From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Destruction of the U.S.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:07:03 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan22.091332.15199@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
>In article <C11xyo.Hss@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> 
>>   Why has South America remained poor and politically oppressive/unstable
>>   despite the fact that it achieved independence from Spain only decades
>>   after the US achieved independence from England, and despite a wealth
>>   of natural resources?   Mainly because of cultural differences.  
>
>	..hmm well yeah, But The US had a realy big adavantage of receiving
>the most fertile and prosperous frontier on the Northern Continent (but not as
>large as Canada's -- just better for exploitation)

  But what does this have to do with the Sourthern Continent?


>>   The world over, those nations that were former colonies of Spain/Portugal
>>   and internalized their values and religion (S/C America, Cuba, the
>>   Phillipines) have remained poor, unstable, dictatorial, and easily
>>   exploited by their neighbors.  
>
>	There may be  some dynamics other than culture here.  One could say,
>for example, that the Philipines have remained poor,etc. BECAUSE they were
>exploited by their "neighbors"  -- The US, Spain (when it was a colony), Japan
>(WWII) etc. etc.

  Sure but didn't their internal weaknesses help make this possible?
  Plenty of nations have had strong or wealthy neighbors but have 
  managed to prosper and maintain their sovereignty despite this.
  Siam (Thailand) was never, in modern history, colonized like
  Burma and Indochina were.   Switzerland maintained their sovereignty
  and national identitiy despite powerful, imperialistic neighbors all
  around them.  And of course Canada has been independent, prosperous
  and politically stable despite being right next door to the US!
  
  Of course US companies meddled shamelessly in Central and South 
  American internal affairs in this century and that late part of the
  last one.  But what made this possible was the internal political
  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.

 
>>   So my point is not that English culture is *better* than Iberian
>>   culture; only that I and most USA-ians and Canadians are better
>>   off under this culture than we would likely be under Iberian
>>   culture.   So I certainly don't favor any union with Mexico.
>
>	Well, we are for now...


  True.  What I'm interested in discovering is what the features are
  that made this possible and what will work in the future.  Clearly
  all cultures DO NOT emphasize the same characteristics and I find
  it almost impossible to believe that the "personalities" and 
  "coping mechanisms" that individuals and societies develop in 
  different cultural contexts are all equally suited to success
  in modern, postindustrial economies.  For example, not all 
  cultures place the same emphasis on education, but those that 
  do may enjoy more success.   Those cultures that emphasize more
  consensus-based decision-making may enjoy more political
  stability or may get better "buy-in" on a common course of
  action or policy (the risk here being common buy-in on a 
  wrong course of action).   I don't claim to know what the 
  "right" qualities a culture has to have to prosper are, but
  clearly there are cultural differences between societies and
  my thesis is that these differences play a role in determining
  success in various historical or economic contexts.


---peter



   


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc