of the mobs in centralamerica like Los Mareros etc. So why latin america is poor? simple, corruption oligopolims with only owners of the companies, high taxation rate money that only goes to the polititian pocket. In Cuba this acelarated more due to the power was given not to the people but to the polititians like castro, the same thing happended with hugo chavez and Cristina Kirchner nowdays having in argentina the equivalent of the hyperinflation like venezuela. (just just only a little bit of that( Here in Honduras in order to star a business like a farm you have to handle a lot of permisions and taxes from the goverment. but we as a good Honduran ppl we avoid taxes to avoid our ppl getting robed from the polititians.
Andres Artorias I believe your comments about why so much of Central and South American Countries are poor were more accurate then most. If you read the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights in that Constitution you can see the Intelligence and foresight of the men who wrote that document. The Constitution spells out the freedom and Rights of the people to elect their leaders for a representative Government. The United States won it's ability to self govern when they won the Revolutionary they fought with England. Canada was later on given it's Independence also when England started to give their Colonies the right to self govern, they had colonies all over the world but not in South America where Spain ruled. If a country cannot produce Political Leaders that want their people to have better lives then they will stay poor. The Drug Cartels and the power and money they have just breeds corruption. There has to be good education for a country's population so Businesses to invest in that country. If education and morality are not there but only corrupt political leaders then you will have mostly poor people. Socialism like Venezuela has will not encourage businesses from other countries to invest their. Even Communist China has a Communist type government but they also have Capitalism for their economic system and a well educated people for the most part. Climate and Natural Resources also play into the reasons along with cultural heritage.
Please, don't write about Argentinas economy of the XIX century if you are not informed. Argentina produced a lot of resources but the benefits of that was just for a few, and the vast majority of the inhabitants were dirt poor. And those that got rich were the descendants of the conquistadores. Argentina was never wealthy as a whole until the '40 and '50 were the majority of its people started to ascend socially. The militar dictatorships (sponsored and planned in the US) got rid of that quickly enough. Less hands to negotiate with...
Well, the idea of indigenous North Americans being largely nomadic and small in numbers comes from the observations of European/Euro-Americans whose first contact happened well after 85-95% of the native population had been wiped out by European diseases (diseases spread along trade routes; most of those who died had probably never seen or even heard of Europeans). Before the so-called Columbian exchange, North America had a variety of indigenous cultures including urban/agricultural cultures (eg Cahokia) as well as pastoral and nomadic cultures, as the last generation or two of archaeology and genetic studies have indicated.
Are you dumb? If a group of people hunt, protect villages, and move from area to area, that makes them nomadic.. this isn't something that Native Americans even deny and the whole European diseases claim is just a guess that isn't backed by any sort of evidence. Its also called the "Columbian hypothesis" which would start in 1492 so you should probably delete this comment
@@Vagabond_Etranger I wonder why its like that. Totally not on purpose. Also stfu, don't group in Asians lmao, there are a lot of poor Korean, Vietnamese, and Eastern Asians who aren't white.
@@Vagabond_Etranger The US prioritized voluntarily bringing educated and wealthy Asians as Tier one immigrants thru the 1965 Immigraition Act, only a handful of those that came from Asian countries were "poor". like those of Southeast Asia. Whereas Black, Latino (many like myself, being of Native ancestry) and Natives had the unfortunate events of being on the bottom todem pole in the USA for centuries - hence the black/hispanic neighborhoods you mentioned, go figure.
Latin America for many centuries has been brutally plundered by colonialism and neo-colonialism. Not only the Spanish empire but more recently by the United States and organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, my problem with this type of videos is that they are not usually impartial with topics such as "Chiquita Fruit Company" the coups organized by the CIA to our democracies. And the enormous amount of resources that even today continue to leave our countries. The foreign policy of the United States has always played a negative role in our developments. An entire video could be dedicated to US special operations towards LATAM.
Agreed, the after explaining colonialism and being seemingly promising the video conveniently ignores later, and ongoing, exploitation. Kind of a significant factor that I would expect to be included :/
I think it's pretty easy to blame others for a countries issues than getting to the root of the issue and changing it. You're acting as if Latin America was great and the US somehow ruined it or it was going to take off. It wasn't for the exact reason it's where it is now.
Some of us are old enough to remember what the term 'Banana Republics' means, John Foster Dulles, United Fruit, and all the rest. An excerpt from a website about the 1954 US overthrow of the Arbenz democratic government in Guatemala: The business of United Fruit was bananas, and from bananas it had built an empire in the Central American nations of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. Some years ago, I had a roommate who had been a young boy living in El Salvador during the time of its civil war. I will never forget El Salvador. These youtube videos can't cover everything. That doesn't mean that people don't know about some of the things that happened.
As a latin american that lives in Brazil, it almost feels like it isnt worth living I mean, working your ass off and still hardly buying food and also the amount of corruption really makes you think that its a losing battle either way.
Believe it or not, same situation in Canada. It may not look 3rd world from the outside but we are rapidly approaching it. This is no way to live, the whole world is about to shake.
I stopped when the video completely omitted slavery (the very secure ownership of people by people) and continued to insist on the thesis that private property was not something in Latin America when it was. The Spanish crown and the Portuguese crown guaranteed the private property of Brazilian hacienderos and slave masters. In Portuguese America, slaveholders could form their own assemblies and govern themselves with enough autonomy, as long as they paid taxes. The local elite used to revolt against crown tax collectors and if you travel to the former agricultural regions of northeast or southeast Brazil you will find plantations almost identical to the south of the United States and an extremely similar type of society. In fact if you want to know what the confederation would look like today, just travel to Brazil and imagine people speaking English. It's the same logic. And Brazil's agrarian elites overthrew a monarchy because of abolition and they secured the private property of their large estates against any attempt at agrarian reform through numerous military coups. And the extreme concentration of land and the practice of the same type of economic policy that the Confederates defended for two centuries delayed Brazilian industrialization and maintained inequality at absurd levels. Obviously the secret of the United States is in the north, where there was less slavery and the establishment of a more urban type of society similar to the Netherlands and the cities of the old Hanseatic League or the medieval free cities (Italian communes for example). In fact, countries like Argentina, Uruguay and Chile have a standard of living that is on average twice as good as the rest of the continent due to the type of colonization that is more urban and mercantile than that based on slavery or indigenous extraction in the rest of Latin America. Inequality in the southern cone is much lower (except for Chile with its dictatorial neoliberal experiment, countries have similar inequality to the United States) and per capita income in the region is similar to that of Eastern European countries. The education and health systems are very good, and with the exception of Argentina, which has chronic economic problems due to a secular social conflict that boils down to the dual nature of their colonization (commercial urban parts vs. good growth. Chile and Uruguay are likely to become high-income countries in the next decade, converging with Portugal and Spain, but even given Argentina's economic and political problems, they should reach that level faster than any other country on the continent (perhaps Panama or the coast rich reach before). Countries like Brazil and Colombia will still take countless decades or more than a century to do so. Mexico itself should reach this standard sooner, due to strong industry. The problem in Latin America in general is that strong agrarian elites tend to capture the State and establish a type of economic policy that values agricultural subsidies and trade agreements that favor the export of agricultural goods and the import of industrialized goods. This tends to undermine industrialization. These elites are afraid of industrial development because it strengthens democracy and they don't want people of color to have a political voice. Latin American elites tried to delay the democratization of the continent as much as possible with military coups and dictatorships that maintained their agrarianist policy. Definitive democratization only took place in the 1980s and is at risk. Countries like Brazil are ruled by the same agrarian oligarchies that overthrew the monarchy in 1889. Argentina has a bitter dispute between the agrarian elite and industrializing protectionists (it's an old debate that took place in the United States, but in Argentina it has not been resolved).
So you stopped the video because you noticed ONE flaw? That’s the problem with people now. Everyone expects perfection. Instead of just eating the meat and spitting out the bones of the video you throw out the entire baby with the bath water. Idk wtf is wrong with people.
@@johnsondoeboy2772 He did ignore slavery being important for North America to prosper. African chattel slavery became the backbone for early success for American colonies except in the very North where eventually it fell out of favor. This wasn't true in the Dixie South that persisted much longer, and a variation of subjugation and exploitation continued on the Indians who were largely exterminated in the US and Canada. The free land he mentioned was stolen from the Indians. He also omitted that the elites in the US encouraged white people to own land and did so at the expense of black and indigenous people. The Latin American elite are definitely corrupt, but many of them are still beholden to American and European interest and are quick to betray their people to garner more wealth for themselves. Slavery needed to be discussed more and how African slaves changed the face of the Americas. He whitewashed Native American genocide in North America and didn't mention that the American system of exploitation came from wholesale genocide. The Latin American system was terrible, but at least the indigenous people were allowed to live to be exploited. Both are just terrible systems, but one can't deny one evil and say it's the lesser of the two, when that other evil is built on African chattel slavery, and near complete genocide of the locals.
I believe the video DID mention slavery, several times actually- but it emphasized enslavement of indigenous people by Europeans. If you are talking about African slavery which was started to supplement the indigenous slavery, then I agree, but most of the world focuses on African slavery anyways and most people don’t even know abt the indigenous enslavement. People already know about African enslavement, so it makes sense that he spent more time talking about the indigenous enslavement that people generally don’t know about.
@@jalicea1650 “at least the indigenous people were allowed to live to be exploited” did you miss the part where he talked about millions being genocided/killed? The few that survived were enslaved and millions died while enslaved, whether from health issues as a result from being enslaved or preferring to die than be enslaved. Being enslaved is not a pro.
I think Economics Explained had a video on a similar topic on how through most of history warmer climate was favorable for the economy because the economy relied on cash crops. With Industrialization and the creation of a more robust financial system this changed into what we see today. I grew up in Venezuela, my grandparents left Italy after WWII to live there. I saw how things went from normal or we were a more desirable Latin American country than Colombia or Peru. Now it is the opposite. Yes corruption is a big issue. Also, political fanatism and also the constant pursuit of letting the government have more power is part of the problem. Any Venezuelan politician that has tried to decentralize the government usually ends up dying, disappearing, ostracized, or jailed.
Yep that last sentence coupled with rigged elections/corruption is mainly why the Venezuelan government is still so shitty. All opposition leaders I can think of had something happen to them. Carlos Ortega who was exiled, came back to the country, was sentenced to 16 years of jail for having a fake identity; Manuel Rosales was accused of conspiring against Chavez, he got assylum in Peru, came back a decade later and was arrested in 2015; Henrique Capriles, almost won rigged elections with 49% of the votes, was arrested in 2013 and then he was banned from holding any political positions for 15 years in 2017; Leopoldo Lopez, arrested due to accusations of supporting concurrent protests, was given 15 years of jail time; Maria Corina, accused of conspiring against the government, and had to face physical violence and harassment from the government; and now we have a weird situation with guaidó being recognized as a presidente interino by some countries. It's clear that many of them were harassed by the government with bogus claims since they were a threat to the regime
Most of friends growing up were from parts of Latin America. Their families were never poor. They each had their own success and were business savvy. I was impressed and inspired at humble they remained.
As an American, this video was.. interesting. I never read about this in any of my school's history curricula. I heard the Spanish had landed in the Caribbean islands and even made some forays into what is now Mexico, but most of this was completely new otherwise. Also, wouldn't be an american, but I don't think we've done too bad for 'scraps'. That was a revelation to hear.
Meh that’s weird it was mention a lot while i was in high school honestly if you never went to high school by the border it’s pretty irrelevant history. I also studied in Mexico also so there is that.
The education system has been dominated by the left, which aims primarily to highlight the evils of capitalism and the free market rather than the historic success and the good that it achieved throughout the world. This is why people learn world history and yet are often unaware of the millions and millions of deaths that happened under Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China. Throughout human history, communism and socialism has only ever not ended up in catastrophe when implemented very lightly on top of a bedrock of capitalism and the free market(Sweden, Denmark, etc. where the mass of employees and laborers are taxed higher than other countries and employers and businesses are taxed less than other countries, so as to sustain significant social support throughout the country while still incentivizing the free market, innovation, and the pursuit of productivity in general). This obvious lesson of 19th to 20th century human history is not a convenient thing to admit or teach for the left who are eager to tear down the incentive structure of capitalism and punish those who've managed to become productive and valuable in it. Don't get me wrong, capitalism has plenty of faults and unfairness in it. But it is still worlds better than the other systems that either outwardly strive for maximum exploitation of its people or purport to exist for the masses and yet have not been able to produce a single leader who managed to not kill millions of their own people. To tear down the free market and the incentive structure that allows the most number of people to live in better conditions so that the unfairness that still exists in capitalism can be routed is like demolishing a skyscraper in order to fix a few moldy walls.
@@Memnon45 You'd have learned about the Spanish conquistadors and their conquest over the Aztec Empire on a very surface level at best in junior high. Virtually impossible that wherever you went to school tried to teach the level of detail and analysis shown in this video about the Spanish colonization attempts over the continent leading up to Cortez's victory and the factors differentiating the development of north and south America with regards to incentive structures in different economic societies to a bunch of 13 year-olds.
I can see you based this whole video on the book by Daron Acemoglu. I am reading it now. This is very helpful to understand why and how the encommienda system impoverished South America.
I live in Latin América. Its poor because the people here arent obsessed with material wealth like westerners. Latinos love their families and they enjoy life. Americans are the poor ones. Poor in spirit. Broken families. Moving across the country to serve bosses that dont care about their workers.
There are other important factors to consider. One I would point out are the post independence civil wars, basically all ex-colonies in the Americas, with Canada being the huge exception had mercantilistic factions and industrialist factions, all civil wars that broke out in the continent mostly in the 19th century, but a few in the 18th and 20th, determined several cultural traits inside of those countries. The United States in that regard, is the only country where the industrialists won, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Venezuela, Mexico and others where all won by the mercantilists. Which led to a culture that is disgraceful for innovation, at the same time being unnecessarily close to external culture and economy. And medieval like business culture where the single most important value in corporative environment (up to this day in Brazil and Mexico at least) is not technical knowledge, or innovative thinking, is "obedience" (I kid you not, it isn't difficult to find this data).
yes it is interesting how such tiny tiny things in the past impact the entire culture and thus the very character and flavor of a nation hundreds of years into the future. the reason these problems are reoccurring as well is because of the culture if it was just a dictator you could get them out and things are good but that is not what happens it is the people themselves who truly desire a dictator themselves. quite sad story. SA would be better off if there was no resources at all.
@@strtupj882 it is absolutely a tiny thing. a single person deciding the direction of a tiny town 500 years ago changing the entire face of the planet is pretty incredible. it is possible that electricity would still not exist if ithat tiny thing in the past did not happen.
This video purports to explain differences in economic wellbeing and poverty and then gives a historical revisionist account with little to no explanation of the financial mechanisms that have brought about current economic conditions.
Something I’ve not seen, but seems quite interesting, would be a comparative graph of varies quantifiable factors indicative of standard of living (avg. household income, life expectancy, etc.) vs. natural resources as a percentage of GDP. It would seem that the trend is towards the lower the percentage, the higher the standard of living. Take the Nordic countries as an example. To my knowledge, Norway is the only one where extraction and sale of natural resources makes up more than a pittance of the national economy - but they enjoy the highest standard of living of any region on earth by no small margin.
Sweden has never had feudalism, and for the most part people have owned their own lands. Central power has thus never had the upper hand, politically. An implicit social contract developed during centuries, that central government / kings, were supposed to earnestly serve the people. Else they could easily evict kings. (In fact, all kings up untill 16th century were elected. Finland had the right to take part in the election, since it was simply the eastern part of the realm. In fact one of the oldest Swedish laws preserved in writing, from 1281 states "The Swedes have the right to choose a king, and also depose." This also explains the exceptional trust in the government and it's institutions. Noticeable during the Covid pandemic, which was governed by the national health authorities holding a TV press conference every tuesday and thursday at 2pm, where "recomendations" were issued, which then everyone implemented. No formal regulations, no fines or such, which was completely misenterpreted abroad as "taking no measures". And childrens education and the economy has not suffered from the pandemic. This is basically the style all the old original viking countries are ruled. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Island. It's pretty easy to argue that democracy has evolved here for 1500 years. In Sweden, iron ore and timber were huge sources of national income during the 19th century. But it never truly undercut the bases of power in Sweden. The people have basically always been free. In a way it's always been slightly like a scarsely populated frontier land, like the USA. In Norway, most of the income from the oil deposits discovered in the 1970's, are kept in reserves, as spending anything more than a fraction of it, would only create inflation. And the Norwegian people trust this to be a policy in their own intrest.
