"When it comes to history and picking winners and losers, we should remember that we are not at the end of history, we're in the middle of it". What a really cool quote.
Marcus Lopez-pierre But his point is that winner and losers constantly change throughout history. Someday soon Canada will run the economy with its Northwest passages from the pacific to the Atlantic and it create colonies in Alaska and North Dakota and Greenland
No doubt. Seems like the mestizo hate the colonizers more than the full blood indigenous people in Latin America, they are 700 million strong in the Americas.
Am I the only one who has spent so much effort and time in trying to stop the video at exactly the right time to be able to read those little facts in the intros of the videos.
He barely touched upon USA neo-colonialism. And you really can't understand the history of Latin America without it. Latin America has, for a very long time, not permited to grow organically. It has almost always been pushed my the USA government. We have no idea what kind of societies they would have developed had this not been the case. Better ones, would be my geass.
@@CedricThePlaystation the US part of problem when they intervene in revolution or install puppet presidents. Then u have Americans bitching about migrants and how the migrants don't fix their countries.
The usa colonizers destabilize the world not just Latin America, if the right wing Europeans were driven out there might be peace on earth. I figure that's God's way of making USA indigenous again, usa cause them to flee but drive them to USA, evil always comes back 10 fold is what my grandmother always said.
@@phillipdaugherty1486 no region in the world is devoid of international influence and manipulation. However, when politicians go blaming the US for their problems on the region it is done so as to shift the blame away
Let's put one thing clearly here, this is not the history of Latin America, but a summary of the Charles Tilly theory. This tittle of the video don't help us. A narrative about all "Latin America" Countries together is like puts USA, Canadian and Greenland history's in just one paper, is a very hard work. If you, dear reader of this message, are searching for the history of Latin America, have in your mind that at the beginning of spanish colonization, they divided your Colonies in FOUR big administrative regions, CALLED VICE-REIGNS, and for that and other reasons, these regions made different historic narrative. So, between, the XVI and XVIII century we have the Vice-Reign of New Spain (Mexico and Central America), Vice-Reign of Granada (after Gran Colombia, that corresponds to present Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador) Vice-Reign Del Perú and the Vice-Reign of La Plata. Now you can begin a narrative thinking in this four divisions that will, after, made a lot of countries, and that births can be realized under the Charles Tilly theory, that is just one of the visions. In other side, Brazilian history is linked to Portugal's history, it was a totally different and crazy narrative, you can perceive it, when you realize that it is the only America's country (in north and south) that had a real monarchy (Mexican monarchy do not count much, was just four years). If you are trying to understand it, you will have to understand the history of Portugal too, and made a exercise of imagination: "Suppose the thirteen colonies received the British King George and all his court (that never puts his feets at a colonie, like others Europeans Kings), and they saying "Well, this new lands are amazing, so, forget all the things about tea, Great Britain is now just another part of our great empire and I will rule it all here, in Pennsylvania (U.S.A) ", a little crazy, no? ... But if you are searching for " Latin America" attempts to integration, you can finding cool thing's IF YOU SEARCH IN RU-vid FOR -> ( moska e kevin johansen la edad del cielo ) Or -> ( mercedes sosa chico volver a los 17 ).
John, this time you got one important thing wrong: Brazil is, basically, the exception to (almost) everything you mentioned: -Portugal actually tranfered it's government (and all institutions) to Brazil in 1808, when the portuguese royal family fled in the face of Napoleon. That means that the portuguese nation-state (one of the oldest) was tranfered directly to Brazil. -We did not have a significant war for independence when the Empire of Brazil separated from the United Kingdom of Brazil, Portugal and the Algarves (which had it's capital in Rio de Janeiro) in 1822. It was, mostly (with the exception of one battle), peaceful. -Taxation was not only huge, as it was burdensome to the economy during most fo our history. That was actually the reason for the greatest civil war in brazilian history, the Ragamuffin War (Guerra dos Farrapos) between 1835-1845. -We fought the bloodiest international war in the continent, the War of the Triple Alliance (in which Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay fought Paraguay) in the XIX century. Why is all this worth mentioning? Brazil is the largest nation, the biggest economy and the strongest military power in the region. Also, as a bonus fact, we did not have a republican system of government until 1889. The Empire of Brazil was a Constitutional Monarchy and had only one constitution during this whole time, making it a very stable national state... Until the proclamation of the Republic. So, dear John Green, you lost a big opportunity to use the "Brazil-tage" to show these exceptions.
Thank you for sharing those facts. And I'm sure John could have chosen to include them but ultimately, he couldn't. His video had to generalize just due to how he has to allocate time to keep churning these out. But I think two things: 1. The idea of a "Brazil-tage" is really really really awesome 2. I think that by making all these videos on various topics like Vikings and Latin America and Islam and everything else he's been doing recently is meant to generate interest and discussion. Because he could do crash courses on any one of these. And in a way he's trying to do them all.
Mas mesmo com essas exceções, eu acho que ainda existe uma grande falta de nacionalismo no Brasil, como um sentimento que unisse um manauára com um paulista, o que na minha perspectiva não existe. Pra adicionar à Guerra dos Farrapos, também acho que vale comentar as VÁRIAS rebeliões durante a colônia e o império contra o governo central, minando ainda mais a formação de um país unido.
