Does the U.S. understand Latin America?
This is a very interesting article which argues that the U.S. is gradually losing influence with in Latin American affairs. The causes for this are multifactorial, but, according to the article , they have to do with the new priorities that the U.S. has since September 2001. I must add that there is a longstanding cultural difference that has not been understood because of the focus on dominating the region rather than integrating it.
Please read..
Please read..
posted by Doctor Marco at 23:31
3 Comments:
I read and reread this interesting article. After reading it for the 2nd time, I was drawn to the idea of the "politics of self-delusion" and the USA's involvement. I was thinking about the "stability" in the USA: Is this apparent stability an illusion? After all, the U.S.A. is part of global humanity, whose situation has changed more profoundly and rapidly since 1945 than ever before in recorded history. Wether it is realized or not, there is an apparent shifting stability, as evidenced by large and long-term changes that are taking place, perhaps fundamental ones. Nevertheless, they are concealed by the deliberate resistance to change of American public institutions and procedures.
Also, I was curious to see what you think about Bush's statement where he declared the US and Peru "partners in the fight against terrorism" (being that you are from Peru).
--Profesora Verga
Profesora Verga:
The topic you mentioned is of great interest for me. I will send you back to 410 C.E (ex A.D.). At that time, the regular Roman citizens in Rome were living their routine lives. Kids were going to school, housewives were buying food at the markets and cooking, the males were working in whatever job theey had. Life went on the same for the regular people. Nobody of the common people was thinking that their ways of living would change in the next 50 years. Rome was sacked and destroyed in 410 C.E., a catastrophic event for people of that time. Of course there were signs that that was going to happen (the Visigoths had sieged the city twice in 408 and 409), however the ordinary people was unaware, as they always are, and always hoped their leaders would solve the issues. Rome was again sacked and destroyed by the Vandals in 455 C.E. By 510 C.E. the great 2 million people capital of the world was reduced to a 20000 people village, living a very different life under their Ostrogothic kings.
With respect to Bush's statement, it is true that Peru is a partner in any war against any sort of terrorism. We have the experience of living under the threat of car bombs, under constant blackouts and curfews...we did not like that so we will be partner of any country who would like to avoid that from happening.
Dr Marco,
In today’s world, anticipation is increasingly the key to future survival and success. However, as you guided me back to the topic of the fall of the Roman empire, I was stricken with the notion that we are not the same as the Romans were, and it is unfair to base our up and coming society on such a basis. Were you comparing the US to ancient Rome? Our world has changed utterly, and much more than many of us are willing to acknowledge. There is no going back to ancient Rome. I see the future trend of the nation as this: Nation/states will continue to diminish in power, and they will continue to fragment. New global processes and regional alliances will continue to grow.
We need urgently to learn more, and study where cultural differences and how they have been managed successfully. Our ability and our willingness to educate ourselves, as a nation, on such topics--may mean the difference (in the next millenium) between the future of social harmony, or endemic social discontent, or an increasing number or civil wars.
--Profesora Verga
Post a Comment
<< Home