I live in Latin América. Its poor because the people here arent obsessed with material wealth like westerners. Latinos love their families and they enjoy life. Americans are the poor ones. Poor in spirit. Broken families. Moving across the country to serve bosses that dont care about their workers.
@@andersgrassman6583 Sweden was an absolute monarchy until the Instrument of Government in 1719, and the Rikdtag formed in the 15th century and it was a Diet, not a real democracy. Sweden absolutely was a feudal state across the middle ages, that Rikdtag was 4 estates: the nobility, clergy, burghurs, and peasants which is similar to the Holy Roman Empire, the kingdom of France, or the British house of lords. Nobles were of course landed aristocrats with inherited titles, clergy were high ranking officials with titles tied to churches who during the catholic days would have been chosen by the catholic church and during protestant times are under the indirect authority of the king, burghurs were mayors of some powerful cities and were sometimes elected, sometimes not, and the fourth estate were peasant farmers largely under the king and the nobles, all an extremely common arrangement in feudal countries. Democracy in Sweden didnt really form until after the modern Riksdag formed in 1866. There were plenty of people in Sweden prior to democracy who didnt own land. Same story as other parts of Europe there were plenty of laborers, tenant farmers (similar to American share croppers), peasants that farmed the land of the nobility, and many who were employed farming lands owned by the crown. The Great Reduction of 1680 was a consolidation of the king taking fiefdom farmland from the nobles and incorporating that into crown lands controlled by the king. I'm not sure if Sweden is different but in most European countries land that wasnt actively owned and farmed by someone like the church or a lord typically was owned by the crown, which often meant large parts of the country in places where there wasnt a large population and large amounts of arable land, often including whole forests and mountain ranges, and even then the crown often either rented the use of that land out to farmers, hunters, woodsmen, trappers, etc. I couldnt find _land_ ownership rates in Sweden but home ownership rates arent exceptionally high in Sweden today, 64.2% and it's declining from 66% in 2004 and 64.9% in 2021. It's only slightly above the UK at 63% and below other European countries like Ireland, the Netherlands, or Greece at 70%, 70.6%, and 73.3% and even below countries that have been experiencing sharp declines in home ownership rates like the US at 65.9% and Sweden is below the EU average of 69.9%. That's still higher than many parts of the world, but seems to stick closer to the average for many 1st world countries. In the US in the past fewer people then you'd expect owned land. For much of American history much of the south the land was controlled by wealthy land barons, if I remember right some states like Mississippi the land ownership rates were in the single digits and even most white people land ownership was fairly rare until the 20th century. In the Northeast a majority of people lived in cities and most of them were renters. The midwest and west did have higher land ownership rates for awhile, mainly mid 19th to mid 20th century, but even then bigger farmers bought up the land of smaller farmers and the same happened with ranchers, and even in the prosperity of the 1950s more and more farmers were being squeezed out and forced to sell off land so the hayday of the family farm as relatively short, maybe a century. Today home/land ownership rates are dropping, especially as more and more people are leaving the midwest and great lakes regions where incomes are lower and they move to the coasts which are extremely expensivee.
Life expectancy in: Costa Rica: 80.8 years Chile: 80.7 years Peru: 79,9 years Colombia: 79.3 years Panama: 79.3 years United States: 78.5 years Ecuador: 78.4 years What where we talking about? ah, money, yes... that...
I've busited many Latin American countries. I can compare that their poverty is mostly poor planing and no significant "founding presidents" to implement better education free for everyone (and qualified teachers). PS: I say founding presidents to make a general point (instead of the popular term founding fathers) Greetings from Costa Rica 🇨🇷
@@thelegendarybloxycola4727 hi. Founding presidents is a expression meaning "The president or the ruler legacy of many years ago" it meas "a country Heros without a fight". I'm sure that Brazil probably had great legacy from someone in the past.
I stumbled upon Casual Scholar this morning, and I really like it. Of the videos I've seen, one of the theses running through them is that nations that are prosperous today created democratic traditions centuries ago that spread power and wealth throughout their populations instead of letting it collect in the hands of a greedy elite. Capitalism and democracy do not automatically go hand in hand, but rather, you can't sow the seeds of responsible capitalism or thoughtful socialism without strong democratic traditions already in place, populations that are educated and active in the political process, and leaders who honor their constitutions. There's no partisanship in this series as far as I can see. Casual Scholar uses history to direct their videos, not partisanship, and as an American with a history degree and enough of a talent for critical thinking to understand what I see going on and why it's happening, it's a breath of fresh air. I'll watch the rest of the series and hope to enjoy it as much as what I've already seen.
Do your agree with this analysis? What could have been added? Hope you all enjoyed the new video!
I don't buy it.
China, both in modern times and ancient, is, broadly speaking, the opposite of the United States - hierarchical, undemocratic and historically rigidly conservative. Ancient China is sometimes held up as an example of meritocratic governance as officials were appointed by competitive examination, irrespective of class; however this doesn't pass a cursory inspection - significant and very costly preparation was required to have a chance of entering the civil bureaucracy, which would mean that the common person would effectively never make it into the Civil Service, no matter how apt a bureaucrat they would have been. Moreover, Imperial Examinations largely tested Chinese literature, poetry and philosophy, rather than skills directly applicable to governance. Modern China has plenty of superficial differences from the dynasties of old, but fundamentally has the same power structure as Ancient China. **And despite all of this, Ancient China was for centuries the world's foremost economic power house and Modern China is quickly shaping up to be a successor to its ancient legacy.**
Which raises one critically important question: If it is ultimately inclusive, democratic power structures that determine long-term prosperity, how can China's growth be explained?
I don't have a competing theory of relative prosperity, but I find the explanation presented in this video to be unsatisfactory.
Moreover, I would argue that the United States is gradually drifting towards the Latin American style of governance, with the last semblances of democracy being watered down into oligarchy and government becoming increasingly subservient to elite economic interests. The only two parties capable of winning elections (mostly) toe the same pro-corporate, pro-elite line, differing cosmetically on Social Issues. The US isn't there yet, but I think it's fairly obvious in which direction we're heading.
@@austino5069 because of the shift in economic theory and simply cut, history during the last centuries, the contemporary age has been the age where democracy seems to simply work better than hierarchical and undemocractic systems.
I dont know if you are aware there, but Latin america used to be by far more rich than north american, and even most of europe , it was after the revolutions ,and more importantly, the industrial revolutions that old orders like the spanish ( who were, indeed a system much like the chineese) and china fell on their faces, the problems that latin america faced where really problems replicated almost to the T in spain and most places were spain spread its dominance durin the modern age.
And you nailed it entirely, the USA has a history absolutely loathing and at best ignoring latin america as non important, but they ignore that latin america is a society very much like theirs , and could be the mirror of their own future should they keep the oligarchization , the opening of the inequality gap, and the corporatism up. LAtin america is not some poor hellhole, they are countries designed to extract wealth for the benefit of some top families, wich is the path , unfortunately , the USA seems to be going right now, if i were anglo american , i would focus on the break up of monopolies, and aleviatin the wealth gap before it gets too late for you. Latin america is what the USA could be if they keep up their current road.
@@cseijifja I'm quite familiar with Latin America, or at least the Hispanophone parts of it, which is why it's quite concerning to see how its history parallels the current political development of the United States.
I definitely agree that there's this sentiment in the US (and possibly the rest of the Anglophone world) that Latin America is somehow a foreign civilization and "not Western", which I find ludicrous - I think most Americans, putting aside yellow-filtered movies, racism and the language barrier would find that Latin America as a whole doesn't actually feel that foreign in the same way MENA or China would.
I'd be interested to see perspectives on whether it's really possible for all countries to attain a developed standard of living. I haven't done enough research to argue it thoroughly, but prima facie it seems that it is the relative value of labor that countries labor. Infrastructure and technology obscure this relationship somewhat, but it mainly seems to me that there are only developed nations *because* there are undeveloped nations.
So the primary message I have interpreted, is that colonialism is the root cause of Latin America’s problems. This is due to the Spanish descendants or, “elites” stranglehold on capital and power. If that is accurate, how would this have changed when the natives appeared to already have exploitive economic and class systems in place? If they had never been colonized, would they have cast aside their own exploitive system? At what point? If they were on track in the 50’s, what happened?
You forgot to mention america's role in the collapse of the venezuelan economy.
“These countries aren’t poor. These countries are rich! Only the people are poor! They’re not underdeveloped, they’re overexploited!” - Michael Parenti
Exploited by socialist governments.
Latin America is more poor for cultural facts, i as latin american know what i am talking about.
not "overexploited" most economically poor countries in this world are still resource rich
@@danielramirez8298 The "culture" you meant is the lack of education efficiency intentionally applied by the Elites, that went back from the colonization, which is the theme of this video;
@@sww3679 l guess he meant "overexploited" by other countries, mostly developed, stable economies and unresourceful.
In my country (Honduras), we celebrate independence on September 15. At schools we are always told that: "we didn't really got independence, we only changed from European masters to local ones" and that holds true
Same here in india
The truth is that during the Spanish empire you were also masters, because Spanish american territories and individuals had the same rights as the people from the Peninsula. I recommend you to read Marcelo Gullo's books, which clearly explain all this with data and examples.
In many countries it got worse for the indigenous people after the Spaniards departed. The colonial authorities would only collect a tax from the native localities and respect their customs in many instances. Once the countries became independent and whatever riches could only be found inside, the government used the army to move, push, subjugate the natives. There were instances in which their legal status went from being subjects of the crown to being stateless within the new republic as those in power would not consider them 'part of the country', just natives.
There are parallels to this in the USA. Native Americans were better off under British rule, as the Crown, having Worldwide worries, would see keeping the peace with the natives as a long term goal. Once independent, the USA could only look inward for expansion and could only take from those within its borders. Although born here, Native Americans did not have American citizenship. That was reserved to the group in power. The same thing happened in a different shades of grey in all former colonies, British or Spanish.
@@Roboto129 Do you know that natives stayed with Spaniards when the independence wars happened?
@@ndjxisjenxjix9525 Good morning. Please elaborate. The native population had no means to move to Spain so I do not understand the question.
Nevertheless, I would think given the logistics of the time persons just remain where they where unless moved out by outside circumstances (disease, floods, or by force or guns). Up to the invention of the automobile, most human beings remained within 50 miles of wherever they were born.
In any case, in many instances colonial powers had a broader interest rather than local.
In general, it was easier for France, England, Spain to respect a treaty with a local tribe all the way from Europe for the sake of not incurring into the expenses of military adventures. However, once former colonies become republics, their only concern is their immediate geographical region. Peace means less when the only alternative is to not expand within the only territory that is available. Hence a republic would have a greater interest in taking from the natives than a colonial power. Mostly because the ones enforcing the taking by force would also be the beneficiaries of the action.
As a Latin American, who has both lived my entire life in Latin America, and has studied the history of all the countries that compose it. I can tell you that the main factor in the lack of development is either Civil War and internal conflicts for power or rampant corruption and violation of the resources and the state.
In Brazil's case, the Elites. They dumped out the Emperor which was humble enough to at least make the country a bit better even for the poor, but no, the Elites gotta keep the country unequal and developed for the rich.
Let us not forget the cause for internal conflicts though, the overal structure of LatAm has been fucked due to how the Spanish ran their colonies compared to the british
The next question is: with so many violent uprisings in the history of Latin America, why couldn't one of those lead to a societal transformation sweeping out the corruption and establishing rule of law and economic rights?
CIA done all that xD every civil war and internal conflict
@@jose13neo Since independence most of the Latin American countries reformed their legal systems, in countries like Venezuela, there has been 5 major reforms to the institutions that run the country, but the story is always the same, Civil Wars, corruption, etc, now it has very little to do with how Spain ran their colonies and how the british ran theirs, but has more to do with how people in LatAm has a tendency to choose warlords, populists, and so on, the exception i think would be Chile and Uruguay, but i don't know much of their history so i cannot say, hell, in Venezuela we had 10 presidents that were overthrown, thats an insane number and i'm not even counting the failed coup's, if so the number would increase.
TL;DR: it has been more than 200 years that the colonies fell, the colonies have little to nothing to do in the modern political landscape, LatAm is poor because its leaders and institutions are insanely corrupt.
P.S: also latinamericans like political fanatism and take it to the extreme, as you can see with the cult of personality that Hugo Chavez had
Well done! Having lived in several Latin American countries I’ve witnessed a lot of the unfortunate instances you talk about. Societies have huge hurdles to conquer to get to a more just society. It’s truly tragic. Keep up the great work!
*Yes, this video is spot on! I've also lived in several countries in Latin America, mainly Central America. I'm Salvadoran, btw. The person in this vid literally took the time to delve into the perpetual root causes of poverty in Latin America. In effect, he indirectly concurs with Francis Fukuyma's affirmation that a lack of strong institutions (i.e judicial system, weak and corrupt legislative body, etc.) is a major cause. In this manner, the weak institutions are the result of greedy and corrupt elites (Oligarchs in El Salvador) with their vast influence in government. For example, in El Salvador the old coffee oligarchs in the late 1800s through the late 1970s exerted ABSOLUTE influence and pressure over the conventional military, "Guardia Nacional" and "policia de hacienda" (the National Guard and Territorial Police that defended the rich land-owners) for approximately 100 years. In effect, the military was the tool of the oligarchs, which is why these ultra-greedy land thieves were able to finance a coup anytime they wanted so that they could install a puppet [mestizo] leader to bow to their will politically, legislatively, socially, and economically.*
bro missed a crucial factor though. you know, the factor which sets apart the "southern cone" from the rest of south america? the factor that allows the region to enjoy "very high" rates of human development and twice the per capita income as the rest of the continent, while also making it many times safer and less crime-prone? wonder why.
@@deutscherritter344which factor?
as a latin american, and as others have expressed in these comments I'd also agree to point the finger at corruption. It's so embedded into the culture and in all socio-economic groups that it feels depressingly like a battle that can't be won
It is funny to me the same people than complain about corruption are the first to find out who they have to pay to make a shorter line or get what they want quicker.
no te dejes engan~ar, este canal no es mas que una plataforma de propaganda imperialista.
The w e s t stole all their wealth, trillions of d o ll a r s.
@@sabin97 Acaban de descubrir un túnel a San Diego. El gobierno está al tanto del tráfico de drogas. EE.UU. usa los países latinoamericanos como líneas de producción.
So true.
The biggest problem is corruption. I lived in Brazil for several years. Brazil is a rich country, as far as resources go. But every politician who rises to power does so solely to build wealth. A guy who was something like a school teacher a few years prior to taking a relatively influential politician position, that person would be a millionaire. Paraguay is a great example of this as well.
Corruption exist due to a purpose, it's a project. Our leaders and our culture gratifies corruption because we exist only to be robbed by the elites.
Politicians make too much money in Brazil. To be honest I think they should get paid a teachers salary. That way you separate the people that are into politics because they have an affinity for it from the people that want to get rich and an early retirement.
By the way Brazil is not just rich in resources it actually has a strong economy which is why I don't understand how in God's name that Brazil is not fully developed
@@mmawithsubtitles7460 True
Biggest problem is USA putting sucking out Venezuela. It all has to do with NATO
corruption is never going to be the biggest problem, there is corruption in all countries, did you know that tax evasion in Brazil takes 6 times more money than corruption???? Of course you don't know. You seem to be those people who repeat the same speech, worry about Bolsonaro destroying education.
The history of latin America is so complex that it is borderline impossible to explain within one video. They are so many tangent and factors that play a role on why we are what we are today, not just european colonial history
Nevertheless, this video serves as a decent introduction. Well done mate
Not really. Read the book Confessions of an Economic Hitman and it’s all spelled out right there.
@@johnsondoeboy2772 found the tin foil hat guy
The Balkans: *Finally a worthy opponent. Our battle will be legendary*
That isn't true. America and Canada are Anglicanized . Latin America is a non westernized Spanish, Portuguese, and others post colonized territory.
I think most world histoy is almost infinitely complex. Its like a fractal of knowledge. The more you dig into whatever time and place, the more detailed the web of historical facts becomes. And its all interconnected so vastly its unfathomable.
history documentary about Latin America is like watching a telenovela-full of drama, unexpected plot twists, and characters you can't believe actually existed.