Isidoro Eduardo Americano do Brasil it does not matter to them you still are a Latin American nation just look around your environment and you’ll find that you’re more similar to us Hispanic America than any European nation including Portugal. Look at your people is mixed like us, your institutions corrupt like our.
"... and all they ask in exchange is that the CIA be allowed to run your country, and also that multinational corporations be allowed to extract all your resources and keep the profits". I love these videos, but I never thought I would be so pleased with a short simplification of Latin America's history.
+XZDrake you do understand this has all to do with history, the roll of the U.S. government in Latin American political issues and also about the hegemony created and reproduced by people who deny the rest of the countries as part of this continent just by using the name "American" to represent just a fraction if this continent's population, right? This is not just about names, this is about what they represent.
That, I believe, is called pure, brilliant fanatism. There will be people eager to engage in your war of comments (a war, I must say, you made up yourself) but I am not one of them. I also know that there are people who are concerned in the facts that had been developed throughout history, but I see you are not one of them. Feel free to reply to this but I don't think I will be replying back. I hoped this to be a more rational discussion (that's the only reason I replied to you in the first place) but now I see that is asking too much.
+XZDrake You have right about the legally of the name, but that does'nt matters. From Canada to Chile is America in these days, ergo all the people that born in all that land is american. Now, you call yourselfs american because your countrie's name is United States of AMERICA (you picked up that name for been the first nation....) And you could have the right to call you in that way (is silly if you ask me), but we also have the right to call ourselves americans (we prefer our countrie's name) because the continent. If not, how do you call all the land from colombia to Chile and Panama to Mexico? Canada... where is it?
Hahahahaha Please, check the files related to the support of President Pierce to the filibusterism, especially the William Walker actions, if Filibusterism was baaaaad for you, why did you recognize the Walker's Nicargua? Why is there mail from the US to Europe telling France and England to not fight filibusterism side to side with central-americans? Why did the newspapers talk about walker like the redemption of Nicaragua, and said Juan Mora was a dictator?. 'muricans didn't stop filibusterism. In Costa Rica we killed the most succesful one after winning every battle against him. They even said we where fucking french soldiers cuz we were so badass and rambo-like. BTW, Brazil was prety much portugal and that's other kind of america (not anglo, and not hispanic, portugal was pretty much fucked up at the time), aaaaaand cuba was under the constant pressure of the US, and everything US touches turns into shit so.... Adressing racism nowadays, almost everyone in Latin America is just pluricultural completly. The only country where there's a little difference is Venezuela -cuz shit's happening there- Now, compare it to the hate against arabs and black people in the US and then we talking shit. AAAAAAnnnd you even got a way to basicly slave all the antillanos in the fruit company business. Limón Blues is a good read if you want to see how jerks were the 'muricans at the early XX century BTW, i'm not making up the documents I mentioned, they really exist and they're stored in Europe, US, South America and Cuba. You wanna track filibusterism correctly, look for those files. They even mention a divine right to conquer the whole contient and shit haha
This is an okay version of why Latin America is the way it is, but I think you're severely understating the role that colonialism and foreign intervention has had on Latin American history. Colonialism not only divided the population by class, but it also set up extractive economic institutions that continue to function into the present day. Latin America has spent centuries resisting foreign powers, and imperialism (especially corporate imperialism) remains one of the biggest problems that the region faces in the post-modern era.
As an American of Latin American descent (Uruguay) I'm so happy to be learning anything about that region. It is so often glossed over or completely skipped. It would be great if you could do a mini series about it.
I also feel it could be worth more episodes. Latin America is often treated as inconsequential to world history, precisely because it's hard to look at it through the lenses of international conflict (barring the independence wars, obviously), but It affects and is affected by international resource trade in a way more complex capacity than this video would lead to us believe. I blame Stan and his eurocentric belicose principles (Hi Stan!).
The first textbook I ever had for Latin American politics was called "the forgotten continent." So full of history and culture and for some reason nobody ever bothers talking about it!
I'm sorry for butting into this conversation, but if you want to read about Uruguayan society and history on a (semi) abridged manner, I'd really recommend the "el país de las cercanías" books. It kind of interlaces fiction with actual history, and is a great staring point if you wish to gain interest in the subject. Roy Berocay is a great writer, so I see no downside to reading them.
Alex Goyette The reason latin america is skipped in the western countries is probably because we are isolated from international conflicts. Mexico and Brazil could be the exception, mainly because Mexico is side by side with USA and Brazil because is huge (geographically and economically). Even the constitution of Mexico in particular, clearly says that the country will not engage in any war unless we are under direct attack. As a Mexican, I like that, but I do admit is an unfair policy towards our biggest allies (USA and Canada).
***** ok thanks for the explanation, im Australian so our electoral problems are slightly different. some aspects are the same but we have other problems due to the nature of how our government runs. house of reps majority picks the Prime Minister so no election to pick them and compulsory voting. its interesting to compare as far as social experiments go.
