Why does Latin America suck? -

[Maurice Caine]

I mean, what happened guys? It wasn't that bad back in the day, was it?

 

[Beautiful Border]

...Does it? Most of Latin America is pretty underrated for the most part. The only places that really deserve their reputation for being shitholes are places like El Salvador and certain parts of Mexico. Argentina and Uruguay in particular are arguably nicer than America these days.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

New Spain could never have been established had not the natives actively assisted the conquistadors so it was known Latin America sucked even then.

 

[Maurice Caine]

...Does it? Most of Latin America is pretty underrated for the most part. The only places that really deserve their reputation for being shitholes are places like El Salvador and certain parts of Mexico. Argentina and Uruguay in particular are arguably nicer than America these days.

I dunno how's it doing up north but South America's doing pretty bad. Especially the Venezuela/Brazil/Argentina trio.

Brazil's president says country is 'broke' - France 24

Brazil's president says country is 'broke'

www.france24.com

This is the level of things right now...

 

[PozzedByCoronachan]

I'd argue we've always sucked, it's kinda what happens when you build a continent around topheavy industries like mining and logging that create fat profits for the upper class but suck for everyone else, the bane of easily accessible resources that lull countries into complacency and later decay. My own native Chile barely does anything beyond send copper and wood over to China these days.

America had the opposite problem (or blessing) where it had to actually build an economy that wasn't just reliant on easy to mine resources, and so the common people had to be actually productive in order to survive, also leading to a more even income distribution and with it, a greater cohesion between classes and a more inclusive political system.
It does help that there were barely any natives left when the country seriously got started whereas we still have native insurrections to this day down south.

 

[All Cops Are Based]

Because it's full of latin americans

 

[ShortBusDriver]

Socialism

 

[albert chan]

Considering that there are some places in Latin America that gave us some of the best looking Cuban/Mexican/Hispanic women we see today, I’d argue that population change and culture must have changed a lot.

 

[Mrs Paul]

I hate to be one of those people, but the US played a pretty big part. (Look up the United Fruit Company)

 

[Seventh Star]

Latin America sucks, but I'd rather be here than submerged in the insanity of America. Racial issues and mentally ill people are much worse than economic turmoil and a wave of inmigrants taking our resources. I can have peace of mind.

I'd argue we've always sucked, it's kinda what happens when you build a continent around topheavy industries like mining and logging that create fat profits for the upper class but suck for everyone else, the bane of easily accessible resources that lull countries into complacency and later decay. My own native Chile barely does anything beyond send copper and wood over to China these days.

America had the opposite problem (or blessing) where it had to actually build an economy that wasn't just reliant on easy to mine resources, and so the common people had to be actually productive in order to survive, also leading to a more even income distribution and with it, a greater cohesion between classes and a more inclusive political system.
It does help that there were barely any natives left when the country seriously got started whereas we still have native insurrections to this day down south.

Speak for yourself. In here the only issues we have with "natives" are from your own Mapuches.

 

[Tookie]

As opposed to what? I'd rather deal with the off-chance of getting robbed if I wander into a bad neighborhood than the nightmare that is Europe/the Anglosphere in CURRENT YEAR.

 

[Übertroon]

There's the obvious current problems of high poverty. High debt. Lack of longterm planning. Corrupt officials. etc.

But where this originates we will probably have to go back to the origin of the South American nations and their demographics. South America never had a history for democratic institutions. Once independence was declared they had a conga line of revolutions, coups, and rebellions. It would be difficult to create a stable order with longterm planning when every two years you risk being executed if you lost power.

There's also the racial hierarchy. While the west was obsessed with class, South America was the predecessor to the non homogeneity currently plaguing the US and parts of Europe. It was clear that all the rich people were white people of european ancestry, and they had on their hand a massive population of mixed race people, natives, and black africans imported for slave labor. The clear divide between the races created a racial hierarchy. It doesn't help that because of cultural and genetical factors the black and native groups had difficulty participating in social mobility.
You've got three outcomes then that keep repeating. Either you got a white dominated government who has to disenfranchise the non whites to maintain power, or they use populism to appeal to the non whites, this often results in socialist states that implode because of all the free shit the population becomes dependent on, or the non whites just elect one of their own, in which case it often just implodes eventually like you got with the populists.

 

[Gay_Frog]

Two cents, the major problem with all the america that isn't Canada,because I think it's almost a state of USA, and USA is that are in the same continent as the USA. Want do something? Make glow in the dark of USA happy and you can do it. Not going to? Seriously? So take years of undermine of your power. That's why commie ideology had a such spread because it was something to oppose the influence of "USA". And there's brain drain, and communist spread, etc.

I think the proof of this see opinion of presidents of countries around of the continent, the right ones accept trump almost immediately and took around 2 years for the left ones to see that Trump wasn't as intrusive as another administrations. See the Mexican president.

 

[FaramirG]

The Spanish colonial system essentially set up Latin America to fail once they broke free from the crown, it was very different from the English system in the US that was mostly hands-off for a huge chunk of the colonial era and essentially created 13 functional republics even before independence. The existence of caudillos and backwards-thinking regional elites was a death sentence for democracy. Practically every country had some asshole strongman popping up every now and then and trying to run the place like his personal fiefdom. The concentration of power in the hands of elites who were primarily invested in agriculture further fucked over any chance of serious modernization/industrialization, Argentina was essentially a first world country prior to WWI but their economy went to shit during the war because their entire economy revolved around exporting beef and wheat to Europe and pretty much all industrial infrastucture/investment was coming from Britain (so of course that dried up). The huge number of indios and the staggering autism of the Spanish racial classification system and the general concept of blanqueamiento/mejorar la raza fucked up any real chance of social cohesion, contributing to infighting and corruption. And then of course there's the US, which had and continues to have a vested interest in keeping Latin America a weak collection of banana republics (literally in the case of Guatemala).

TLDR: Spain, terrible leadership, USA