NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/conspira/14696

Text File | 1993-01-27 | 3.7 KB | 69 lines

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Path: sparky!uunet!sequent!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU!reed!batcomputer!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!wvhorn
From: [e-mail] (William VanHorne)
Subject: Re: Destruction of the U.S.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:34:13 GMT
Lines: 56

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nelson) writes:
[much deleted...]

>  and economic weaknesses of these nations.   Many South American
>  nations are rich in natural resources and have agreeable climates,
>  good ports, and the potential for good river transportation from
>  interior locations.  Chile, Brasil, and Argentina, Colombia, and
>  Venezuela, all had the potential to become wealthy nations.

The historical advantage that the North American countries have had over the
South American ones is indeed cultural.  Keep in mind that the Spanish
colonizers of South/Central America were mostly poor aristocrats who brought
with them the idea that physical labor was for lower-class people.  In the
old world, the Spanish nobility saw themselves as a warrior class who
were to defend the state and religion while underlings did the dirty work.
In the new world, the cultural icon they all strived to emulate were
the do-nothing ultra-rich living in the Vicroyalties in Lima and Mexico City.
North America was, on the other hand, populated by lower/middle class
folks, most of whom wanted the security of owning their own land above all
and who expected to work hard at maintaining it.  There were no Eldorados
or Pitosis to chase after in North America, and as a result the culture that
developed worshipped the image of the hard-working, independent yeoman
farmer.

On top of this, the Spanish crown was a firm believer in merchantilism, and
tried valiantly to monopolize *all* trade with their colonies.  This desire
for central control led to such absurdities as forcing Argentines to ship
their exports overland to Peru and then to Mexico before allowing shipment
to Spain.  Imports had to follow a similar convoluted path.  As a result,
the only people who were making a good living through trade were those who
flouted the law and shipped out of Buenos Aires, selling to British and
Dutch traders.  In other words, criminals.  North America, on the other hand,
had the great good fortune to be colonized by England; a country whose
government couldn't have cared less about controlling the lives of their
colonists, and a nation who worshipped the image of the free-wheeling sea
trader.

After a hundred years, or so, the two cultures had produced radically
differing views of the "right" way to live.  North Americans grew up wanting
to emulate their cultural icons of the "yankee trader" and the gentleman
farmer; both independent hard-working types.  South Americans grew up
wanting to emulate the kight-errant who fights for Christ (and gets rich while
doing it) and then retires to the do-nothing life of the fabulously wealthy.

This is, of course, a broad generalization.  For a really interesting study,
read the descriptions of the culture of the slave-owning US southern states
in DeTocqueville's "Democracy In America", and compare that culture to what
had developed in Latin America.

---Bill VanHorne

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And when the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy is
Warre; which provideth for every man, by Victory or Death" - Hobbes "Leviathan"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------