That is a really interesting opinion, and is partly true. But it is important to remember congressmen and women are still humans. They are elected by the people of a voting district, who picks out of potential candidates who will never fully follow anyone's ideas completely and instead align closely with what people think is important in a candidate. These people who are elected go to congress with their own ideas of right and wrong and try to vote in a way that reflects that as the people of the voting district tell them by voting them in yes I agree with you, even if it is not true, this is increases more because of participation rates . Also we use voting districts which only use a small sub-set of the population and therefore changes the ideas of what is popular. For example see how different Kentucky (where I live) and California. Also keep in mind that we use a majority vote system which makes votes strange (see CGP Grey for this) all of this makes the system we use weird and makes some people unhappy with government but all this is complicated.
Well me personally do not agree with compulsory voting while it does get everyone to vote it does not make them anymore knowledgeable on the subject. Also the system we us today may not be fantastic it is the one we have been using for a long time and for the most part we have been OK. I just like for the people who hate government to realize that they can change it if they want.
+Luke Freet Also worth mentioning that the Brazilian army got so strong from both the Paraguayan War and the Platine Wars in general that it managed to become a leading political force in the country, which eventually led to the republican coupe d'etat which ended the Brazilian Empire in 1889.
alexandre jose da costa neto I think he was talking about conflicts, not countries. Only 440,000 people died in the Paraguayan War whereas over 16,000,000 people died World War 1.
Gracias por decir que Estados Unidos no es America, excelente tu respuesta ✋ Thanks for saying that the United States is not America, excellent your answer ✋
he's saying the USA is not America, he is right and wrong. America is interchangeable with the United States in English, the dominant language of her and her closest allies Canada and the UK and the citizens are called "Americans" in most languages around the world. (seriously, try calling a Canadian an American and see how far that gets you). In Latin languages and many others, America is the name given to, what they consider, a single continent, so to them, they are all Americans. So the question actually depends on what language you speak.
Well, then the term is wrong, the "Americans" could find or popularize another word to refer to themself in their early history, but they chose to use that word instead. I find that very egocentric, as they think they are the only country worthy of call itself America.
Actually, I have to completely disagree with you. We are not just the United States. We are the United States of America. You do realize that Mexico is also "United States" (the United States of Mexico) and Australia is also the United States of Australia. However, we call them by the formal name, Australia and Mexico, not by the describer of United States. We should be no less. America is in the name of our country - therefore, we are Americans, not United Statesians.
Latin American countries never waged war over territory and weren't ever highly destructive? Buzz wrong. You seem to be forgetting the Paraguayan war and the Chaco war. In both cases Paraguay fought it's neighbors in a desire to annex territory. In the event of the war of the triple alliance Paraguay not only lost territory (And was almost completely swallowed up by Brazil and Argentina) but the country saw the death of over 50% of the male population! In some Paraguayan cities as high 90% of the male population were killed off. The Paraguayan war saw the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people! The Chaco war was also rather devastating seeing casualties in the hundreds of thousands and was largely waged over the desire for oil in what would become Alto Paraguay.
I too noticed that he glossed over that conflict and others but he was mainly focusing on the fact that Latin American Wars had less of an impact on unifying their nations than European wars did. A great example is the War of the Pacific, this war was a huge one for the region but in the end Chileans didn't feel more Chilean because of this conflict in fact the native Mapuche population still to this day hates the established hispanic dominated government and nation. Now let's look at the Franco Prussian War. Just like the War of the Pacific a big land take over occurred with Prussia getting Alsace from France just like Chile got Bolivia's coat line, the difference is that the Franco Prussian War united Germany together and made a global superpower overnight. Most of the wars the Prussians fought were aimed at showing the other German states that they were the alpha dog in the German speaking world and that those states should shack up with Prussia while at the same time France and Austria were fighting for influence over these states. Chile may have had more land at the end but it was no more homogenized. Hispanic Chileans and Mapuche Chileans didn't fight with each other while on the other hand Prussia led the charge in an alliance of that solidified bonds between the peoples of these states and established a shared idea of a German nation and a German people.
He actually didn't say they didn't have war ever. Just they've less of them, they tended to be shorter, and yes the might have been destructive to local population, Europe's wars tended to destroy the Continent.
I agree that he overlooked several episodes in Latin American history as it is almost impossible to cover everything in a short video (and that's all we seem to get anyway) but yeah, I am Chilean and while we won the Pacific war, those territories still belonged to us if we look at all the treaties made beforehand. I agree completely that we are still not a homogenised country because the Mapuche population doesn't feel part of the culture and Chilean nation (it's worth mentioning the double standard in Chilean people today as most consider themselves from Hispanic or European origin but in reality most of us are "mestizos" which means a mix between mapuches and Hispanic people). Another interesting topic to cover would be the dictatorships that ruled several countries of Latin America in the second part of the twentieth century and how they were basically put there by the US to try and stop communism/socialism from spreading.
