I’m not fond of this argument. Witness this old debate:
- Tamerlane
Another reason: South America is divided by mountains and jungles. take Argentina: a wealthy, almost–1st world country. It is cut off from Peru and Chile by the towering Andes Mountains. To the north, it is blocked by the Gran Chaco Plains of Paraguay. So contact with other countries on the continent was very difficult. Brazil is a regional power, but it was a vassal of portugal, not Spain, and it remained amonarchy until 1885 or so. The industrial heartland of Brazil is Sao Paulo state-and it is remote from the rest of the country 9the dirt poor northeast and the Amazon jungle separate it from Columbia and Venezuela.
I also tjhink that the old philiosophy of mercantilism permeated the ex-Spanish colonies. this inhibited trade and economic growth.
However, look for Brazil to become a very wealthy country in this century-with the right government, they have every chance of doing well-the country has vast resources and a good labor force.
I actually think ** Bryan Ekers’** PJ O’Rourke quote hit it more on the head than anything else.
Look at it this way: Were lower and middle class English and other European settlers heading for the US and Canada in order to make a new life for themselves and their families? Yes. As a result, they put down permanent roots and worked on making it somewhere they’d want to live.
Did this happen in the Latin American colonies? Nope. Generally, the Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese used these colonies to enrich the mother country(mercantilist policies), and there wasn’t much in the way of lower/middle class Spaniards emigrating to Mexico or other American colonies in order to make better lives for themselves by being farmers.
As a result, the US and Canada ended up with a system and population geared toward individual success, while the former Spanish colonies never really got much past the same social systems put in place in the colonial days- look at the rich/poor income distribution in the former Spanish colonies for that.
Tamerlane addressed this in part, but another element needs to be pointed out. Setting Argentina, Brazil, and the two 'guays to one side for a moment, the majority of the other countries pursued an altitudinally-based climatic settlement standard. The lowlands, hot and humid, are the tierra caliente, exploited for natural resources and of course port facilties and sometimes for intensive agriculture but not the favored place to live. The highlands, the tierra fresca, are a cooler, pleasant year-round climate. Think Hawai’i transformed from subtropical island to tropical cordilleran plateau. The tierra fria, including the Altiplano and higher mountains, is again resource exploitation and marginal farming/ranching, due to its much lower temperature. (I don’t have a quick analogy, but Vancouver is not far off – cool-to-cold temperate climate year round is what is being suggested.)
Guys, This is my first shot at this message board, havng being a great follower of the conversations going…Something that I have noticed here is that majority (99% imo) of particpants are of north american roots. As a south asian living in a tiny island I thought of adding my two cents to this conversation.
I ve been ever wondering about how my country (sri lanka) became an under developed nation , whereas boasting 2500 years of rich heritage. Apart from the colonial influence, one thing that hampers the progress is the heat and humidity. In this searing heat 32 C of all year around and 85+ % humidity its impossible to get any productive workdone. For example all the road workers would sit ,eat and talk nonsense for hours to get out of it. On the other hand I ve seen in australia ppl working on 42 C heat but with 50-60% humidity.
Hence from my expereince I think this heat and humidity argument is pretty valid for south america’s plight. trust me…no body can do a productive work while sweat pouring through their backs. :mad:
While I admire the idea, it isn’t very true. America was fast becoming a great industrial power (quite possibly greater than Britain) by mid-century. During the Civil War, it easily armed and trained more soldiers than the English dreamed of keeping in uniform, and arguably could have out produced them in ships as well were it united. Of course, that’s not the end of the argument, since large numbers of Irish and Germans already lived in America at that time.
It was not until they end of the century that it flexed that might in any noticable way ont he world stage, instead preferring merely to keep the Europeans from theatening meddling on its side fo the Atlantic.
There’s a world of difference between 1812 and 1865, but not nearly so much between 1865 and 1895.
If this were true, I would be really curious to know why the Olmecs and then the Mayans were the first great civilizations in the Americas given that their location was one of the hottest and most humid locations in the Americas, and how Angkor Wat* was constructed in a mere 30 years when most medieval and Renaissance cathedrals of Europe took over 100 years each (or how the Kmher Empire* arose, at all, given its location). And while the humidity is lower, now, (although with more foliage, it would have been higher at the times of their construction), the temperatures in several of the cradles of civilization (Nile valley, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley) are far higher than those in more Northern climes. Heck, even “temperate” Rome was abandoned by everyone who could arrange it during the summers due to the heat and humidity.
In addition, Argentina and Chile are temperate rather than tropical and Venezuela, Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, and Peru all have substantial holdings high enough above sea level that they cannot be looked upon as sweltering hell-holes by any reasonable analysis.
- (I am aware that they are not in the Americas. They are, however, in a very hot, wet climate and should, by the “heat and huidity” hypothesis, never have been built, at all.)
Because the alien spacecraft were air conditioned.
You’re so close using the American South as an example, but for the wrong reason.
The key is to look at the ante bellum South. Most of the land was settled and owned by large plantation owners who made up the political and social elite. Their wealth and power came from agricultural production and they had no reason to make any changes to that. This was in contrast to the north, where industrialization took root.
Now imagine in a region like Mexico and Central America, where the entire country was already divided up into large plantations owned by the political and social elite. Like the elite of the American south, they had no reason to make any economic changes because they were getting the benefit of the system they had. Moreover, there was no “safety valve” of large swaths of unsettled land that was suitable for homesteading in most of these countries. Either the land was already developed, or it was jungle and required a lot of work to develop.
And we’re not even getting into the difficulties that malaria, yellow fever, etc. presented.