Our history is full of “realismo mágico”
In the course of my engineering career I made many trips from the US to our factory in Mexico. My impression of the Mexican people was that they loved life and were very close to their families and friends, but a legacy of weak and corrupt governments had given them little motivation to trust authorities or respect laws. In the factory, this manifested itself as something less than strict reverence for manufacturing procedures, and our "fixes" tended to break down as soon as we flew home. Corporate finally threw in the towel and moved the whole thing overseas.
They lack a moral compass which has lead to lots of issues in their society. Your impression is spot on. Culture is their limiting factor, currently. If they could just break from their bad traditions, and habitual stupidities, things would change for them. Sadly, this will never happen. Their culture rewards the dumb and not the intelligent unfortunately. Those that are intelligent notice this and immediately seek refuge in another western country such as the US, UK, Germany, etc. This leads to a massive brain drain from their society and they creep lower and lower as a result.
Interesting.
Oh I totally agree! It's the same reason why many companies moved the manufacturing part to SE Asia and China.
Can't always blame governments..
Maybe they should have hired more professional workers, there's plenty of corporations in Mexico without this problem, you get what you paid for.
I´m a Canadian who has been living in Buenos Aires, Argentina for the past 20 years. Honestly I can say that corruption on many levels is tolerated here much more than in Canada or the U.S.
Lamentablemente es así. Cómo usted dice. Los políticos argentinos son los más corruptos y mentirosos, y la mayoría de la gente se deja manipular o engañar fácilmente. Meten propagandas política de izquierda en todos los colegios. Festejan que todo sea público, pero es cada día más decadente, desde los jardines de infantes, escuelas, universidades, hospitales; todo va cuesta abajo. "De nada sirve que les den educación a los chicos, si les dan una pobre educación". Y no solo hablo de lo intelectual, hablo de los valores y respeto, eso se está perdiendo o ya se perdió. Tampoco tienen pensamiento individual, propio, muchos repiten siempre lo mismo. Es triste, porque el país tiene de todo para salir adelante pero vamos cada vez más para atrás.
Saludos desde Buenos Aires.
Obviously (obvio) that's true but the question is why?
Corruption exists everywhere. Therefore corruption alone is not enough to explain the disparity. Culture matters, much more than resources. For it is the minds of men, that is where the source of wealth and the disparities begins and ends.
@@cobracommander9138 Think about the impact of the Reformation.
quien pudiera, estoy cansado de este pais
During my first stint of working in Peru, a Peruvian told me more or less to expect Peruvians to try and trick you or take advantage of you.
He said it was nothing personal, just the way things are in Peru. I worked there 3 years and at the end of the year one of the big papers
would ask Peruvians what they like and dislike about their country, the #1 response for what they disliked was always Corruption!
In Latin America there are often people who try to hustle visitors for money and it sort of ruins the experience. Some examples:
- Coming out of a Milonga in Bs As, as I'm trying to flag down a taxi, someone goes further up the street to flag a taxi first then expects me to pay him a tip for the "service" that I didn't ask for. I've always been able to flag down taxies by myself in every country I've visited, I don't need these "services".
- Eating in a Restaurant in Buenos Aires and a kid comes in to stare at me while I'm eating.
- As I'm listening to a tourist guide at Colón's villa in the Dominican Republic, a kid starts washing my sandals without me noticing and expects to be paid for the service that I never asked for.
- Again in the Dominican Republic pushy sales people trying to sell you things you don't need or want who won't take no for an answer who follow you everywhere you go and perceive you as a walking money bag.
When it's too pushy and excessive I can't enjoy my visit as much. On the weekend on Defensa street in Buenos Aires, artists sell their art and they aren't pushy, it's possible to chat with them and take your time while shopping. It's not something I was able to do in the Dominican Republic.
I never went back to the Dominican Republic after the one trip the experience at the resort was fine except for the food poisonings but being hassled to purchase things while on a tourist tour while recovering having been sick for several days ruined the experience for me.
My visit to Chile was limited to Easter Island but it was an enjoyable experience, I could take my time looking at the sites, no one bothered me in restaurants I was able to chat with the locals without being hustled. The only issue was on occasion, on some of the paths there were wild dogs that at times were territorial. Had fun watching chickens being followed by a large group of their hatchlings.
Loved Mexico, visited Mayan archeological sites, Cancùn was great. One annoyance was men coming on to my then underaged sister right in front of my father.
@@HepCatJack I'm glad you enjoyed Easter Island. I never knew about the bad behavior of dogs I guess you had bad luck (sorry for bad english)
NO socialism Duh
@@zachh3582 ding ding ding , we have a winner !
Pretty sure that what you mean is we Peruvians tend to have this smart ass culture , I sadly agree, and always hated it, one of the reasons why I left my country.
Why Nations Fail is a book that gave me the root understanding of how institutions with falt foundations will ultimately crash and fail. Amazing book, amazing video.
As a latin American, I totally agree and finger to the corruption.
On our schools we're not entitled to think by ourselves or becoming the change. We're raised in order to be employees from the world, educated to become servants of someone else...
It's such a shame we've been suffering for so many years.
Corruption is not the problem ，that's a social representation
My teacher researched latin American for many years and visited different place of there，even talking to many criminals there
He concluded that ：
Latin American countries generally lack Economic Sovereignty. No matter what kind of political system, Latin American countries will hit a hard Economic Ceiling.
Such as agriculture and land, Latin America has very good land, but the crop's value of the land does not belong to the people, not even belong to the government.
The main wealth of the land belong to foreign capital.
Foreign capital can Shape Latin American countries to whatever they like.
Once you want to remediate these foreign capital，some one will start a street revolution or simply a military offensive and take you down.
This "some one" is the video maker's own country who telling you the latin American's problem is inside yourself and may be is "corruption" or something.
btw ,My teacher presided over China's agricultural reform, and his conclusions should be convincing
@@TK-my7jg While I generally don’t like to agree with Chinese policy (as someone who cares about decolonization), you are pretty spot on here. It’s probably a bit of a chicken and egg problem for which came first, but corruption and foreign capital feed each other to an extreme degree. Latin America needs economic sovereignty above all else.
The girl named corruption:
@@PupperTiggle Other girl named conservatism.
I'm really glad more people are looking at the absolute genius and masterpiece of a book, Why Nations Fail.
Nations do not get rich from their position in the world, they get rich from their economic bodies and political institutions.
And geography too
@@Sultan-cf5wf depends on what was meant by geography. A landlocked country or a country with bad neighbors will always have fewer opportunities than one with plentiful ports surrounded by wealthy neighbors. We're walking on the scale of nations and not towns here. For example, Hungary's institutions are worse than those of a country like Botswana, but Hungary is much richer, even though both are landlocked nations.
@@Sultan-cf5wf Not really true. The most important aspect of any nation is its geography as it single handedly determines the way it will evolve internally and how it will project power abroad. The US is rich for basically being the best chunk of land in the world, period. The enormous amount of fertile land with temperate climate and navigable rivers to cheap transport the production with a protected delta in the Gulf of Mexico in the Mississipi Basin is one of the main things that catapulted the US into what it is today. Perfect location with very invinting climate and vegetation and with very low density of native americans helped the european settlers to reclaim most of the land pretty quickly with very little effort. This and the ammount of natural resources the US has like huge amounts of wood, minerals and one of the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world.
For you to get how important the Mississipi river is to the US the only other comparable river basin in the Americas that covers this amount of flat land with navigable rivers is the Amazon river basin but instead of grasslands and temperate forests there is the biggest tropical jungle in the planet where diseases killed everyone when european settlers tried to expand inland. So, taking Brazil as a comparison as its similar in size to the US, around 70% of its territory was impossible to develop farming until the 80's because the tech didn't exist yet so, even though it technically has a huge amount of land, in practice they didn't have much so large scale colonization with free land for any settlers couldn't occur. It's hard to develop your nation from colony to superpower if most your territory is wastelands.
Argentina is the same but with huge deserts so until the 1900 they couldn't settle the southern half of their country. Mexico is again way to arid and after they lost their nothern part to the US they had only left the worst and more arid lands and with the US diverging the flow of rivers that go down to Mexico like the Colorado River it got only worse. The countries in the Andes are hard to develop also as they have a tropical climate with jungle in some parts and in the others is mountains so no easy way out of poverty like the US with infinite fertile land. The list goes on and on and on. The geography of latin america sucks...
and geografi and interaction and intervention whit other powers, latin america have a long history of intervention why the usa in the 20 century an the result are show how can you have good institutuions when the bigest super power have organisated dictatorships in the region. latin america is like ester europa governed by most of the century by crony cuasy colonial goverments
@@Sultan-cf5wf That is what this video got wrong. North America (mainly USA) has the best geography in the world. Maybe back in the era of early colonization latin America was richer but as a modern nation state the USA has the best natural geography in the world no question. Look at how navigatable the rivers are and how abundant in the usa for example.
I’m a little disappointed here because this video left out the US as something of an innocent bystander to Latin America’s demise. Plenty of examples exist regarding incentivizing/forcing disenfranchisement. The term ‘banana republics’ is no accident, and the northern neighbor’s demand for drugs continues to stymie growth in other areas. To be clear, I’m not saying all fault lies with the US or even Canada, but there have been interferences in the progress of Latin America, when this did not align with the interests of its Northern Neighbors.
Oh no, pretty much everything since 1900 is actually America's fault lol. They're literally like an adult taking advantage of a kid, while they constantly talk about how good they are since they're against colonialism and pro democracy and more.
The north is the least responsible for latinamerica.
@@takiz8667 Remember those dictators in Latin America? Guess what the north were responsible.
As a hispanic. I will say that hispanics need to stop blaming usa for our problems. Germany was under a dictatorship and completely destroyed and look at it now.
@@takiz8667 Lol I wonder who’s using all those drugs man? Where are the drugs going?
Huh, interesting. Thank you for the insightful information. Good video!
The main flaw in this presentation is the omission of the American South, which was an extractive system based on slavery more similar to the Carribean or Latin America then to the Northern states. That these states remain poorer and with higher crime rates however reinforces his point.
Jajajajja jajajaj jajajajaja
British Barbados was settled by English royalists who instituted a particularly brutal system of plantation slavery. African slaves were plentiful and inexpensive. Some of the Barbados planters brought the same system to South Carolina.
I do need to make the point that before the civil war the American South was more prosperous and wealthy than their northern counter parts. It wasn't until after the war, occupation, and reconstruction that the American South was considered poor. Turns out destroying a generation of young men and the culture of a highly independent system and divesting the people of that area of much their wealth will destroy a place for generations to come.
Very true though I'd argue the American South has undergone an extreme change/economic growth over the last 60 years, largely thanks to affordable A/C and federal projects such as the Interstate that allow the South to compete for businesses throughout the United States. There's a reason so many Americans and business have moved to the South in recent decades
@@dripfeedtothebrain Yeah next time dont try to seccede to keep your slaves next time. The south did that to itself. Not to mention they oppressed half their population for most of their history after the destruction which they themselves caused. They made themselves poor.
It's also notable that Argentina and Brazil were wealthiest at the turn of the 20th century when like the U.S., Argentina encouraged European migrants to settle sparsely populated lands.
Mexico tried to do this within sparsely populated Mexican territories in the north shortly after independence--mainly from German and U.S. settler migrants. However as history shows they were cut off early from this when American settlers rebelled in Texas. All the German settlers that settled in the southwest ended up becoming Americans rather than Mexicans.
I heard they made many complex inventions and developed seriously in Argentine but it all ended with junta.
Brazil also encouraged European and Asian immigration to South and Southeast regions of the country. Actually Brazil received much more immigrants then Mexico and about the same amount of immigrants of Argentina.
@@arthur_2399 Yes especially in WW2 but it worked in brazil, in México not so much, thanks to the U.S getting those territories illegally
All these “poor nations” adopted socialism/communism political systems. Once they did that, they were doomed to failure, pain, and suffering. Look at Venezuela today. Prime example.
@@mcahill135 You have no idea what any of those terms are. BTW there were socialist and communist parties in Latin American countries, just as in Europe, since the early 1900s--and many were defeated and disappeared from their political histories.
Im from Argentina, and i only disagree in one detail only: i think it became cultural too. Let me explain breefly (and poorly provably because i lack of the terminology to make it short 🤣)
The corruption of the politicians and state institutions feeds the untrust of the worker/popular class in the system, so no one respect the rules or avoid them. Like you explained, having weak and corrupted goverments over time is the key, because the society dont trust the goverment and now it begis to feed the corruption, and the cycle goes on... It became cultural... 100%
Absolutely. Corruption is so engrained that, a revolutionary who hates the status quo, starts as a liberator, but always ends up a tyrant when they get to the top. No one or document of law was there to break the cycle, like in the USA.
I’m from Brazil but have spent most of my life in the US. I’m currently visiting Buenos Aires. I can honestly tell you it’s the best city I’ve ever been to. I’m in love with the Palermo neighborhood. Today I drove from Canning to La Plata, past the farmlands. It feels like America back in the 80s, before the overpopulation. Argentina’s problem is socialism and a government that’s more powerful than it should have been. The day socialism dies in Argentina, and the government becomes less controlling, the country will become developed again quickly.
Social awareness , culture and education.
For example , if politicians in East Asia countries like China , Japan and South Korea are exposed by media or the court of law to be corrupt , they would have to apologize , resign and even commit suicide because of shame and dishonor brought upon their family name.
@@arlofs Only the rich turistic area from B. Aires... if you leave 10 minutes away from these neighborhoods you are in Africa full of slams, poverty
@@fabyn1633 I drove further than 10 minutes away (from Canning to La Plata and then to Buenos Aires). I drove past some less affluent areas between Canning and La Plata, and saw favelas on my way to B. Aires. But they are far from being extreme like poverty in Africa or Brazil. Argentinian favelas are limited to a certain areas of the country - not widespread like in Brazil, for instance. It’s impossible to get rid of poverty - even the United States has its poor areas, especially if you consider native territories as well as parts of California. My point is, Argentinian infrastructure is well-developed and the people in general have high levels of education. Argentina needs to get rid of their Peronist mentalities and quit electing left-wing politicians. If that ever happens, I’m sure that in 2 decades or so afterwards they’d achieve developed status once again.
This was so insightful! Thank you!
i loved this video. it sums up what i have learned in my history lessons. i'm both brazilian and venezuelan, and i have lived on both countries, i have seen this culture of corruption and inequality that keeps us from moving forward. i hope that, like many asian countries the past decades, in the next coming years latin america will stabilize, grow and protect our resources and populations responsibly. not using the economic riches to benefit only those in power.
It is full of useless socialists. No more siesta time for you. Get to work.
Think many Asian countries had more established civilizations too before colonialisation, which instead meant that their native cultures were influenced less by colonial powers e.g. the countries that were formerly French Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos) don't speak French, unlike northern African countries formerly colonized by France, though Vietnamese did switch from the Chinese to the Latin script. Also heard that the Mongols learnt Chinese after conquering China during the Yuan dynasty. In particular HK & Singapore have more ambivalent/benevolent attitudes towards the UK (their former colonial master) probably as they were colonised for their strategic shipping/trade ports' locations, which unlike natural resources (the common reason for colonialisation) is non-rivalrous
Wait a second. Chinese government is also corrupted as hell. Xi is just another dictator. Chinese people work hard. If not for the corruption, China could be much better.
North did better because they were able to enslave and exploit Africans.. something the OP conveniently left out. Yeah the colonists "worked hard"...
@@craigwright3902 Are you more on? Spaniards brought a ton of forced help to work on their plantations. It was the Spaniards that ran the forced help trade.
Everyone should read "Why Nations Fail" to get a grip on this topic. I see you have utilized some points from the book in the video as well. Good job! Please continue making videos on topics such as this which get overlooked so often by most youtubers.
YES!!! So much this. It’s the single best book I’ve ever read and it perfectly explains how and why things are the way they are around the world.
Why is India still so poor ?
@@gingergranttech leadership. All that labor should be used for something. Only a few people are rich and they’re taken care of and hardly notice.
It's very rear to see a BANGLADESHI
That book was mind blowing for sure!
Costa Rica is an important exception to the rule of Latin American poverty & dictatorships - it has had a relatively stable democracy and prosperous economy. According to Wikipedia the lack of native Indian labor meant the encomienda system with large plantations didn't take root in Costa Rica. It became a province of small landholders working the land on their own, much like the northern American colonies.
is still a poor country
@@alexisantoniolopez1002 a poor country that didn't have their male population tortured and exterminated, where women and children weren't raped into mestiizaje, that didn't impose a culture of self hatred and didn't elevated a particular caste above others.