Well, John was damn right, I can not watch this episode and not accusse it of Eurocentrism. The simple fact that he talked more about Europe than Latin America in an episode with Latin America in the title (and at the thought bubble) should be a good enough argument for it. But everything, EVERYTHING he said about Latin America was highly superficial and not once he used one case-and-point exemple of his arguments. He said wars in Latin America were small scale but fails to talk about the Paraguayan War (which, imho, should have an episode all to itself), how it fermented the nationalism in the countries who fought it and how it shaped the end of slavery in Brazil 20 years later. He briefly talked about military dictatorships without acknowledging the US' role in supporting these military coups and, in general in the last on hungred and something years, undermine its democratically elected governments. He let us think Latin America didn't have border disputes because the borders are sparsely populated and fails to talk about disputes for resources (access to Rio de la Plata, access to the Pacific Ocean -poor Bolivia... -, buying parts of the Amazonian forest to explore latex...) I might be biaised for being Latin-american, but I feel that someone who knows nothing about Latin America nationalism didn't get anything new from this episode. Just "let's see more about West European nationalism, but compared to a less successful exemple".
I completely agree with you! I'm paraguayan, and was kinda mad when he said there weren't any huge international wars. I would really like to see more episodes on South America, especially Paraguay. We would be bigger than the US if it weren't for the Guerra de la Triple Alianza. Preach it bro!
Another very specific border dispute right now in the IJC being the Costa Rican vs Nicaraguan dispute. I'm extremely not ok with this episode, because being Hispanic and specially being Costa Rican, I felt that he was unjust with our representation.
Dictatorships are on latinamericans account. Bottom line if it weren´t for the people that supported them, and supported the 'seguridad nacional' doctrine, there wouldn´t have been any authoritarian regime. Tottaly agreed on the paraguayan genocide. Regrets from Argentina (also I think Brazil and Argentina must pay Paraguay and give back Formosa and Selva Negra)
I agree with you. But I also have to say that you can't talk about the beginnings of Latin American history (as we know it today) without talking about Europe (unless, of course, talking about precolonial societies). Here in Latin America they teach you that history before you get to the whole colonization and independence process.
Central America is taught as it's own continent is most schools in Latin America and plenty of schools in the US. It's all based on perspective, really.
If you're American, you're gonna like this: America is actually a supercontinent, since it's a landmass that encompasses several continents, just like Afro-Eurasia. Both North and South America are big enough landmasses to be continents in their own right since the definition allows for continents to be connected to one another via a relatively small (sorry, Panamá, you know it's true) strait. I've never really understood why Central America would be its own continent geologically. I know that culturally it's quite different from the rest of North America, but that's what linguistic and cultural terms like 'Latin America' and 'Hispanic/Spanish America' are for.
The "War of the Triple Alliance" (or Paraguayan War) in 1864-1870 was an extremely violent and deadly war in South America! Paraguay's male population was chopped down by about 60-90%! so yes Latin American countries do fight violent wars.
Re: military strongmen leaders, half of the time when Latin Americans have democratically elected a national political leader, we've killed them and replaced them with a US-friendly strongman! I highly recommend the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" for anyone interested in the topic of this video.
Latin America is probably the place filled with the most naming issues First the Carribean is called the West Indies, and the continent is called Latin America even though people don't speak Latin not to mention Brazilians aren't actual Hispanics (unless you consider Portugal to be part of Hispania)
There are good reasons for everything you said. If you actually took time to be informed you wouldn't have made such an ignorant comment. bromo helped you with one issue at least, try to figure out the rest on your own.
***** No. Only french Canada. English is a germanic language, not latin. Just because it has some words derived from latin it doesn't make the whole language descendant from latin...
For me, War of the Pacific is a wrong name. I prefer called it the War of the Guano and the Saltpeter, because those were the main reason for that struggle.
@@cseijifja Because Peru and Chile fought more on the ground than on the ocean. For that reason is a wrong name. For me, the Pacific War was the theatre of World War II that was fought in the Pacific and Asia.
I disagree with the colonialism point John, there are many countries in Europe that do not have a colonial past and have still remained stable democracies without the income from colonies. Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark are three that spring to mind. The point about these South American countries starting off as an impoverished former colony also falls down when you look at Finland which was part of the Russian Empire for many years. Finland successfully broke away from Russia in 1917 during the Russian Revolution, it then fought a short but damaging civil war and has fought several destructive wars with Russia to remain independent but from 1919 to the present day it has been a stable democracy. I would say it has more to do with the racial divide in these countries that you mentioned, it's easier to hide the fact you were born into humble beginning than it is to hide your racial background. Several African countries have also seen similar political instability based around racial and tribal divides in the last century right up to the present day. I would also say it may also be cultural as neither of the former colonial powers of Spain and Portugal have been particularly politically stable during the last century.
Samuel Smith Being agree with you in almost everything, I would say that blaming racial differences for Latin America underdevelopment is too simplistic. Take Argentina and Uruguay, for example. They have less racial problems than the US and still are underdeveloped in many ways. I am not denying that racism plays an important role in countries as Brazil or Colombia, but I wouldn't say it is the biggest cause of these countries problems. On the other hand, instability seems to be a much better candidate. Still, if you look at the past 200 years, Chile and Uruguay have had more stable governments than Italy, France or Germany.
To be fair to Italy and Germany, neither country is even 200 years old. Germany was a loose group of principalities that elected an Emperor to rule over them but had no single currency and various small governments or princely courts running each state. Large parts of Italy (the more successful northern half of the country) was under the control of the Austrians for many years before the wars of Unification where the King of Sardinia became King of Italy deposing the King of Naples and the Pope (who laid claim to all of Rome, the situation we have today was brokered by Mussolini in 1930s but up until that point the Vatican City had just been part of Rome and not another nation state). The wars and politics of unification in Europe during the 1800s are fascinating and ripples of which are still being felt today.
Samuel Smith Ok, you are right on that. Still, the point is that chileans and uruguayans had well organized governments before many european countries. Being myself a chilean, the problem puzzles me. For most of our independent life, we have had a stable republican government, with the only exception of the 1970-1990 period. In fact, our transition to democracy from dictatorship was exemplary and admired throughout the world. In comparison to other nations, we don't have civil wars, mafias or big corruption problems. So, although we are in general in better conditions than our neighbors, we are still an underdeveloped country. Why? I would say that our authoritarian political tradition is to be blamed, even under the rule of law and a relatively stable history. Chilean citizens are still unorganized and powerless against the political and economical authorities. On the other hand, the political elite, used to exercise power in an authoritarian and paternalistic way, does not know how to handle a population that is raising new demands. It is a cultural problem, more subtle than the formation of a national state. Many countries in Latin America are improving their institutions and if you look at our history, you will see that changes are producing benefits in the region. Even though, the chilean case proves that stability is not everything. and shows the problems that will have to be faced in other latin countries in the future.
jacac I sadly don't know enough about Chile or Uruguay to give you a strong answer. It sounds like Chile has lacked a strong union movement in it's past, from what you've said, which I think can help to improve workers rights and act as check on the excesses of the political elites. I think the outside influences from the USA and Chile's aggressive neighbour *cough* Argentina *cough* may have also held Chile back. My own home country, the UK, have also had an influence on Chile commercially by exploiting Chile's mineral wealth and taking profits made in Chile out of the country for UK investors.
If we have taken military dictatorships , is because the US has funded all . Jhon Green, you should talk about US relations with Latin AMERICA, and the damage they have done to us. ¿ America para los americanos? Or ¿Americas for Americans ? It the same?
Si hemos tomado las dictaduras militares , se debe a que los EE.UU. han financiado todos. Jhon Green, usted debe hablar de relaciones de Estados Unidos con América Latina, y el daño que nos han hecho . ¿ América párr los americanos ? ¿ América para los americanos ? será lo mismo
John Green did mention (in passing) that the CIA has funded or encouraged dictatorships in Latin America. Give him some credit, he talks about it a lot more complexly than most of us here in the United States. If you wanted to watch an episode about United States and dictatorships, I would suggest watching the Crash Course US History episodes on Imperialism, the Cold War in Asia, the Economic Malaise, and the Reagan Revolution.
9 лет назад
Estás generalizando de manera tremenda. EE.UU. ha colaborado en algunas dictaduras durante la Guerra Fría. Pero la tradición de dictaduras en latinoamerica comenzó dos segundos después que los españoles y portugueses subieron a los navios. Y eso está sumamente comprobado y archivado. Hoy, sin cualquier intervención, tenemos gobiernos populistas/semi-dictatoriales en Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina y Brasil. Culpar al colonialismo y al imperialismo es fácil. Difícil es superarse como lo hicieron países totalmente pobres en el Siglo XX como Japón, Corea del Sul y Singapur.
Rilson Joás No, estados unidos ha creado dictaduras desde antes de la guerra fria (guerra ajena a eeuu), por ejemplo panama es (muy claro este ejemplo), mismo cuba, Y estados unidos ya habia hecho muchas intervenciones . No todas las dictaduras fueron hechas por EEUU, muchas fueron hechas por los ingleses (Almirante montt en chile). Unas pocas veces eeuu ha ayudado en la consolidación de los estados , creando comisiones para la modernizacion de estos. Pero , en su mayoria las intervenciones politicas de eeuu, han sido negativas.
Ya Spanish and Portuguese which are the two dominant languages are Romance languages which means they are based on Latin more than the beautiful bastard mongrel language that is English.
The English Language is the language of Commerce and Technology. It is a bastard language without doubt. but it is that mixture that has made it a language of innovation.
***** the Anglo-Saxons were Germanic. so the language would be Germanic blended with Celtic and Latin. then the Norse then the French. the term English is derived from the first half of the mentioned tribal fusion the Angles (or however the proper spelling is)
***** I just finished a book on how English got so bastardized. It's kind of ironic how English today came to be through a series of inavsions(Germanic tribes injecting German like sounds), Romans(Latin), Normans(French), and so on. Flash forward a couple hundred years and the British come out of nowhere with a superior Navy and military and pretty much conquer the world. To say English is better than Spanish or vice-versa is strictly opinionated however English is the most wide spread language in the world and has the most diverse speakers. Most good entertainment is in English, English speaking entertainers do global tours where as other languages are tied to their region, over 60% of the worlds Scientific journals are published in English, and London publishes more books than any other city. There is more knowledge available in English than in any other language. It was even spoken on the moon! English, for the most part, is a necessity if you want to succeed in life. If you're bi-lingual and one of those languages isn't English, you're fucking up. I grew up learning English so there is zero drive to learn another language although I am pretty decent at Japanese.
TheMightyByron Of course it is opinionated, I was just ruffling Volt Chan for the lulz :D Certainly, English has become humanity's lingua franca. It's not only useful to talk to Brits or Americans; if you have to speak to _anyone_ who doesn't speak your native language, your best bet is English. It's how I have German friends, Swedish, whatever. Hell, I use English to chat with my Brazillian mates, it's more convenient for both - and that with Portuguese being so close to Spanish. So yes, I completely agree, English is not optional this day and age. And I'm fine with it really. As I said, I quite like it. It's flexible and concise, I even like the way it sounds. But even if I didn't, hey, at least we have a common tongue, that alone is invaluable. If we were to talk relative advantages of Spanish vs English... oh I dunno. As one fluent in both, I think Spanish is better structured, like, with fewer and clearer rules. And phonetic writing is a big one, English is a bloody nightmare there haha. So yeah, I suppose Spanish could be better suited as a common tongue to convey meaning without ambiguity. Then again, Spanish does have some weird rules, say the way we assign gender to everything... so eh, who knows. And who cares, really - reality is what it is, so these points are moot, of course, purely academic.
He liberated like half of southern Latin America, you really can't talk about Latin American history without mentioning Simon Bolivar at least once. So yeah, they should make more videos about him.
but it was destructive only to paraguay (poor paraguay). one country in a group of, what, 30? he said something about generalization at the start of the video
+HoneyBadger Man, the Paraguayan War only brought nationalism to Paraguay, but what's the point if it was destroyed after the war. Brazil and Argentina pushed its population to fight in Paraguay almost the way that Stalin was to motivate his soldiers. This war only brought suffering to the Brazilian people, not nationalism.
***** You are either Brazilian or just plain stupid.You have to read history,if one country faced total destruction,it was Paraguay. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War_casualties
HoneyBadger Be quiet, I know very well how Paraguay was detonated. Half of the Paraguayan territory turned scorched earth, but I was saying that this was not a war between the people of Paraguay and the Brazilian people, but the Paraguayan people (at the beginning) against the Brazilian government. Dom Pedro II did much kidding with the Brazilian army.
you shouldn't generalize so much Latin America. the southern part of the continent (Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay) is arguably much more developed than the rest of the countries, and their capital cities today can stand up to any modern city in western Europe or the USA
+Kappa123 I severely disagree, granted, my Country Venezuela haven't gotten a good government in the last 17 years, but Venezuela was the main power between 1948 to 1999 and a bit more time after that and we were very well developed and it isn't like Argentina is in a better state right now (Macri still haven't worked for enough time to recover it).
Lucciano Bartolini Yeah Venezuela did good until they got fully involved with left wing governments and Chavez. Kind of the same reason why Argentina went to shit and basically screwed up their chance to become a rival to Brazil.
An episode about Operation Condor couldn't be about just that one operation or even about just the CIA. It would have to be about the notable covert actions of all states, from the CIA to MI6 to the KGB and as far back in time as is relevant.
***** What are you talking about? Operación Condor a program between the CIA and the Southern Cone dictatorships (Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay). What do Cuba or Sinaloa have to do with it?
***** Is true that wasnt big, but important political figures like president Dilma Rousseff of Brasil, ex presidente Pepe Mujica from Uruguay, president Daniel Ortega from Nicaragua, president Salvador Sánchez from El Salvador, vice president Álvaro García of Bolivia (as you see, a lot!) and a hundreds of mayors, and legislative representatives we guerrilleros and suffer torture and jail. Now just imagine how much of them will be important politicians now and how the CIA participation in Latin America damage the democratic change of a entire continent.
I would love if you could do a chapter dedicated to Mexico on his own. Also to other Latin American contries, we have a super interesting story and the one from each contry is inmenselly different. I love your work, greetings from Mexico :)
You guys upload Crash Course World History at the most random times. Oh yeah you forgot to write History in your title btw. Edit: Nevermind, they fixed it.
I actually showed my PreAP World History teacher this channel, who showed it to a good portion of my school's teachers. So I guess it's also the students, not just the teachers that gets this viewed in school. Really love the series and the channel and how you're really expanding into so many other subjects! More to learn!
I'm from Mexico, and It's interesting to see our history from external perspective; but still I feel uncomfortable thinking in the war like a positive thing, I want to believe that it's possible to build a strong nation without relying too much in wars (maybe Canada it's an example of that, but I don't know, I feel ignorant of many aspect of history :( ) EDIT: For the ones that told me that Canada is not a good example, I get it, and thanks for telling me better examples.
uhmmm, take post war Japan as example maybe...but again, their economy was largely boosted by U.S. to prevent it from falling into soviet influence, and they were also defended by U.S. army against any threat so they could concentrate in developing other areas.
Canada honestly isnt a great example of such. Canada's economy was bolstered because of their rich neighbour to the south. A better example is Australia or New Zealand.
Canada has taken part in many wars, due to their Commonwealth and NATO status. They weren't quite "national", in the sense that Canada usually went to war overseas to fight among their allies, (UK and the US mainly). Those wars did eventually transform Canada into an economic power. Also, high distribution of wealth, a fairly strong public and private sector, and state interventionism, played a significant role in said growth. You can guess that english is not my native language.
I think that the development of many nations in our modern world proves that wars are not necessary for development at this point. Also Canada benefited from trade with the US and being part of the British empire, both of which fought in many wars.
You can build a strong nation state without war.It's just very hard to do so,war bolsters the economy of nations as we have seen in history.But with the massive globalization of the world in the late 20th and early 21st centuries,that's not the case anymore.
Hi John! I really liked how you weren't simply repeating names and dates like old fashioned history books, but putting things in perspective and helping us understand the big picture. These crash courses are awesome! thank you so much for sharing good information for free.
There is a lot of variance among Latin American countries and even within them too. Argentina, Uruguay and Southern Brazil received mass amounts of immigrants from Europe from the end of the 19th century all the way to the 1950s which diversified their populaces and created huge white middle classes. The same happened in Venezuela, although that was destabilized starting with Chavez. Peru and Brazil have sizeable East Asian middle classes. Uruguay has a very high standard of living and I've heard that people call Santiago the Ney York City of Chile. Colombia is beginning to grow out of a mal-history and race relations have improved greatly in Brazil in the last 2 decades. Latin America is very diverse and continues to diversify and grow in different ways, but the trend is upwards and we can all hope for the best for these beautiful nations.
+Ignacio Ureta well is more like a "mal entendido" Americans is a correct term for US people but that does not mean we are special or something like that
America is: North America and South America! North American are: Canadians United Statesmen, not American Latin America should me called Spanish or Ibero-America, which includes: Mexico, all of Central America, all of South America.
Taxes are extracted by force. If you don't pay them, men with guns come and haul you away. How do you justify using force on peaceful people? And don't give me that social contract stuff. A contract must be refuseable in order to be valid. You also have to be able to read it somewhere, and the laws are too numerous to be read by anyone. All of the functions of government could be provided and achieved consensually and voluntarily instead.
K. Im pretty happy with my ideologies for the moment. Im not really down to have this argument. Hopefully one of my socialist brethren will step up and argue for me.
A taxes are important for a running government B you don't have to pay taxes but you lose a lot of rights taxes grant and C I don't tend to reply to comments so sorry.
freesk8 Hm... I'd say the contract is refusable, but you cannot refuse to pay for what benefits you are currently receiving. At a very basic level, living in a state means you have a force protecting that land; even if you live on private property with a private road and private utilities and private security, there is still a military protecting a border somewhere for you. To refuse the contract, therefore, one must leave the state, and thus depart from all services of the state.
freesk8 You can refuse the contract. The consequence of this is to be imprisoned or to leave the country. "You also have to be able to read it somewhere, and the laws are too numerous to be read by anyone." This doesn't mean they can't be read. It simply means you have decided that they cannot be read, which is false.
A) If Green talks about the negative impact Europe had on the world more than the positive it is because the positive impact is obvious and thus less deserving of air time. B) Eurocentrism doesn't mean pro-Europe. Saying everything bad in the world is due to Europe is eurocentric. C) Eurocentrism has colored most historical perspectives for the last several centuries and thus extra effort must be made to avoid that bias.
Nolan Thiessen The reason why Europe "colored most historical perspectives for the last several centuries" Because Europe shaped the world that we live in. Most of the world can be traced back to European influences. There aren't many places in the world that Europe didn't partially influence or completely influence.
Evirthewarrior First off, you linked to the wrong person. :P Anyway, what I meant by the Eurocentric coloring of history is not that Europe simply had a disproportionate influence on the world but the fact that for most of the last several hundred years most of the people writing history have done little other than either talk about Europe or talk about other regions by comparing them to Europe, as was done in this video and hence why Green had to mention Eurocentrism. Even if one is audacious enough to claim that the discussion of Europe and how other regions compare with Europe is the most important lens through which to view history, we still would have to put extra effort into avoiding eurocentrism simply because most notable past perspectives are blatantly eurocentric to a fault.
It's so interesting to hear foreigners talk about Latin America; those things that we take for granted are strange to others. Like, of course most of our wars are internal our rulers are greedy self-centered jerks who descend from the Conquerors; of course there's more racial division within the countries, white people have all the power (and are probably related), black people are black and indigenous are maybe human (maybe), and everybody else's importance depends entirely on the shade of their skin; of course, we're sister states, we were all colonized by Spain and exploited by the rest of Europe and the USA; of course all the people of the same race across the continent are united against their own white governments, they're all been exploited the same way, plus all government suck (except the ones ousted by the CIA). This is how the world works! Is it not?
MakiPcr what an Illuminati holder of the absolute true and knowledge you are!!! Thank you for share your wisdom with the Mortals! We take your wise words for granted and no evidences or documents will be requested...as manifestations of frustración and jealousy for not archiving what others have done does applies only to low human beings. :-/
The dictatorship rule is part of the mentality of people here, right now in Brazil we have a lot of political problems (as most of the world, in what seem to be an international crisis to me) and a part of the population believe going back to a dictatorship would make everything better. Dictatorship signs weakness of government, a government that is corrupt and incompetent can be overthrown more easily, but also the people's weakness in trusting their own capacity for democracy. Also there’s a huge gap between rich and poor, and the rich and middle class fear criminals to such degree that some are whiling to give up freedom and allow things like torture and mass murder just to feel safer from criminals. Another thing worth mentioning is the effect of the Cold War on us. The communist witch hunt the USA created in the 20th century gave the far-right the perfect excuse to take command by force to allegedly protect the nation from communists. And the US financed many of those, in fear that communism would really spread in Latin America after Cuba’s revolution. The modern dictatorship supporters still have this cold war mentality.