The point is not that a tropical climate makes productive activity impossible, but that a temperate climate provides better conditions for it.
After speaking with a number of Argentines, some of the things that I was told about the situation surrounding the independence of a number of Latin American nations could be seen as a type of ultimate causal factor for the economic divide.
Not only did a number of Latin American nations break away from Spain at the same time, they did it under a relatively unified leadership, with Bolivar and San Martin at the helm. The two refused to cooparate following independence, and the newly independent nations of Latin America were lacking in strong leadership. Wikipedia on San Martin
I think that this lack of leadership, in contrast to the US founding fathers, could certainly be a large part of the economic divide. With no political direction from the outset, Latin American nations have suffered through near-constant political turmoil, which has in turn led to economic problems throughout the nation.
At least, that’s my theory.
However, Latin America is at last moving toward some measure of economic and political unity, in the form of the South American Community of Nations (Communidad Sudamericana de Naciones), merging Mercosur and the Andean Community. A complete union modeled on the European Union could be achieved by 2019. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_Community_of_Nations
That’s assuming the Free Trade Area of the Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTAA) isn’t established first, preempting the CSN. The key difference being, the CSN does not include the United States; the FTAA would. See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=316971
And yet, in a majority of cases in the world, civilizations–particularly the sort of civilizations that required enormous expenditures of manual labor–arose specifically in hot and often humid locales and only migrated to more temperate regions after being established. This suggests that the heat and humidity are not the barriers that have been proposed.
Well, I’m inclined to agree with (what I think is your premise) that religious differences enter into it. I’m pretty sure that from Mexico south, the predominant religion is Catholicism. Which has historically preached that all flesh is vanity, poverty is a virtue, and that rewards await the virtuous in the afterlife. It’s also not a culture that has a strong tradition of encouraging education and the ability of the church to absolve one of sins isn’t conducive to a corruption-free society. (PLEASE note that I’m speaking very generally here, and I’m not trying to insult anyone’s religion or beliefs.) Not too mention that large families in a non-agrarian society are a good way to remain poor.
I can certainly see that a faith-based society that strongly believes in an afterlife AND the occasional interventions of saints isn't going to be as inclined to pull itself up by its bootstraps as much as a society that pretty much believes that this go-around is all you get.Well, it could be that lack of central heating is a larger initial bar to the establishment of civilization because everyone dies before getting around to it.
One thing I can attest to is that at least in the Yucatan Penninsula where the Mayans hung out, it’s not * consistently * hot and humid all year. The winter is pretty pleasant and provides ample opportunity for construction. So in the North, we spend our winters inside being bored and inventing things (at least until the advent of video games), while in the South, they spend the winters Getting Things done and spend the summers gasping in the heat, fanning themselves, and saying “Mercy me.”
Some good points mentioned…
-
I think the protestant ethics is a big factor. Catholicism also gets in the way.
-
Portuguese and Spanish bureaucratic and paternal government made for a overly stiff government and economic development.
-
The US was colonized… while South America was for exploitation.
-
Climate… tropical climates and the diseases they bring seem an important factor too.
A big factor though was the easier wealth to be obtained and exploited in South America… be it gold or agricultural wealth. Northern USA wasn’t exactly suited for that. So the US went for greater development and industrial growth. Brazil was wealthier than the US during many periods for example… but it was growthless prosperity fueled by sugar, rubber or gold booms.
I remember a comparison in which Brazil would have been quite similar to the Southern USA in terms of economics and developement. The south was getting rich on cotton and slaves while Brazil was getting rich on sugar and slaves for example. Without Texas and the Northern US one could easily envision southern and agricultural US states as being closer to South America in terms of development and wealth distribution.
I don’t know about the Olmecs, but the Mayans and Khmer did it with slaves.
I think each country will have a different history. There will be no one sweeping reason for “South America”. Although we can point out that there were huge continent-wide wars throughout the 1800’s that stunted growth, as did the fact that most gained their political and economic independence from Europe circa 50 years after the U.S. did.
Ultimately and sounding like a neo-con I know, I think Democracy has to be mentioned. The largest South American Country Brazil was ruled on and off by an Emperor until 1891. Economic and social development were stunted - they weren’t true capitalistic democratic societies as we now understand it the U.S. and much of Europe were at the time. “Feudal Society” WAY overstate the case. However it points us somewhat in the direction of what was going on there. Even when the worst of these vestiges were removed, the underlying structure stayed in place. Not only did this stifle economic development and investment , unless you could get in with a chosen few, it stunted immigration and the development that brought to the U.S. fueling a vicious cycle.
Revolutions and a powerful army, with no rooted tradition of political stability further stunted growth. Brazil was ruled by generals for much of the 20th century. Democracy and the political stability it brought which fueled investment, development and immigration is part of the reason say I.
Well Brazil also received a heavy load of european immigrants and that didn’t lead necessarily to a hodge podge of ideas and developement. We got a very interesting mixture of cultures and music naturally, but not much beyond that.
The “melting pot” notion of America isn’t that important as the system and incentives provided to those immigrants.
I say the arguments against Catholicism are bunk. It’s based on a very ridiculous stereotype started by self-serving Protestants.
-
In Europe, Catholic nations were hardly behind the Protestant ones in establishing commercial, scientific, and industrial revolutions. The major factors in Protestism’s favor was simply England, and that had to do with natural resources and native talent than religion.
-
Catholics had no trouble establishing themselves in other nations, such as the US, nor in seeking and creating wealth by developing firms and industry.
-
There are an awful lot of Protestant sects, and despite proganda to the contrary, more than a few of them gave little support to the pursuit of wealth.