Violence in Latin America is the result of colonialism, even my parents have been witnesses of these scars, people are still being sold, systematically raped to outbreed other castes, denied basic human rights and are treated worse than animals. The thing about human rights is that it takes a lot more of energy to grant them than it takes to remove them, and no one, quiet literally no one has motivation or the courage to grant these rights to people.
Yes but Uruguay and Chile are better
@@alexisantoniolopez1002 It's not lol
@@alexisantoniolopez1002 Panama/CR/Uruguay/Chile are relatively well off, with GDP’s per capita close to that of Eastern Europe. Definitely not rich compared to Western Europe/USA/Canada but a LOT better off than most of their neighbors
Great video, well researched. Outstanding analysis of private property rights. One point I'd add is that the Spanish model reflected the top down Catholic Church while the American model reflected the decentralized Calvinist/Puritan Church and moderately decentralized Anglican Church. Colonization took place at the same time as the Reformation, which in many ways was a reflection of governance as it was theology. There was no way the Spanish were going to allow others access to land or capital, it was a completely foreign concept to them at the time. New England town meetings, for example, were a result of a decentralized church most belonged to, and would never have happened under Spanish rule.
New spain was 3 times richer than 13 colonies
Bingo. The Protestant ethic created a fair culture with fair leaders. The Catholic church did not.
@@eaglewing1415; it sounds reasonable. It contributed as one of the several factors.
@@jorgefs300fs7 Some countries like Venezuela or Argentina were very rich in recent points of their history, richer than countries like Sweden, Ireland, South Korea or Japan were on those same times. Europe as a whole was destroyed 80 years ago. And Mexico was comparevitily rich during the "New Spain" period, richer than the first 13 English American colonies. But colonization.
One of the things that has made Western countries so successful is a strong adherence to Contract Law. If someone doesn't keep their word to me they've agreed to in writing, I can take them to court and force them to keep their word using the rule of law. Literally nothing happens in business in the US without a signed contract, and the courts are aggressive in enforcing the agreements. This makes a huge difference when it applies across an entire culture and economy. The fear of being sued is a strong motivator in the Western business world.
I think we American men must do our part to help these Latin American countries. That is why I often visit Latin America and help out very beautiful Latinas to earn a little cash if you know what I mean.
@@GandalftheWise 💀
The reason why western countries being rich is MILITARY… first UNITED KINGDOM then UNITED STATES
forget all textbooks says, prosperity comes after power
They don’t care if authoritarian or Muslim, AT ALL
That only happens in rich countries
Biden has begun the nullification of contract law by making taxpayers payoff student loans for deadbeats.
Three reasons from someone that lived, studied and worked in the U.S. half of my life and then came back to my latin american country thinking things are the same and that I could start a bussiness and live the rest of my life here : corruption (everyone is corrupt from the traffic cop to the biggest judge), burocracy (all laws can be twisted against you and burocrats are only extortionists that will only help you for money) and cheap populism that make it impossible to plan ahead and give the normal people no way to defend yourself and your property from corrupt authorities (no sense of private property, no respect for long term contratcs or agreements, you can start a bussiness today with a set of rules and they will change them tomorrow), if you are a latino living in the U.S. or the E.U. do not come back
@Diego Gaspar Did you hear what he said? Everyone is corrupt. Latin Americans are leaving due to the unsafe conditions as well. No one is fighting or uprising against this. They are just leaving. It’s in the Caribbean too.
So corruption, corruuption and corruption.
I mean everyone leaves eventually it will crash or improve only question is when assuming it continues to worsen
Eres ciego o tullido si piensas que eeuu esta libre de corrupción. No se donde vivas, pero a mi no me vengas con cuentos. Que ese pais NO es el paraiso. Dream on bud.
.
Once again you are spot on sir. Please keep up the great work. You are one of the only people to piece together facts, to lay out the"why" as acurately as possible, all without emotional or political diatribe.
Yet doesn´t mention the real problem. what if... the USA independence war, were made by mixed race between brithish and north native americans?. That´s the big idiosyncrasy difference between USA and latinamerica. Hispanic ppl are a mixed race. British wipe out the north natives and stole their lands. They had their european background and they had a better understanding about ambition and wealth. Meanwhile Spanish enslaved natives, the society becomes a mixed race without a strong background. In few words, british colonies had "more experience" about greedy, ambition, economic, rich, and how make it last, than a confused mixed race society.
I live in Latin América. Its poor because the people here arent obsessed with material wealth like westerners. Latinos love their families and they enjoy life. Americans are the poor ones. Poor in spirit. Broken families. Moving across the country to serve bosses that dont care about their workers.
Define Poor. I’m a chilean living in United States and I don’t see any big difference compared to my homeland . Americans always refer to Latin America as one country and there are different realities . Usually their opinions are based in Mexico or Central America . I think poverty in US is better concealed. The prices of healthcare are outrageous, the public transportation system is zero and if you visit rural areas you can see the real thing. I’ve noticed that US is not what they show us on tv at all. We were part of the kingdom of Spain, not colonies.
Because in the last few years they've been going though a crisis that has increased the number of people in poverty, a lot of people are barely getting by even with work. It's not what it once was and social mobility has never been lower for them. Their Healthcare is a scam and it's infamous around the world.
However, Latin America is still worse. It has less social mobility, more corruption, and violence. Healthcare and homes are less expensive but still not as good. The standards of being poor in Latam and being poor in the USA are different, and a higher percentage of LATAM population is poor when compared to the USA.
So the Americans are having problems but there's a higher chance of them getting out of it than LATAM escaping this cycle we've been living for 500 years
@@joseluis5055Culpar a loa españoles que pasó hace 500 años no se solucionará el problema de la corrupción y pobreza de Latinoamerica. Nosotros tenemos que hacer el cambio y claro no va ser fácil.
@@luismanuelpotencianonorato9672 no se trata de culpar, simplemente explicar. La historia te da contexto de todo. De porque las cosas son como son, porque piensas como piensas y te ayuda aprender para mejorar el futuro.
México es un país del que nunca ha podido escapar su propia naturaleza, la cual fue adoptada de su antiguo dueño. Lo que debemos hacer es reconocer estos patrones y ciclo en el que estamos y buscar formas de escaparlo
Totally agree. ¡Viva Chile mierda! 🇨🇱❤
If it is that great in chile, go back !
I've been to Potosi in Bolivia. For me it was one of the most eye opening places in South America. A city built around this silver mine living and working around it. Such an inequality is seen here. Just horrific.
I'm in Bolivia now myself. Yes, history has left a devastating mark on this land.
Actually people are still living in Bolivia?
It's been like that since the Spaniards got crazy at the discovery of the silver mines, the precious metal production never ended. By the way Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, said that worthy things "valen un Potosí” (are worth a Potosí). Ah, the silver and the goollddddd ores ...
@DG Thank you for the tip !! Peruvian myself, I didn't know where this popular phrase started.
Good politicians, good business man's, a good intention in health and education.
Protect the police power and justice.
And a mind to make products, good, cheap and for all of over the world.
That's the reason that the Latin America failed. The bad monopoly is just one.
As an Ecuadorian I’ve seen the corruption first hand my dad got stopped by the police for having too many people in the car. And my dad understands how the police and people with power work my dad offered him 10 dollars to let us go and the cops said no… make it 20 for my buddy too and my dad did so. When they finished my dad came back and said that what I just saw was corruption first hand and politicians do it too but with thousands of dollars.
Also they get paid so little as to where 10 bucks each is enticing
As a fellow Ecuadorian I have to say: do not give in to corruption. If we (everyday citizens) take part in corruption then we automatically become part of the problem. Know your rights so crooked cops won’t dare to illegally stop you and ask for money, and record them if you need to. I know it’s hard, but fighting corruption on that small everyday basis is the only way we can contribute something to solve the corruption issue.
@@gabrielsuarez2776 Good luck with that amigo, it's ingrained in your culture.
such a shame. Ecuador is so beautiful. the citizens must stand up to the corruption but of course that most likely will never happen. sadly, this same scenario is played out through the world.
The sad thing is you would fight furiously, all of you, if anyone offered to help you.
This is straight from the book, "Why nations fail". It is an excellent read. Full of examples of prosperous states that failed and the reasons behind it.
So this is why this is so similar to Kraut's vide, they both source the same book.
Its apologist rhetoric
@@FallicIdol Apologist of what ?
This video and the book on which it is based is just a stupid explanation which has no real relationship with the real causes.
@@rodheq How so ?
This depiction of Spanish colonization is blatantly biased as it just recapitulates the narrative of the spanish black legend. Best example is the ridiculously simplistic and biased reference to Hernan Cortes. Unambiguously, this demonstrates that those who made the video either didn’t dedicate time to investigate beyond a bunch of stereotypes or wish to perpetuate the same old biased narrative.
Spaniards always cry about the black legend. "We we're not bad colonizerd don't say that 😢"
The point being is that Spanish colonization was extractive with corrupt institutions. The 13 colonies were productive and innovative colonies. Nothing changes that fact. Acéptalo
The video really started strong and the more distant past was quite interesting but I was wondering why there is no mention of US invasions, coups and boycotts in South America since mid 20th Century?
That’s probably a major reason why some of the countries couldn’t catch up over the past ~80 years.
The real question that always remains is : why could the US be able to invade, coups and boycott most latin american countries ? Why were latin american countries NOT ABLE to do the same to the US ?
Obviously the USA were stronger. But why were they more powerful and stable then those latin american countries?
@@marcstein2510 its literally answered in the video
@@marcstein2510 you think you can stage coup/invasion/boycott on a superpower?
@@marcstein2510 The reason they can't is they are weaker and never stood a chance against a military superpower.
As a Chilean (south-western part of Latin America for those who don't know where we it is), this hits straight to heart... so many times I've seen my country (and neighbors, like Argentina, Perú or Bolvia) fall into the ideology of demagogic leaders trying to impose their view of the land, where power is not to be resided in the people for free elections, but rather used by charismatic leaders that influence the masses for personal benefit. Never could I find a more accurate explanation to it, than what I'm hearing here right now.
Yes. Latin Americans de gradated along with their Red stupid leaders for decades. This the only reason of their poverty.
Eso no es un factor importante en el desarrollo de un país, al menos no en Perú.
qué veces has visto así a chile?
chile es un minusculo pais
How can we change things for the best
One of my co-workers (Venezuelan Immigrant) said that one of the biggest problems of South American is that anytime economic or developmental progress happens it is quickly devoured by corrupt politicians, criminal overlords, or foreign corporations. He himself fled to the states because his home town was being taken over by a violent gang demanding tribute from businesses. The situation got so bad that many businesses and civil services closed down, turning daily life into a constant search for food and shelter for many people. Police were doing nothing about it because they were payed to act as body guards for the few local wealthy individuals.
I know a Mexican man (now deceased) who came to the US and worked as a landscaper for 30 years, with the intention of retiring to his tiny hometown in central Mexico. He accumulated $50K, returned to Mexico and bought a small convenience store to run and maintain himself. Within two weeks, the local cartel took him hostage, forced him to withdraw 80% of his money from the bank at gunpoint, and then released him with the threat that he now had to turn over 25% of his revenues to them every week or they would kill him. He quickly sold his store for a deep discount and returned to the US and continued working as a landscaper. The same story you told, just a different country.
@@elizabethblane201 things that never happened. Stop watching too much movies
@@ingenieroriquelmecagardomo4067 I knew this man for 31 years, from 1987 to 2018, when he passed away from a heart attack. He worked for me on an occasional basis, but I saw him regularly, as his fiancee was my housekeeper. I knew his two sons and his daughter, whom I now see infrequently. They were like family members to me. He had no reason to make up stories. He was from El Platanar in Malinalco, Mexico. I never saw this in a movie; I heard it from the lips of a man of lived it. No jusgues, por favor. Hay cosas que no has vivido.
I live in Latin América. Its poor because the people here arent obsessed with material wealth like westerners. Latinos love their families and they enjoy life. Americans are the poor ones. Poor in spirit. Broken families. Moving across the country to serve bosses that dont care about their workers.
It takes alot of work to fight corruption. Latinos are less interested in doing that work.
This is a really good doc. Thanks casual professor
This guy deserves more views
Definetly agree
Really Appreciate it! Glad you enjoyed the video
Why is the google algorithm not working
Agreed
Jajaja
One correction I'd make is the statement that latin American has better geography than the USA. This is fairly false as Latin America's geography actually sucks. It's got a massive rainforest that once cleared isn't even all that good for farming (still better than nothing) massive geography barriers like the Amazon river and differences between its elevations. Meanwhile the us has the largest navigable water way in the world right on top of some of the best agricultural land
SA also has a North South orientation, meaning plant and animal varieties cannot be used across different places as easily.
But the Spanish wanted the riches they didn't want to live on the land
You can see something similar in Europe where ancient powers were Mediterranean but as civilization progressed Northern Europe became a better place for civilizations to exist.
There is an old system developed to convert the jungle into good farmland, they have been using it for decades
To help some people understand: geographical advantage googled is "In their effort to understand the spatial patterns of development, they emphasize not only the climate and the resource endowment of various regions, but also their locational advantage, such as the access to navigable rivers, seas, and oceans, as well as the strategic importance of straits and valleys." When you say geography it refers to the land not the animals or people even if they can influence the land. So saying south America is more geographically gifted because it has llamas is like saying my friend's car is better because it has groceries in it
In a nutshell the latin-american colonies were build on exploitation, not self-sufficiency.
How were north-american colonies not built on exploitation? Slavery ???
Just british bias revisionism because they were in fact develop for self-sufficiency colonies, the richest of all the eropeans colonies for centuries. Just look at how many universities and amazing picies of colonial architectual churches, cathedrals and institucional urban buildings are all over hispanic american countries.
This video is flawed and wrong. In a nutshell, Latin America is poor due to corruption
@@SteezyRedStars lol America is corrupt too
To be honest, so were the North American colonies, but to a lesser extent.
Thank you for this great video, and the sources you used to explain it. ❤
WOW! This a great video essay. Well written. Keep up the great work! -
- Former VH1 Senior Producer and MTV award recipient for Creative Excellence.
Thank you! Very glad you enjoyed!
Probably worth pointing out that in 1900 several South American nations were actually quite wealthy relative the rest of the world, so for some countries the question should be why they fell behind
I’m currently making a video specifically about that but in regards to Venezuela!
I think one reason was during middle east's success on oil exploration. (Venezuela to be specific)
@@michaelflores6445 I'd like to add too that perhaps, the region also fell out because they couldn't keep up with economic and trade relevancy with the rise of trade, economic and politcal activity pivoting to Asia, and still continually happening. But today, Africa is also rising, which makes me think that South America might lag a little more, but it will all depend on the future leaders of Latin American countries on which direction they want their countries to go. 🤔
There a misunderstanding how the US and Mexico become modern nations. The US committed concise against the Natives, removed them from their lands, implanted themselves and their culture with no resistance and developed their world class economy on the back of slavery.
Mexico endured genocide and destruction of it's ancient and developed civilizations. But Mexico was able to kick out the invaders and from the ashes establish the modern Nation of Mexico. But since it's birth incursions from European nations to conquer it were non stop but every time Mexico was victories over the European powers. But then came the US, robbed half of Mexico. There has been about 10 military intervention to Mexico from the US, always destabilizing Mexico politically and economically.
@@alistairt7544 Brazil will be part of the OCDE if Bolsonaro win again. Fuck socialists.
Man, let me translate this video to Spanish to make it available/understandable to Latin American people. It is extremely educational, and perhaps two or three of us could learn from it. Great job btw.
I'm argentinian and this video is very interesting but I have the advantage that I can understand English. Would be interesting if this content would be available on Spanish
This videos is full of trash and only presents excuses as to why it got this bad, it is a very complex situation but it can be defined in two main subjects, foreing intervention and local corruption, divide and conquer is the modus for the europeans and US, they provide the best for a class "politics" and help them with propaganda in exchange for concesions, the corruption generates on this inner circles that have support to send the money abroad by this capitalist governments that help them to get the power, so my summary, even if they have screw us badly the main problem resides in our ignorance of the facts and the divisive culture they drags us into, like (socialism and populism is bad only real democracy bla bla) and this keep us from making an agenda that could destroy their plans of hegemony.
Si haces eso créeme que estarás incurriendo en un grave error al propagar la leyenda negra para beneficio de los anglosajones. Todo lo que explica en este vídeo es una gran mentira. Hispanoámerica no siempre fue pobre, los Virreinatos fueron los lugares más prósperos del mundo en su época mientras las 13 colonias eran puebluchos donde la gente mal vivía, ciudades como Mexico o Lima se erigían con fastuosos palacios, universidades y hospitales. Mientras los españoles se mezclaban con los indígenas los ingleses y americanos extinguieron a toda la población nativa. La causa de la pobreza en Hispanoamérica radica en lo que sucedió después de la independencia y como pasamos de ser Virreinatos poderosos del imperio Español a colonias informales de Inglaterra y Estados Unidos.
Yeah I feel bad for the folks that cannot understand English enough to watch this
as a native Arizonan i can safely say you are absolutely murdering the pronunciation of Nogales my guy
I visited Nogales 20+ years ago, both sides, and remember the stark contrast. There were thousands of corrugated, steel shanties up and down a hillside. Children were selling chicklet gum to visitors. It was eye opening. Funnily enough, I'm from St. Louis, the city you compared Nogales to. Although, I'm in one of the counties, which is much safer.
For those that say America sucks(not saying you lol)....go to the Mexico side of Nogales. Lol exactly, now you don't wanna ha. I was apart of a private contractor team that provided security for the new wall at the Nogales border. Mexico side will take pop shots at the construction workers. Which is why I and my team were sent there. So much drugs and human trafficking comes across this section. Most of the woman get sexualy assaulted and would try to find us to surender to us for help. We would catch at least a dozen MS13 gang members trying to cross at Nogales. So no....it's not just good people coming lol. Out of a 5 month deployment we caught, 98 MS13 gang members(verified) and another 156 gang members from 8 different gangs(verified) and we were shot at, including construction workers on average, twice a week. CNN ain't reporting that lol.
@@nexpro6118 ppp
@@nexpro6118 That's one thing that drives me crazy about some people, especially the American left. Many honestly think the US is a 3rd world country, that we have some of the worse crime, that the country has freedom on par with the 3rd world, that you're liable to be shot, and that the workers rights are on par with the 3rd world. They often compare the US to the best parts of Europe and they're always careful to cherry the wealthiest parts of Europe. They seriously blow things out of proportion simply because the US actually reports on their problems rather than sweep them under the rug and since the US dominates global media it makes the problems seem far worse then they are. For example:
1. The US actually ranks pretty low on crime, #56 globally (higher rank, more crime), and lower than parts of Europe. France for example ranks at #46 and Sweden #54.
2. The US is also pretty free. Depending on who does the ranking the US usually ranks around #15 lately, again beating out many parts of Europe and above average compared to Europe as a whole and even better than countries like Japan.
3. The US's homicide rate, despite all the cartels moving to the US and despite suffering a migrant crisis on par with what the EU has been dealing with for the last few years, only for America its been going on for decades. The US ranks #58 by homicides, which is relatively high but again beats out parts of Europe.
4. Workers rights in the US arent as good as parts of Europe but you've also got more freedom. It's pretty easy to start your own company, it's easy to jump careers (I've known people who got fired in the morning and got a job with similar pay by the end of the work day), and the US has one of the highest average/median wages.
5. People also often bring up the US healthcare system, which does suck, but is still above average. The US has some of the best hospitals, best medical schools, ranks above average on per capita physicians and nurses, #39 by average lifespan (again, somewhat lowered based off the rush of people from 3rd world countries, average lifespan for white Americans who make up the smallest group of immigrants for example would make the US #25 at 78 years). They also ignore the fact that while many countries do have universal healthcare in most cases it's almost impossible to see a doctor since the system is under funded, under equipped, not very advanced, and under staffed. In China for example it can take months to see a doctor and much of the rural parts of China have little to no access to doctors at all and many 3rd world countries are the same.
No matter how you look at it the US is a first world nation and by many metrics is better off than parts of the EU. the US has it's problems but often they're not nearly as bad as people make them out to be simply because the US media always tries to make things out to be far worse than they actually are to draw in more clicks and views. When you actually look at things like human rights (large parts of Europe dont recognize and/or allow gay marriage for example), income (American poor people earn more than the average income of most countries), or freedom the US is still pretty highly ranked and superior to even parts of Europe.
@@arthas640 god I'm in love with you for that response. LOL
@@arthas640 US's problem is that the poor areas tend to be very bad while the rich areas are very good. When you average it out the US does ok
Would disagree with one aspect near the end: the results were impacted by the nature of the country colonizing it. England, while still a monarchy, had limited elitist power and more power to the common man, mostly because of the Magna Carta. Spain’s monarchy was more of a traditional monarchy. While England still had its issues with a ruling class and very little upward movement, it did value its workers significantly more than other colonial monarchies in Europe.
Even so, that did not stop England and its later form the British Empire from committing atrocities against colonists or indigenous peoples. Take Ireland for example. Indeed the British were far less brutal than the Ottoman Turk, Spaniard, French, Belgian, Dutch, Russian and Japanese in treating colonial subjects. Except in southern Africa where the British had a mass murderer in the form of Cecil Rhodes.
Well, the British valued their workers so much that they had children aged 5-12 working in the coal mines of the industrial revolution, sometimes for a plate of food, until 1850. Children and women of the Spanish empire could not work in the mines since the 16th century. 90% of the Commonwealth is India, Pakistan, Botswana, Zimbabwe. Even the regions of the British empire in parts of Central and South America are Jamaica, Belize, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago. They are as poor as Guatemala, and less rich than Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Panama or Costa Rica, which have very high human development (among the 66 most advanced countries in the world). The USA, Australia, New Zealand or Canada are rich like the Spanish empire in the Netherlands, parts of Germany and France or Italy: lands with a majority European population, already civilized, but with even more natural resources for a small population, in Australia or Canada. If Australia (3 inhabitants per km2) had the population density of Mexico (65 inhabitants per km2) it would be directly poor, with 600 million inhabitants living in inhospitable and poorly communicated areas.
@@abellyold4859 The British removed crops from large regions of India, in the 18th-19th centuries, to plant cotton for the English textile industry. That produced 20-30 million deaths in more than 7 major famines. Churcill still ordered the burning of many Indian food crops in 1942, to stop the Japanese advance, because he did not trust the British Army to stop the Japanese invasion of India, after the defeat at Singapore. That caused 2 million deaths in India, due to hunger. All local, indigenous empires have made mistakes. Even local empires had human sacrifice, sometimes cannibalism, and slaves.
lil bro's allergic to history books 😭😭
@@abellyold4859 If you read Latin American history and compare with the English history in the north part of the American continent , the Spaniards were not brutal at all , let me tell you , the Spaniards founded the first University in the American continent ( Cape Horn to Alaska )in May 1551in Peru and the second in September of 1551 in Mexico , to educate whom? the first Civil Rights , Human Rights declaration in the history of the world by the Queen of Spain Isabel The Catholic , defending and protecting the people of America , you need to read a lot
Excellent video Casual Scholar. You have explained what many of us in my country Guatemala learned about the roots of our failures in Latin America. At some point we as young students, I'm no longer one, come to question what made the US richer than our countries. Considering that it was a much younger nation. The way you described that part of our socio-economic system refreshed my memory from my days in College. Thanks and best regards!
Thanks, i watched this video expecting this fellow to talk anything about brazil, but there was nothing
Corruption and that's it. Almost all Latin Americans would say the same.
Seems no matter where you go corruption screws everything up.
not an educated one lol
do why is there so much more corruption in latin america?
Here in Hungary too..
Low IQ, also is a big part, but many people don't want to bring that up
The core explanation here is correct. But, in modern Latin America you also need to consider what foreign countries gain from Latin America’s underdevelopment. Consider for example the relationship between the US, Colombia and Panama in the early 20th century and during the Cold War. The independence of Panama from Colombia came from US interest, America benefited from Colombia’s unstable government and helped instigating political conflicts to build the Panama Canal and gain control over the new country. And during the Cold War, it is quite obvious the US was involved in the assassination of Jorge Eliecer Gaitan, which led up to Colombia’s ongoing civil war (all because the US was not interested in the Conservative Party losing power over Colombia, while the USSR was doing its part in Cuba and Argentina).
I would say that in 90% of the cases that the US got involved in latin american politics (think Chile, Venezuela or Panama) it has been for a good cause and eventually led (or will lead to) more economic stability. To think that US involvement is bad just because, it's silly. In fact I would say the US does not get involved enough because they don't want the region to challenge them in any way shape or form.
@@CarlosRodriguez-bh2ey That means you know very little about history, my friend. I do not deem the US as a huge monster set out to destroy everyone and everything, but to deny that it has messed with Latin America to gain more out of it than what would benefit the country itself is ignorant. During the early 20th century, Colombia was coming off the end of a massive civil war. The US went to Panama (a Colombian department) and offered to assist them in starting the war again and gaining independence in exchange for building and having total control over a canal that connected the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Do you really think they did that to give Colombia better stability? Panama was severed from Colombia, and remained under US control until 1999. There's your "good cause". In the 1990s, they also armed Colombian paramilitary forces to destroy the Medellin and Cali cartels. The result? The distribution chain of drug trafficking was dispersed into thousands of micro-grids that were impossible to trace or contain. Paramilitary forces later took over some of those grids and turned on the people, they have massacred over 200,000 individuals.
@@CarlosRodriguez-bh2eynah man the US gets involved to make it so latin american countries can’t challenge them! Do some research man!
Gaitán, el hombre que hubiera cambiado la inecualidad de nuestro futuro
@@CarlosRodriguez-bh2ey I'm absolutely sure that Argentina didn't need the intervention of the US in the 70's when Videla organized a coup that led to a dictatorship. The whole "Plan Cóndor" was a move that the United States made to control and organize the southern part of Latin America. Do you really think that Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Brasil had dictators at the same time just by casualty? They got help from a bigger entity that worked secretly.
Great explanation.
I read that book in college, the Korean case in that book is very good, and I think overall it makes very good points about the importance of institutions in economic development.. but in the case of Latin America I think the book is making a huge stretch by linking modern failures with colonial times and it is also very reliant in black legend (not saying that none of that is true, but it is presented in a totally bias way)
I’m an economist from Buenos Aires, Argentina and I studied a lot about Argentina’s economic history.. I think most of the problems we currently have originated in the XX century, although some cultural and institutional aspects date way back
I live in Latin América. Its poor because the people here arent obsessed with material wealth like westerners. Latinos love their families and they enjoy life. Americans are the poor ones. Poor in spirit. Broken families. Moving across the country to serve bosses that dont care about their workers.
i'd say the top 5 reasons why Latin America is the way that it is (keep in mind that some overlap)
In no particular order (meaning i dont know which ones have more impact/influence than the others):
1) Sizable systematic corruption at all levels of governance
2) Exploitive effects from developed countries, i'd say mainly the USA since it has been, and contines to power project all throughout. Of course it also wants to control them so other countries (russia, china, etc) dont swoop in an do likewise in USA "neighborhood".
3) Catholicism, insomuch that it teachs people to be obedient, sub-servient, etc. Feel guilty all the time, etc. AND it historically has been heavily involved in governance, power, control, etc.
4) Globalization - via the continuation of centralization and consolidation of wealth and power at the global level.
This one has crippled the middle and lower classes throughout the world. Extremely powerful, and spout out propaganda that peoples of the world are actually doing good economically (per cap income, etc.)using mainly pseudo-statistical models, etc. (various organizations, multi nat. companies, and others are within this).
5) colonialism. im sure this has played a part in all of this as well.
In Korea, you are blessed and praised if you study. In Brazil, you are attacked if you study and wrathed if you are intelligent.
The ethics almost do not exist in Latin America.
Colonialism does have a huge impact on modern politics but people do often put too much emphasis on it since it allows for an over simplified good vs evil narrative and shifts all the blame on outside influence and against groups no one is keen to defend. Another Asian power worth looking at is Taiwan: they went from a barely populated backwater island to a Japanese colony to a military dictatorship, to one of the wealthiest countries in the world all despite the fact they have almost zero recognition as a country and despite having to deal with constant threats of invasion from the PRC who are 100x their size. The ROC/Nationalist government didnt even have much pedigree: they'd only existed on the mainland for a couple decades before experiencing one of the bloodiest civil wars in human history and then spent around a decade fighting the Japanese in the bloodiest war in human history. They also lacked much development, little outside trade, nearly zero land, and nearly zero natural resources.
You can also look to Eastern Europe and the Baltic states to see how post colonial politics can go. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland had only existed for a couple of decades between 1990 and the 18th century with some like Estonia never really being independent countries until after WW1. They also faced total devastation and centuries of occupation by imperial powers but a bunch of them became some of the most developed countries in the world in the space of a couple decades.
Why is always someone from Argentina who has to say "Black Legend" ?
Sadly, I think some of these factors have even gone on to influence the cultures of the very countries they plague. Now, I can only point to my personal experiences but I will say that it's scary to see the level at which people in many of these countries tend to downplay the seriousness of anything legal. What I mean is, almost ANYTHING can be done "under the table", you just need the right connections and/or money. That's not to say everyone's like that, not at all, but I've seen honest, good-hearted people be criticized by family members and neighbors for something as simple as getting their license renewed or paying full price for a legal service. Some problems are just so deep-rooted that people need to change their way of thinking for any real change to come, no politician or law could force it.
Exactly this!!
The poor learn from the rich. It is happening in the US. The fish rots from the head down.
100% agree with this, this is innerent to the latin america people minds, seriously, sometimes my family act and think like this and they're really dont try to be a "bad people" they treat the corruption as something normal... too normal ,they're just like you mention but in a natural way... and me too , it's a fcking seed in the deeper of the people mind, and, this "corruption seed" was a problem from ages, im not gonna mention the stupid "spanish black legend" , but this problem in my point of view is comming from a lot of years.
Excellent comment. Sadly, that mentality is starting to become all too prevalent in the US. People seem to think that it's OK to screw insurance companies, the government, etc. , etc, . thinking to themselves "well... everyone else is doing it"... such a shit attitude and way to live.
NO socialism Duh
I would love to add that at the time of becoming independent the Spanish colonies were even richer than the 13 colonies and I include the United States, but internal instability and wars was what made America fall behind, but that did not stop progress, even after independence. They came to mean problems for the USA such as the pact and what you say about Spain bothers me since Mexico and Peru, when they were colonies, came to possess the first world currency, while in independence the robberies of the national coffers made Hispano-Ameruca start with the foot left
@ 14:00 re the development of the British colonies in New England - you've left out the importation of slaves from Africa, and the significant role played by the plantation economy. Also, you overlooked the decimation of the indigenous population in the US through disease, sheer slaughter, and forcible relocation to reserves. I very much appreciate your summary of the development of Latin America, and this is very helpful to me - I've never understood how their problems developed, but wish you had given a more accurate overview of the development of the American economy, that was much influenced by the slave economy, and the disappearance of the indigenous, opening up huge territories to white settlers.
Again, William Faulkner's remark that "the past isn't over; it isn't even past" applies well, which is just sad.
I think overall the US and Canada both have a more fair economic and legal systems to allow wealth to reach more people than Latin American countries. No governments are not corrupted or no people are saints but the legal foundation in the US and Canada allows more people to benefit from its economic growth and prosperity.
Yess and that is the main objective, did u know that the U.S.A putted dictatorships in Latinoamerica? The fist country to do the experiment was Chile, they put a dictatorship, mantained people afraid (til2019), they would infiltrate in the military with Pinochet and he became the dictatorship, so now we are like puppets to usa and they have many of our resources, they destroy our ecosystems and well they do corrup stuff as they want, that's why that part of the world is more whelthy, because the goverment stills, kill and harras countries of the 3rd world, not letting them grow, becauze that is not convenient to them, it's a shame and it's fault of an especific group of people.
You ever notice how the US and Canada seem to always use China as a manufacturing hub, while Latin America seemingly never gets used for anyhting but Cars?
Face the facts. Its the culture that often leads to countries staying shitholes. Russia has had 3 regime changes, and still is constantly under authoritarian rule, no matter the economic climate.
China went from being a third world shithole, to being a potential world superpower. As an Asian myself, its in our culture to study hard, and make money, while being impartial over politics. I noticed massive parralels between Americans and China, as America had genuine inspiration from 1980's Japan on their work ethic, and emphasis on success.
Latin America has no where near the culture required for success than China has had. Latin Americans that were smart enough, simply leave the country for America.
Economic prosperity comes naturally, with a uncorrupt and reliable legal system. American companies shouldnt need to hire guards for their factories, when setting up shop in Mexico. China is simply the better option in so many cases.
@@honkhonk8009 I agree that culture is a main factor. But politics/economics matter. For the reason that you said smart Latin Americans would just go up to America. It’s the system that allows them to prosper. You need to be economically free to prosper. That combined with good cultural values and you have yourself a flourishing country.
@@honkhonk8009 I wouldn't say thw Chinese are impartial to politics lol
Well, they didn't get dictatorship implanted in the 70s, destroying the institutions and legal foundations of the countriesm
I would like to add that in Mexico we had a 1 party government for almost 70 years till year 2000, although even if we had in recent years a 2 party sistem, the decisions were already made by the clients of these 2 party's so it didn't matter if the red party or the blue party won, they were essentially the same. It seems like here in Mexico and all of Latin America we have a lot of work to do to undo a lot of the damage that has been done to us over the years.
And just a reminder that the us had an interest to keep all of Latin America poor so we could be the backyard of the us. Search for the so called "Banana Republic" and the "Operation Condor". There have been somewhere between 60 to 70 interventions from the us in Latin America in the last century.
"Pobre México, tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca de Estados Unidos"
The monroe doctrine?
As an American, the US is evil. I’ll admit it.
@@johnnyflores5954 That was just a paper doctrine, The US navy had at the time between 6 to 10 blue water ships While The Brits had close to 100.
You’re poor because of your average iq, no inventions, and laziness
Thank you so much for the video.
As a Brazilian history teacher I’ll give details on Brazil and how it differs from the rest of Latin America.
1) different from Spanish colonies with lots of Indians to explore, our Indians were kind of sparse and primitive (like in North America). So the Portuguese colonizers brought African Slaves (10 times more than the USA. In fact, black slavery was the backbone of our society). At least northeast Brazil was this way.
Southern Brazil was poorer. It was inhabited by frontiersmen known as “bandeirantes”. They were like the Brazilian version of Cossacks of Russia. Except that they were a mixed race folk who inherited the Portuguese conquistadors’s prowess and the indigenous cunning of living in the wild.
They had no money to buy African slaves so they enslaved Indians (even though they had Indian blood themselves). Some went on to live off of cattle raising (especially in the southernmost regions of Brazil. And others became subsistence farmers).
----------------
As Brazil became indedepent in 1822, our first ruler was actually the son of the king of Portugal. His dad said: “son, proclaim the independence before some revolutionary man does it”.
So Brazil during the monarchy had a dichotomy where local elites wanted more independence from central imperial control. And monarchy wanted some law and order to make Brazil a strong nation. It was because of the monarchy that Brazil didn’t break up into several small republics like Spanish America.
----------------
In 1889 a year after the monarchy abolished slavery, plantation owners who felt betrayed made a coup and overthrew the monarchy. They installed a puppet republic that only served the needs of the elite plantation owners of São Paulo state (the richest state). There almost no middle class in Brazil until then.
-------------
It was like this until 1930 when a revolution driven by opposition elites and lower ranking military officials made another coup and tried to install a government that would modernize Brazil and industrialize it.
This was the birth of Brazil as an industrial country.
Unfortunately up to this day, the elites have tried to stall the country’s development and the improvement of the population.
They even made deals with the most powerful left wing party led by Lula da Silva so as to make the lower classes vote for elitist politicians.
lula wasn't the guy who almost made Brazil a superpower? he's was there when bricks was a thing
@@MultiBigman007 Trying to be as neutral as I can be, because Lula is one of the most controversial characters of Brazil recent history.
The worker's party government (Lula and Dilma) that took place between 2003-2016, brought great advancements to the brazilian economy and society, in great part due to the exponential growth that the country had exporting grains to countries like USA and China, but this growth caused a process of deindustrialization of the country that made Brazil more dependent of the international market.
In the side of politics, in 2002, when the worker's party was elected, Lula was badly recepted by the brazilian and international elite, that caused a crash in the brazilian economy that was already weak by some decisions of the government before his, part of the crash was caused by these elites pulling investment from the country and to quell the economy Lula had to start making conection with these Elites that already had control of great part of the legislative, as Kaleo said, these connections brought more stability to the government but made it less radical in their changes, these relationship also brought the government into giant corruption schemes, that in the long run destroyed their reputation and created grounds for the movements that brought the actual government.
Before concluding I want to reiterate that even though these things happened the Lula government was one of the most important governments for the people in Brazil, it reduced giant problems that were caused by inequality, like taking the country out of the HungerMap and poverty line and democratizing higher education.
In summary, the worker's party government brought great advancements for Brazil, but they were at the cost of the brazilian industry and helped by corruption schemes and relationship with the elites.
(sorry for the long text and for possible errors as I made these by memory, I also tried to be as Neutral as possible considering that this topic is super controversial in brazilian politics and we are in presidential election year and Lula is one of the biggest candidates)
Thank you, Kaleo and Vitor, for your enlightening capsule histories of Brazil. What, then, accounted for the rise of Trump-like Jair Balsonaro?
Hoje aprendi que os nativos norte americanos eram tão primitivos quanto os congêneres brasileiros e menos que os seus parentes sul americanos rsrs. E a causa da desindustrialização do país não é um processo antigo e gradual de concorrência dos produtos chineses mas devido ao foco no agro rsrs.
@@rolandtours8404 This topic is an ongoing discussion but there are some similiraties between bolsonaro's and trump's ascension. Both basically came with the same discourse of being outsiders that spoke their minds and are not sided with the corrupts of the older governements.
Because Brazil suffered from 2 giant corruption scandals between 2006 and 2015 (Mensalão and Lava-Jato Operation), both in the Worker's Party government, the population became exausted from corruption, that exaustation was the breeding ground for far right populist movement to rise and when bolsonaro, a minor politician from Rio de janeiro, appeared in the spotlight saying that he was an outsider ( in reality he was deep in the brazilian government for more than 20 years) and that he wasn't corrupt (since his election he and his family appeared in a bunch of corruption scandals with possible ties with a crime organization from rio) the population took his word and elected him.
Other factor to put in motion both presidents candidacy was a great influence of fake news in their political campaigns to smear their opponents reputation.
I’m not some sort of apologist, but shouldn’t this video have at least included a mention of United States foreign intervention into many of these countries politics?
United States of Amerikkka did destroy the democracy of somr countries such as Brazil and Chile. Holding us decades back
如果没有美国干预，这些国家会更腐败
Your analysis leans heavily on Why Nations Fail, as you have sourced. I believe since it is basically a synopsis of their thesis for Latin America you should have given more shoutouts to the book in the video. Overall good video though
Nice book, an instant classic to be honest. Greetings from Mexico, one day we as a region will overcome this problems !
Basically a summary of the first chapters of the book "why nations fail", but still very nice to see it in video-form!!
The USA for the last 100 years have been robbing Latin America of all its resources and sending CIA to assassinate any politician who tries to make their country better and strong.
The (renamed) School of Americas was a training ground for all the dictators who would kill people for the USA in order to achieve that goal.
Brazil for 4 consecutive mandates had left wing politicians in power and Brazil jumped from 14th World Strongest Economy to 6th. The payment of the IMF debt the end of hunger, etc... So the USA send a CIA operative to place the front runner of the next election in jail without one shred of evidence ( the UN and the Supreme Court have concluded that recently ) Created a smear campaign to foment the impeachment of the president and placed a CLOWN a PUPPET in power and this CLOWN would even salute the American Flag and be seen entering the CIA headquarters in the USA.
Brazil's OIL reserves (3rd largest in the World) were GIVEN for FREE to the USA. Who wouldn't even have to pay taxes to explore their OIL for 25 years.
Brazil's economy took a massive dive and today not only inflation is at 100% a year, extreme poverty, hunger have all returned and Brazil dropped to 12th in GDP worldwide in 3 years.
The MEDIA in Brazil is owned by USA companies so the public opinion is easily controlled.
That is how the USA keeps stealing all of Latin American's wealth and getting richer.
Very simple!
Noam Chomsky speaks about it in lengths in his talks as well as former CIA agents that worked in the region. But it was never a very well kept secret. The CIA proud itself for destroying democracy in Latin America for decades
As a Latin American born, "yes, yes and yes" to corruption assertions, sadly.
but corruption that has been nurtured and mantained in place by the USA's goverments or even worst, the sanctions of the US and their rich friends from Europe
The USA for the last 100 years have been robbing Latin America of all its resources and sending CIA to assassinate any politician who tries to make their country better and strong.
The (renamed) School of Americas was a training ground for all the dictators who would kill people for the USA in order to achieve that goal.
Brazil for 4 consecutive mandates had left wing politicians in power and Brazil jumped from 14th World Strongest Economy to 6th. The payment of the IMF debt the end of hunger, etc... So the USA send a CIA operative to place the front runner of the next election in jail without one shred of evidence ( the UN and the Supreme Court have concluded that recently ) Created a smear campaign to foment the impeachment of the president and placed a CLOWN a PUPPET in power and this CLOWN would even salute the American Flag and be seen entering the CIA headquarters in the USA.
Brazil's OIL reserves (3rd largest in the World) were GIVEN for FREE to the USA. Who wouldn't even have to pay taxes to explore their OIL for 25 years.
Brazil's economy took a massive dive and today not only inflation is at 100% a year, extreme poverty, hunger have all returned and Brazil dropped to 12th in GDP worldwide in 3 years.
The MEDIA in Brazil is owned by USA companies so the public opinion is easily controlled.
That is how the USA keeps stealing all of Latin American's wealth and getting richer.
Very simple!
Noam Chomsky speaks about it in lengths in his talks as well as former CIA agents that worked in the region. But it was never a very well kept secret. The CIA proud itself for destroying democracy in Latin America for decades
La corrupción es un sintoma, la enfermedad nadie te la dice porque no les conviene
Because the Spanish Empire abandoned their colony. If they were to claim it as the British counterpart it would have been something like Canada unless its colonists go on strike then it could be like America.
Excellent video, you touched on a lot of extremely important topics really accurately IMHO.
Another important factor that impacted the post-conquest differentiation of the two continents (or sub-continents as we say down here) is just the geography, the lack of navigable rivers and the topology of Mesoamerica and most of South America did not allow for large tracks of land to be industrially farmed and developed. Flying over the Missisipi or driving through California Central Valley shows you that come the industrial age South America was no even in the same league to develop it's land the way the North did.
Cheers from a fellow casual scholar in El Salvador.
Well not true. South America has far more navigable rivers than Africa. South America has two major drainage system - the Rio De La Plata and Amazon. Chile's entire length has coastline. South America has good temperate climactic areas as well.
we have el rio de la plata and la amazonia which both are navegable, but you should consider that oppossed to the britain colonialization that focused and empowered the discovery and expansion of the people to all the available land, we have very centralized capitals and everything else is just land, mostly for farming, im from argentina and is incredible that capital federal (the capital city of argentina) is so rich and advanced, contrary to some random town in the inner country where people dont have basic education
@@juanmanuel7305 Argentina used to be rich, but then they had a recession. Instead of reforming their economy they went for socialism and ever since the country is poor. Chile used to be as poor as the others, then Pinochet reformed the economy and it became the richest country in South America. I know the country had inequality issues but I hope the socialists are not going to destroy one of the only okish country in the whole continent.
@@Perrirodan1 uruguay?
The USA for the last 100 years have been robbing Latin America of all its resources and sending CIA to assassinate any politician who tries to make their country better and strong.
The (renamed) School of Americas was a training ground for all the dictators who would kill people for the USA in order to achieve that goal.
Brazil for 4 consecutive mandates had left wing politicians in power and Brazil jumped from 14th World Strongest Economy to 6th. The payment of the IMF debt the end of hunger, etc... So the USA send a CIA operative to place the front runner of the next election in jail without one shred of evidence ( the UN and the Supreme Court have concluded that recently ) Created a smear campaign to foment the impeachment of the president and placed a CLOWN a PUPPET in power and this CLOWN would even salute the American Flag and be seen entering the CIA headquarters in the USA.
Brazil's OIL reserves (3rd largest in the World) were GIVEN for FREE to the USA. Who wouldn't even have to pay taxes to explore their OIL for 25 years.
Brazil's economy took a massive dive and today not only inflation is at 100% a year, extreme poverty, hunger have all returned and Brazil dropped to 12th in GDP worldwide in 3 years.
The MEDIA in Brazil is owned by USA companies so the public opinion is easily controlled.
That is how the USA keeps stealing all of Latin American's wealth and getting richer.
Very simple!
Noam Chomsky speaks about it in lengths in his talks as well as former CIA agents that worked in the region. But it was never a very well kept secret. The CIA proud itself for destroying democracy in Latin America for decades
This extractive system seen in Latin America was repeated with a few variations by the Spanish Empire when it conquered the Philippines, which has experienced some of the same socioeconomic issues. The same social structure of Spanish, mestizos and natives, in that order of power, was likewise replicated. The main difference is that there were a lot fewer Spanish living in the Philippines than in Latin America, so there were some differences in who held power once Spanish colonial rule ended, which was complicated by the United States stepping in as the next colonial ruler.
Philippines also has some cultural influences from China and Japan too, so they get the worst of that culture plus the Spanish’s issues combined. So the Philippines is getting the corruption of Latin America + the harsh lack of freedom you see in mainland China.
Filipinas was a US colony too. But you dont tell that. 😄
@@josederibas9484 facts
@@josederibas9484 And I quote, "...[W]hich was complicated by the United States stepping in as the next colonial ruler."
Reading is fundamental.
Also, the United States ruled officially for only 45 years (with a 3-year Japanese interlude), while Spain ruled for over 330 years. Before that and afterward, there was and has been a continuing Chinese cultural influence also.
El Imperio español y España ya no tienen nada que ver con los gobiernos y economías de la hispanoamérica actual. No busques razones ridículas para la pobreza de tu país.
Si alguna nación tiene la culpa de la pobreza en América, esa es Estados Unidos.
three points:
... In the first place you were never able to name the African slave labor force that never received a payment, which was free labor and that benefit American landowners to accumulate large sums of money, the abuse of the british colonizers who displaced and exterminated the indigenous people in the north of the American continent, reducing entire populations to simple reserves, and the political interference of the powers (Eurocentrist) in the countries to maintain the costs of raw materials in their favor, being a good example of Panama and its independence in exchange for appropriating the channel for 100 years agreement
Well 99 years, ather which Panama got ownership if the canal and it revenues.
Yes! He completely overlooked the involvement of united states' and other country's to manipulate governments and policy's to maintain the not only the prices down , they fought to retain the ownership of large amounts of land like in central America with the banana republics as well like Venezuela an his oil us is entrenched in a lot of these problems in Latin america, I loved the video but it's not considering big variables in the history
You can’t claim that European exploitation made them poor when they were already poor to begin with. If given the choice, almost no Latino would choose to live under the conditions that existed prior to European colonialism instead of what exists there today.
This is something that’s always conveniently ignored by people with an axe to grind against Europeans.
@@michaelardito2022These indigenous people lived the life that were known to them for thousands of years, They were happy and didn't need Europeans to improve or make them happy. Instead of reflecting on a point that doesn't make sense acknowledge how many lives were loss in the hands of the Europeans.
@@fridaymanly Their immigration patterns suggest otherwise. Latinos are flooding into the (majority white) US and Canada by the millions on an almost annual basis so they can have even more access to those awful European oppressors.
Maybe instead of acknowledging the lives lost to Europeans hundreds of years ago, we should acknowledge the lives lost at the hands of other Amerindians who were conquering, pillaging, raping and sacrificing each other.
No mention of the roll of U.S.A. making sure Latin America remained like this.
How?
@@asherlols 100 years of direct and indirect intervention, including cues, supporting death and torture camps, training the military of those countries on how to torture effectively, debt as a form of controll, etc... Look at plan condor, escuela de las américas, us intervention in Latin America and the involvement of the CIA with drugs as a way to finance paramilitary groups that caused death and instability.
@@asherlolsalso, many US based companies became involved in cues and massive killings of workers on strike, like chiquita banana (Pan-American fruit company).
The problem is it's own people they aren't faithful to their own country that's why USA is taking advantage
I love people's conspiracy theories is funny to see but at the same time so dump lmao
You do make some very interesting points in your video, however there is a more straight-forward answer to your question. Latin America was still largely semi-feudal/medieval until the 1970s, basically the encomienda system which you mentioned that the spaniards implemented was later renamed as the hacienda system, and it condemned Latin American peasant masses to a life of medieval servitude, ignorance and misery. Unlike the US and Canada were industrialisation happened at the end of the 19th century, in Latin America elites were extremely old-fashioned and feudalistic and resisted to any social and economic change with a few exceptions (Argentina, Southern Brazil). Latin American masses tried to get rid of this medieval elite and imperalism during the cold war by supporting agrarian reforms and socialist of communist movements, which resulted in a series of unfortunate events, dictatorships, civil wars, deaths in which the CIA played a big role. In the end all the Cold war conflicts further destabilised Latin America and strengthened the backwards elites which are sadly today still in control of economies, which leads to Latin America still having the highest income inequality of any region in the world today.
Very good buddy!
i would have a lot to comment about what you wrote but all I’ll say is you were great 👍🏼
Yes, but essentially because England and the United States so they decided, because in the 19th century England created conflicts between these countries, for which these countries were indebted with weapons and money sold by England, leaving them poor for the industrial revolution, and In the 20th century, the United States supported dictatorships in the so-called condor plan, which supported military dictatorships so that they could take away resources at affordable prices, killing thousands of people, essentially because of the Monroe Doctrine, when the Anglo-Parents left their ambitions in 1980 recently. there was an economic growth, so it's another one for the book of the horrible things the united states did
So, is there any hope? I understand the magnitude of the problem, but I don’t want to live in a world where we have Mars colonies and fully sentient AI while Latin America is still poor.
@@pachex2165 And if the US didn't do it, the USSR funded Communist parties would've been put in power which would've completely eradicated Latin America's future. American backed dictatorships were heaven compared to what the Marxists would've done.
@@casuallavaring there’s always hope, with the introduction and ease of access of technology people are able to educate themselves and form their own ideas and opinions. Generational improvement will probably the outcome with each generation living easier and better lives much like the west
Thanks for sharing such wonderful content with your audience. It is very interesting stuff. I appreciate all the work put into it. Sincere thanks!
Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to this comment section
Wow! I actually recently lived in Potosi Bolivia for a month and a half, I knew there was a famous silver mine but I didnt know it was exploited that far back! amazing to know the history of the city after I left, everything makes sense now.
I love that you shared that! Its incredible to me that this video has had enough reach to do that for you :)
This was a great video. If you are interested in the evolution of Latin America through the lense of exploitation of its resources, I highly recommend ‘Open Veins of Latin America’
"Countries whose governments are ineffectual, arbitrary, or thoroughly corrupt can remain poor despite an abundance of natural resources, because neither foreign nor domestic entrepreneurs want to risk the kinds of large investments which are required to develop natural resources into finished products that raise the general standard of living." - Thomas Sowell in Basic Economics.
Lots of such industries exist in these countries. Valuable minerals and oil have been sought after in the poorest of countries. The problem with this is the companies get the profit, not the people. To achieve a high status of development and standard of living, countries need to develop their own companies that can compete in the global market, otherwise wealth just leaves the country, rather than entering it.
@Some Idiot for that, you need to bring knowledgeable people from the industry to teach the first generation of local professionals. Also, of course, the companies get the profit. That's the whole goal of a company: to make a profit. The employee gets paid and experience.
@@GaJiarg Well the companies from developed countries in underdeveloped countries are not there teaching the locals, they're just there to extract money while paying slave wages. You think Apple is paying good wages to the children digging up cobalt for them in the Congo?
I live in Latin América. Its poor because the people here arent obsessed with material wealth like westerners. Latinos love their families and they enjoy life. Americans are the poor ones. Poor in spirit. Broken families. Moving across the country to serve bosses that dont care about their workers.
Two Words : Operation Condor
An impressive and good video. I finished why nations fail several years ago. And this video summarize the book beautifully and efficiently. Just about eleven minutes (2x speed), and I could recall most of chapters from it, plus some new infos outside the book. Thanks for this video
Sorry man, the Guarani made deals with he Spaniards to conquer their neighbors and the chief gave women to the Spaniards because he thought it was strange for them to not have women. it was very different story, the guarani where very friendly. We Paraguayans are very mix in because of that good reception we had to the Spaniards that our government had a lot of mix people and until now the Guarani Language is spoken by 95% of Paraguayans. I know the narrative of Spaniard been bad goes better for many reasons but here it wasn't like Aztecs or Incas, here they join forces, it doesn't mean they weren't treated a second class citizens, but is more like the tribes that join the Spaniards to conquer the Aztecs .
The Guaranis were conquering the river banks by the time the Spaniards appeared, and help them conquer faster and better.
This is also the case of other tribes in Latin americans, the ones who helped the spanish were guarantee with lands an tittles. There are pictures of spaniards working for natives americans. Spanish empire was more complex one video can´t explain that.
the same happened with incas but peruvian history constructed spain as the evil because they had to build a national identity in a country that was invaded and was made independent by force. spanish because they were completely different in their conquest. many tribes like guraranis had also these benefits all across the continent. indeed no empire can sustain itself by repressing their people for so long. other european empires didn't last that long.
Just because you are mixed does not mean the Spaniards weren’t mean. Your ancestors were mean and evil. The fact that you were considered second class citizens says it all. Stop acting like colonizers were nice. It basically was join us or we kill you. How is that nice? Enslaving people. Raping their women. Forced marriage. How is that nice?
@@1lyxbollyvykn714 I can't speak for the Guarani but you are speaking rubbish, the Spaniards actually we're well received if with distrust and Pizarro took advantage of that, kidnapped Atahualpa and held him for ransom. Then all kinds of wrongs followed. So not, "the local population were to blame for not bending over" is not an argument for anything.
@@virgisignotierra no paso eso, los 165 hombres de la isla del gallo por propia fuerza no podrian haber hecho caer a un imperio de 7 millones en su apogeo. Segundo Pizarro tuvo de aliados a muchos grupos como cañaris chancas chachapoyas aymaras no por algo llegaron a cuzco. Incluso el famoso rescate más caro de la historia en Cajamarca físicamente era imposible lo que sucedió fue que muchos objetos ceremoniales fueron fundidos en oro, y no todo era oro. Ademas Atahualpa fue correctamente ajusticiado por fraticidio a quien fuera legítimo gobernante huascar. No sólo eso sino que incluso a la nobleza inca se le reconoce titulos nobiliarios y es a través de las reservas autonomías y el respeto al orden anterior que los españoles pudieron establecerse. Lejos de eso los incas fueron de los grupos nativos reconocidos con mayores privilegios, tanto es asi que carlos ii es reconocido como inca descendiente por la misma realeza inca, a cambio se les daba protección y trato preferente. Tal como indica Garcilaso de la vega la cosmovisión andina era similar con la cultura hispana razón la cual muchos grupos pudieron integrarse rápidamente ya que muchos de los principios eran similares, cabe recordar que los incas eran una monarquía absoluta tal como lo fue el imperio español.
I think citing policy in Jamestown as the beginning of the United States' course towards democracy and capitalism without considering or even mentioning the Puritans and Separatists in New England is a huge oversight. Understanding the development of the Puritan colonies is absolutely vital to understanding the later course of US society, government, policy, and culture.
The first attempt at Plymouth Rock at socialism failed and the North learned from that.
@@eaglewing1415the US oppress socialism despite how badly they need it
Intro is literally almost word for work from book: "Why Nations fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. Good book. Good video.
what i learnt from this video is that despite a change in policy/government/political ideology countries typically have inherent and defining characteristics that are extremely hard to change. Thats why even after going through 3 vastly different political ideologies, Russia always seems to be ruled by autocratic leaders. From the authoritarian Tsarist monarchy, stalin's authoritarian form of communism, to Putin's Authoritarian form of capitalism. nations/countries tend to be governed by a specific logic that is largely informed by their history.
This
Putin authoritarian form of OLIGARCHISM*. Notice the Fact that he literally changed former oligarchs for more prone oligarchs that would support his agenda.
Russia is too large and has too many ethnic minorities. If compacted to European Russia it would probably do better. But like Roman Emporers they can't see it.
@Sticklandian Army Yes he was
@Sticklandian Army the purges of the late 30's?
As a Honduran, something that you forget to add here is that slavery was por a short period of time, most of the slavery were exported from africa and being used as a slave force in the coast region in the late 18 century, the native people wasn't slave already due to the accord that abolish the encomienda institute giving the rights to the indians in 1544 with new laws that avoid indians to be slave thanks to the contact that the fray Bartolome de las casas has been in touch with. something that in the US didn't have.
moving to the independence era, it was a completely joke, most of the son of spanish people born in america called criollos, were unable to get power bc the power belongs only for the representation of the spain kingdom, so the independece was an excuse to take the power but without a war also in that moment was in war with france so the spain kingdom was weak.
Most of latin american countries started developing good economy liberal ways starting with argentina that in fact in 1890 Argentina was having a huge better economy than the US. and most of latam in the 50's, but with the socialdemocrat and the rise of the communist idea gave the power to the polititians something that in the US didnt happened due to the second amendment, this started a bucle of corruption, civil wars of ideology, the spread of the mobs in centralamerica like Los Mareros etc.
So why latin america is poor? simple, corruption oligopolims with only owners of the companies, high taxation rate money that only goes to the polititian pocket. In Cuba this acelarated more due to the power was given not to the people but to the polititians like castro, the same thing happended with hugo chavez and Cristina Kirchner nowdays having in argentina the equivalent of the hyperinflation like venezuela. (just just only a little bit of that(
Here in Honduras in order to star a business like a farm you have to handle a lot of permisions and taxes from the goverment. but we as a good Honduran ppl we avoid taxes to avoid our ppl getting robed from the polititians.
Andres Artorias I believe your comments about why so much of Central and South American Countries are poor were more accurate then most. If you read the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights in that Constitution you can see the Intelligence and foresight of the men who wrote that document. The Constitution spells out the freedom and Rights of the people to elect their leaders for a representative Government. The United States won it's ability to self govern when they won the Revolutionary they fought with England. Canada was later on given it's Independence also when England started to give their Colonies the right to self govern, they had colonies all over the world but not in South America where Spain ruled. If a country cannot produce Political Leaders that want their people to have better lives then they will stay poor. The Drug Cartels and the power and money they have just breeds corruption. There has to be good education for a country's population so Businesses to invest in that country. If education and morality are not there but only corrupt political leaders then you will have mostly poor people. Socialism like Venezuela has will not encourage businesses from other countries to invest their. Even Communist China has a Communist type government but they also have Capitalism for their economic system and a well educated people for the most part. Climate and Natural Resources also play into the reasons along with cultural heritage.
In 2017, Honduras was as poor as Nicaragua, which was rising economically as you guys were sinking.
Please, don't write about Argentinas economy of the XIX century if you are not informed. Argentina produced a lot of resources but the benefits of that was just for a few, and the vast majority of the inhabitants were dirt poor. And those that got rich were the descendants of the conquistadores. Argentina was never wealthy as a whole until the '40 and '50 were the majority of its people started to ascend socially. The militar dictatorships (sponsored and planned in the US) got rid of that quickly enough. Less hands to negotiate with...
It's the British who brought in the Slaves but the Honduras said No
As a Cuban and half Colombian, thanks.
Well, the idea of indigenous North Americans being largely nomadic and small in numbers comes from the observations of European/Euro-Americans whose first contact happened well after 85-95% of the native population had been wiped out by European diseases (diseases spread along trade routes; most of those who died had probably never seen or even heard of Europeans). Before the so-called Columbian exchange, North America had a variety of indigenous cultures including urban/agricultural cultures (eg Cahokia) as well as pastoral and nomadic cultures, as the last generation or two of archaeology and genetic studies have indicated.
Are you dumb? If a group of people hunt, protect villages, and move from area to area, that makes them nomadic.. this isn't something that Native Americans even deny and the whole European diseases claim is just a guess that isn't backed by any sort of evidence. Its also called the "Columbian hypothesis" which would start in 1492 so you should probably delete this comment
there were no pastoral cultures in North America before the Europeans arrived as there were no large domesticated animals in the continent
@@javierperalta7648 You're right, thanks, I misspoke. I was thinking of the buffalo in the Great Plains, but of course they weren't domesticated.
@@valmarsiglia please delete all of your comments they are embarrassing
@@intihumala9087 Lol. Have you tried breathing into a paper bag?
Crossing the border from the US to Mexico it still amazes me to this day, the stark difference between cities along the border.
Never been to the border but I remember the first time I checked it on the Google Maps surprised me.
@@2011wdb You don't wanna go. It's like day & night, or a white/asian neighborhood vs black/hispanic neighborhood.
@@Vagabond_Etranger I wonder why its like that. Totally not on purpose. Also stfu, don't group in Asians lmao, there are a lot of poor Korean, Vietnamese, and Eastern Asians who aren't white.
@@Vagabond_Etranger The US prioritized voluntarily bringing educated and wealthy Asians as Tier one immigrants thru the 1965 Immigraition Act, only a handful of those that came from Asian countries were "poor". like those of Southeast Asia.
Whereas Black, Latino (many like myself, being of Native ancestry) and Natives had the unfortunate events of being on the bottom todem pole in the USA for centuries - hence the black/hispanic neighborhoods you mentioned, go figure.
@@declaringpond2276 the top group of highest income earners is asian.
Latin America for many centuries has been brutally plundered by colonialism and neo-colonialism. Not only the Spanish empire but more recently by the United States and organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, my problem with this type of videos is that they are not usually impartial with topics such as "Chiquita Fruit Company" the coups organized by the CIA to our democracies. And the enormous amount of resources that even today continue to leave our countries. The foreign policy of the United States has always played a negative role in our developments. An entire video could be dedicated to US special operations towards LATAM.
Agreed, the after explaining colonialism and being seemingly promising the video conveniently ignores later, and ongoing, exploitation. Kind of a significant factor that I would expect to be included :/
I think it's pretty easy to blame others for a countries issues than getting to the root of the issue and changing it. You're acting as if Latin America was great and the US somehow ruined it or it was going to take off. It wasn't for the exact reason it's where it is now.
Some of us are old enough to remember what the term 'Banana Republics' means, John Foster Dulles, United Fruit, and all the rest.
An excerpt from a website about the 1954 US overthrow of the Arbenz democratic government in Guatemala: The business of United Fruit was bananas, and from bananas it had built an empire in the Central American nations of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama.
Some years ago, I had a roommate who had been a young boy living in El Salvador during the time of its civil war. I will never forget El Salvador.
These youtube videos can't cover everything. That doesn't mean that people don't know about some of the things that happened.
As a latin american that lives in Brazil, it almost feels like it isnt worth living
I mean, working your ass off and still hardly buying food and also the amount of corruption really makes you think that its a losing battle either way.
Believe it or not, same situation in Canada. It may not look 3rd world from the outside but we are rapidly approaching it. This is no way to live, the whole world is about to shake.
I stopped when the video completely omitted slavery (the very secure ownership of people by people) and continued to insist on the thesis that private property was not something in Latin America when it was. The Spanish crown and the Portuguese crown guaranteed the private property of Brazilian hacienderos and slave masters. In Portuguese America, slaveholders could form their own assemblies and govern themselves with enough autonomy, as long as they paid taxes. The local elite used to revolt against crown tax collectors and if you travel to the former agricultural regions of northeast or southeast Brazil you will find plantations almost identical to the south of the United States and an extremely similar type of society. In fact if you want to know what the confederation would look like today, just travel to Brazil and imagine people speaking English. It's the same logic. And Brazil's agrarian elites overthrew a monarchy because of abolition and they secured the private property of their large estates against any attempt at agrarian reform through numerous military coups. And the extreme concentration of land and the practice of the same type of economic policy that the Confederates defended for two centuries delayed Brazilian industrialization and maintained inequality at absurd levels. Obviously the secret of the United States is in the north, where there was less slavery and the establishment of a more urban type of society similar to the Netherlands and the cities of the old Hanseatic League or the medieval free cities (Italian communes for example). In fact, countries like Argentina, Uruguay and Chile have a standard of living that is on average twice as good as the rest of the continent due to the type of colonization that is more urban and mercantile than that based on slavery or indigenous extraction in the rest of Latin America. Inequality in the southern cone is much lower (except for Chile with its dictatorial neoliberal experiment, countries have similar inequality to the United States) and per capita income in the region is similar to that of Eastern European countries. The education and health systems are very good, and with the exception of Argentina, which has chronic economic problems due to a secular social conflict that boils down to the dual nature of their colonization (commercial urban parts vs. good growth. Chile and Uruguay are likely to become high-income countries in the next decade, converging with Portugal and Spain, but even given Argentina's economic and political problems, they should reach that level faster than any other country on the continent (perhaps Panama or the coast rich reach before). Countries like Brazil and Colombia will still take countless decades or more than a century to do so. Mexico itself should reach this standard sooner, due to strong industry. The problem in Latin America in general is that strong agrarian elites tend to capture the State and establish a type of economic policy that values agricultural subsidies and trade agreements that favor the export of agricultural goods and the import of industrialized goods. This tends to undermine industrialization. These elites are afraid of industrial development because it strengthens democracy and they don't want people of color to have a political voice. Latin American elites tried to delay the democratization of the continent as much as possible with military coups and dictatorships that maintained their agrarianist policy. Definitive democratization only took place in the 1980s and is at risk. Countries like Brazil are ruled by the same agrarian oligarchies that overthrew the monarchy in 1889. Argentina has a bitter dispute between the agrarian elite and industrializing protectionists (it's an old debate that took place in the United States, but in Argentina it has not been resolved).
So you stopped the video because you noticed ONE flaw?
That’s the problem with people now. Everyone expects perfection. Instead of just eating the meat and spitting out the bones of the video you throw out the entire baby with the bath water. Idk wtf is wrong with people.
well thanks for taling the time to leave a reply
@@johnsondoeboy2772 He did ignore slavery being important for North America to prosper. African chattel slavery became the backbone for early success for American colonies except in the very North where eventually it fell out of favor. This wasn't true in the Dixie South that persisted much longer, and a variation of subjugation and exploitation continued on the Indians who were largely exterminated in the US and Canada. The free land he mentioned was stolen from the Indians. He also omitted that the elites in the US encouraged white people to own land and did so at the expense of black and indigenous people. The Latin American elite are definitely corrupt, but many of them are still beholden to American and European interest and are quick to betray their people to garner more wealth for themselves. Slavery needed to be discussed more and how African slaves changed the face of the Americas. He whitewashed Native American genocide in North America and didn't mention that the American system of exploitation came from wholesale genocide. The Latin American system was terrible, but at least the indigenous people were allowed to live to be exploited. Both are just terrible systems, but one can't deny one evil and say it's the lesser of the two, when that other evil is built on African chattel slavery, and near complete genocide of the locals.
I believe the video DID mention slavery, several times actually- but it emphasized enslavement of indigenous people by Europeans. If you are talking about African slavery which was started to supplement the indigenous slavery, then I agree, but most of the world focuses on African slavery anyways and most people don’t even know abt the indigenous enslavement. People already know about African enslavement, so it makes sense that he spent more time talking about the indigenous enslavement that people generally don’t know about.
@@jalicea1650 “at least the indigenous people were allowed to live to be exploited” did you miss the part where he talked about millions being genocided/killed? The few that survived were enslaved and millions died while enslaved, whether from health issues as a result from being enslaved or preferring to die than be enslaved. Being enslaved is not a pro.
I think Economics Explained had a video on a similar topic on how through most of history warmer climate was favorable for the economy because the economy relied on cash crops. With Industrialization and the creation of a more robust financial system this changed into what we see today. I grew up in Venezuela, my grandparents left Italy after WWII to live there. I saw how things went from normal or we were a more desirable Latin American country than Colombia or Peru. Now it is the opposite. Yes corruption is a big issue. Also, political fanatism and also the constant pursuit of letting the government have more power is part of the problem. Any Venezuelan politician that has tried to decentralize the government usually ends up dying, disappearing, ostracized, or jailed.
Yep that last sentence coupled with rigged elections/corruption is mainly why the Venezuelan government is still so shitty. All opposition leaders I can think of had something happen to them. Carlos Ortega who was exiled, came back to the country, was sentenced to 16 years of jail for having a fake identity; Manuel Rosales was accused of conspiring against Chavez, he got assylum in Peru, came back a decade later and was arrested in 2015; Henrique Capriles, almost won rigged elections with 49% of the votes, was arrested in 2013 and then he was banned from holding any political positions for 15 years in 2017; Leopoldo Lopez, arrested due to accusations of supporting concurrent protests, was given 15 years of jail time; Maria Corina, accused of conspiring against the government, and had to face physical violence and harassment from the government; and now we have a weird situation with guaidó being recognized as a presidente interino by some countries. It's clear that many of them were harassed by the government with bogus claims since they were a threat to the regime
the problem is socialism
@@luisamaria3068 Venezuela had issues even before they implemented a lot of their socialist policies
NoOooOO ThAt's jUst CapItaLisT ProPagAndA
To the real freedom fighters of venezuela, I miss you and my heart goes out to them!! : (
Most of friends growing up were from parts of Latin America. Their families were never poor. They each had their own success and were business savvy. I was impressed and inspired at humble they remained.
What's ironic, is that Mexico taxes the living shit out of business
Thanks A Million I got New RUclips Channel from this video to learn more knowledge and it will improve myself.
As an American, this video was.. interesting. I never read about this in any of my school's history curricula. I heard the Spanish had landed in the Caribbean islands and even made some forays into what is now Mexico, but most of this was completely new otherwise.
Also, wouldn't be an american, but I don't think we've done too bad for 'scraps'. That was a revelation to hear.
Meh that’s weird it was mention a lot while i was in high school honestly if you never went to high school by the border it’s pretty irrelevant history. I also studied in Mexico also so there is that.
The education system has been dominated by the left, which aims primarily to highlight the evils of capitalism and the free market rather than the historic success and the good that it achieved throughout the world. This is why people learn world history and yet are often unaware of the millions and millions of deaths that happened under Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China.
Throughout human history, communism and socialism has only ever not ended up in catastrophe when implemented very lightly on top of a bedrock of capitalism and the free market(Sweden, Denmark, etc. where the mass of employees and laborers are taxed higher than other countries and employers and businesses are taxed less than other countries, so as to sustain significant social support throughout the country while still incentivizing the free market, innovation, and the pursuit of productivity in general).
This obvious lesson of 19th to 20th century human history is not a convenient thing to admit or teach for the left who are eager to tear down the incentive structure of capitalism and punish those who've managed to become productive and valuable in it.
Don't get me wrong, capitalism has plenty of faults and unfairness in it. But it is still worlds better than the other systems that either outwardly strive for maximum exploitation of its people or purport to exist for the masses and yet have not been able to produce a single leader who managed to not kill millions of their own people. To tear down the free market and the incentive structure that allows the most number of people to live in better conditions so that the unfairness that still exists in capitalism can be routed is like demolishing a skyscraper in order to fix a few moldy walls.
Holy crap where did you go to school? I learned about all of this in junior high school.
@@Memnon45 You'd have learned about the Spanish conquistadors and their conquest over the Aztec Empire on a very surface level at best in junior high.
Virtually impossible that wherever you went to school tried to teach the level of detail and analysis shown in this video about the Spanish colonization attempts over the continent leading up to Cortez's victory and the factors differentiating the development of north and south America with regards to incentive structures in different economic societies to a bunch of 13 year-olds.
@@jackka82 this exactly.
I can see you based this whole video on the book by Daron Acemoglu. I am reading it now. This is very helpful to understand why and how the encommienda system impoverished South America.
I live in Latin América. Its poor because the people here arent obsessed with material wealth like westerners. Latinos love their families and they enjoy life. Americans are the poor ones. Poor in spirit. Broken families. Moving across the country to serve bosses that dont care about their workers.
There are other important factors to consider. One I would point out are the post independence civil wars, basically all ex-colonies in the Americas, with Canada being the huge exception had mercantilistic factions and industrialist factions, all civil wars that broke out in the continent mostly in the 19th century, but a few in the 18th and 20th, determined several cultural traits inside of those countries.
The United States in that regard, is the only country where the industrialists won, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Venezuela, Mexico and others where all won by the mercantilists.
Which led to a culture that is disgraceful for innovation, at the same time being unnecessarily close to external culture and economy. And medieval like business culture where the single most important value in corporative environment (up to this day in Brazil and Mexico at least) is not technical knowledge, or innovative thinking, is "obedience" (I kid you not, it isn't difficult to find this data).
yes it is interesting how such tiny tiny things in the past impact the entire culture and thus the very character and flavor of a nation hundreds of years into the future.
the reason these problems are reoccurring as well is because of the culture if it was just a dictator you could get them out and things are good but that is not what happens it is the people themselves who truly desire a dictator themselves. quite sad story. SA would be better off if there was no resources at all.
Wtf it has nothing to do with history. It's DNA if you like it or not. It will never change
Interesting I never thought of that, but you’re probably correct
@@mayainverse9429 That’s not a tiny tiny thing at all…
@@strtupj882 it is absolutely a tiny thing. a single person deciding the direction of a tiny town 500 years ago changing the entire face of the planet is pretty incredible. it is possible that electricity would still not exist if ithat tiny thing in the past did not happen.
This video purports to explain differences in economic wellbeing and poverty and then gives a historical revisionist account with little to no explanation of the financial mechanisms that have brought about current economic conditions.
Your videos are very good and such low subscribers I'm commenting and liking for the algorithm
Thank you! I appreciate that! :)
Something I’ve not seen, but seems quite interesting, would be a comparative graph of varies quantifiable factors indicative of standard of living (avg. household income, life expectancy, etc.) vs. natural resources as a percentage of GDP.
It would seem that the trend is towards the lower the percentage, the higher the standard of living.
Take the Nordic countries as an example. To my knowledge, Norway is the only one where extraction and sale of natural resources makes up more than a pittance of the national economy - but they enjoy the highest standard of living of any region on earth by no small margin.
Sweden has never had feudalism, and for the most part people have owned their own lands. Central power has thus never had the upper hand, politically. An implicit social contract developed during centuries, that central government / kings, were supposed to earnestly serve the people. Else they could easily evict kings. (In fact, all kings up untill 16th century were elected. Finland had the right to take part in the election, since it was simply the eastern part of the realm.
In fact one of the oldest Swedish laws preserved in writing, from 1281 states "The Swedes have the right to choose a king, and also depose." This also explains the exceptional trust in the government and it's institutions. Noticeable during the Covid pandemic, which was governed by the national health authorities holding a TV press conference every tuesday and thursday at 2pm, where "recomendations" were issued, which then everyone implemented. No formal regulations, no fines or such, which was completely misenterpreted abroad as "taking no measures". And childrens education and the economy has not suffered from the pandemic. This is basically the style all the old original viking countries are ruled. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Island.
It's pretty easy to argue that democracy has evolved here for 1500 years.
In Sweden, iron ore and timber were huge sources of national income during the 19th century. But it never truly undercut the bases of power in Sweden. The people have basically always been free. In a way it's always been slightly like a scarsely populated frontier land, like the USA.
In Norway, most of the income from the oil deposits discovered in the 1970's, are kept in reserves, as spending anything more than a fraction of it, would only create inflation. And the Norwegian people trust this to be a policy in their own intrest.
I live in Latin América. Its poor because the people here arent obsessed with material wealth like westerners. Latinos love their families and they enjoy life. Americans are the poor ones. Poor in spirit. Broken families. Moving across the country to serve bosses that dont care about their workers.
@@andersgrassman6583 Sweden was an absolute monarchy until the Instrument of Government in 1719, and the Rikdtag formed in the 15th century and it was a Diet, not a real democracy. Sweden absolutely was a feudal state across the middle ages, that Rikdtag was 4 estates: the nobility, clergy, burghurs, and peasants which is similar to the Holy Roman Empire, the kingdom of France, or the British house of lords. Nobles were of course landed aristocrats with inherited titles, clergy were high ranking officials with titles tied to churches who during the catholic days would have been chosen by the catholic church and during protestant times are under the indirect authority of the king, burghurs were mayors of some powerful cities and were sometimes elected, sometimes not, and the fourth estate were peasant farmers largely under the king and the nobles, all an extremely common arrangement in feudal countries. Democracy in Sweden didnt really form until after the modern Riksdag formed in 1866.
There were plenty of people in Sweden prior to democracy who didnt own land. Same story as other parts of Europe there were plenty of laborers, tenant farmers (similar to American share croppers), peasants that farmed the land of the nobility, and many who were employed farming lands owned by the crown. The Great Reduction of 1680 was a consolidation of the king taking fiefdom farmland from the nobles and incorporating that into crown lands controlled by the king. I'm not sure if Sweden is different but in most European countries land that wasnt actively owned and farmed by someone like the church or a lord typically was owned by the crown, which often meant large parts of the country in places where there wasnt a large population and large amounts of arable land, often including whole forests and mountain ranges, and even then the crown often either rented the use of that land out to farmers, hunters, woodsmen, trappers, etc.
I couldnt find _land_ ownership rates in Sweden but home ownership rates arent exceptionally high in Sweden today, 64.2% and it's declining from 66% in 2004 and 64.9% in 2021. It's only slightly above the UK at 63% and below other European countries like Ireland, the Netherlands, or Greece at 70%, 70.6%, and 73.3% and even below countries that have been experiencing sharp declines in home ownership rates like the US at 65.9% and Sweden is below the EU average of 69.9%. That's still higher than many parts of the world, but seems to stick closer to the average for many 1st world countries.
In the US in the past fewer people then you'd expect owned land. For much of American history much of the south the land was controlled by wealthy land barons, if I remember right some states like Mississippi the land ownership rates were in the single digits and even most white people land ownership was fairly rare until the 20th century. In the Northeast a majority of people lived in cities and most of them were renters. The midwest and west did have higher land ownership rates for awhile, mainly mid 19th to mid 20th century, but even then bigger farmers bought up the land of smaller farmers and the same happened with ranchers, and even in the prosperity of the 1950s more and more farmers were being squeezed out and forced to sell off land so the hayday of the family farm as relatively short, maybe a century. Today home/land ownership rates are dropping, especially as more and more people are leaving the midwest and great lakes regions where incomes are lower and they move to the coasts which are extremely expensivee.
I live in both nogales , born in Nogales Arizona but raised in Nogales Sonora I can see what you say , it is impactful how each side is so diferent
I learned quite a bit here. Awesome video!
Life expectancy in:
Costa Rica: 80.8 years
Chile: 80.7 years
Peru: 79,9 years
Colombia: 79.3 years
Panama: 79.3 years
United States: 78.5 years
Ecuador: 78.4 years
What where we talking about? ah, money, yes... that...
Because Americans have some of the most unhealthy diets and reject alot of natural diets unlike Latin Americans everyone knows this
Correction: the fist English settlement in America was Roanoke, and it failed. Jamestown was the 2nd settlement but the first successful one.
I've busited many Latin American countries. I can compare that their poverty is mostly poor planing and no significant "founding presidents" to implement better education free for everyone (and qualified teachers).
PS: I say founding presidents to make a general point (instead of the popular term founding fathers)
Greetings from Costa Rica 🇨🇷
I'm told that in Costa Rica, their first president was a school teacher, rather than some general or dictator.
bullshit
Brazil didn't have a founding president
I woulf say the main culprit is lack of citizens. Or the understanding of what being a citizen of a nation entails.
@@thelegendarybloxycola4727 hi. Founding presidents is a expression meaning "The president or the ruler legacy of many years ago" it meas "a country Heros without a fight". I'm sure that Brazil probably had great legacy from someone in the past.
I stumbled upon Casual Scholar this morning, and I really like it. Of the videos I've seen, one of the theses running through them is that nations that are prosperous today created democratic traditions centuries ago that spread power and wealth throughout their populations instead of letting it collect in the hands of a greedy elite. Capitalism and democracy do not automatically go hand in hand, but rather, you can't sow the seeds of responsible capitalism or thoughtful socialism without strong democratic traditions already in place, populations that are educated and active in the political process, and leaders who honor their constitutions. There's no partisanship in this series as far as I can see. Casual Scholar uses history to direct their videos, not partisanship, and as an American with a history degree and enough of a talent for critical thinking to understand what I see going on and why it's happening, it's a breath of fresh air. I'll watch the rest of the series and hope to enjoy it as much as what I've already seen.