Trump supporter here A. look at the majority of channels, a.k.a. the small ones for evidence, B. You're making the same assumptions that most "progressives" hate, and C. He watched the video, as did I, we actually care.
A - what's your point? Obviously if I'm saying this video lacks enough views, I'm comparing it to other CC World History videos. What are you comparing it to? Makeup tutorials? B - I'm making an assumption based on an extremely large experience of evidence. C - I'm not saying Trump supporters were the ones who didn't watch this video. I said 'West'. Trump supporter argument was on the grounds of 'baseless claims followed by insulting dismissiveness'. Without reading actually what's going on, you went on to refute a claim I didn't make.
A. You didn't clarify it was CC, tone cannot be convey through typing, and even if it could, I have NVLD (look it up) so I wouldn't have detected it anyway, and my point is that being a Trump supporter does not = SATAN. B. Seeing as this is the internet, your experience would be Trump is evil, by the way, isn't a characteristic of Trump supporters to make assumptions. C. You associated Trump with quite a few bad things so it's safe to make ,"an assumption based on an extremely large experience of evidence," that you think he's what's so bad about the west, oh and this entire thing minus this is: Annie3 months agoHighlighted comment The number of views on this video reflects the general neglect of the west towards Latin America Reply 22 Hide replies Crus las Crus las3 weeks ago (edited) 850,000 views? for a youtube video? thats gigantic. Quit your bitching. Reply Annie Annie3 weeks ago Going by your completely baseless claims, followed by insulting dismissiveness, I take it you're a Trump supporter, then? Reply 1 The Doctor Of Who The Doctor Of Who3 days ago Trump supporter here A. look at the majority of channels, a.k.a. the small ones for evidence, B. You're making the same assumptions that most "progressives" hate, and C. He watched the video, as did I, we actually care. Reply Annie Annie1 day ago A - what's your point? Obviously if I'm saying this video lacks enough views, I'm comparing it to other CC World History videos. What are you comparing it to? Makeup tutorials? B - I'm making an assumption based on an extremely large experience of evidence. C - I'm not saying Trump supporters were the ones who didn't watch this video. I said 'West'. Trump supporter argument was on the grounds of 'baseless claims followed by insulting dismissiveness'. Without reading actually what's going on, you went on to refute a claim I didn't make.
Isn't Brazil kind of an exception to a lot of things mentioned? Like, after Brazil's independence, the power was still held by a white elite, not by creoles, right? I get the feeling the history of this country that makes up about 40% of Latin America was generally ignored in this video. Plus, I wanted to see the Brazil-tage again.
For instance, is the fact that Brazil is arguably the most successful country of Latin America (both in terms of economy and social-political unity) in any way related to the manner the Portuguese colonized it differently from the Spanish? That's a topic I would very much liked to see discussed in a Crash Course History video.
Nuno R Brazil is not the most successful Latin American state. It’s just big and rich in resources. The most successful is probably Chile or Costa Rica
Thank you, John, for this amazing episode! You don't know how important it is for a Latin-American to have their continent's history taught with such respect and care. I am truly thankful! And special thanks for "THIS is America". It made my day!
Shifting of economy and growth. Those who work towards growth will go upwards. Eventually every developed country must suffer the deterioration of infrastructure
The problem is that Europe historically relied on foreign nations (its colonies early on, more recently places like China and India) to fuel its wealthy lifestyles. These countries (Latin America, India, China) are only experiencing massive *growth* - they don't yet have the ability to produce wealthy western-like lifestyles for the majority of the population because there's no good nation where they can exploit heavy labour for manufacturing.
***** Growth is easy when your country can produce massive amounts of nearly-free labour. Once Latin America and China's middle classes are too large, they too will experience a turn towards a service economy. People who feel they're middle class don't want to feel like they're working class, and therefore don't want to do jobs that are 'beneath' them like manufacturing, sewer work, construction, etc.
***** "I expect to see Michio Kaku's "Perfect Capitalism" in my lifetime..." Could you explain this a bit more? I've never heard of this before. Honestly, I think ever once a majority of the world has reached the modern western world's version of middle class, we will still have class warfare, in a sense. Assuming capitalism remains the world's economic system. While we now may have better lives than kings did centuries ago, as the middle class advances, so too do all the other classes.
200 hundred years after independence of spain, México is about to grow bigger and stronger than spain, but also with twice the size and population, what would be 200 years in future?
Juan Paz Mexico is a failed state where drug lords control entire towns, including the police. You seriously believe Mexico can ever compared to Spain. Be more humble.
Latin America never started a war that spread to the rest of the world, they never created isms (colonialism, communism, fascism, Islamic extremism) that harmed nations abroad, and they are generally benign to the rest of the world, if not themselves. These are reasons enough to be thankful for a quiet corner of the world.
That's actually a good point, that most of Latin America has this sense of a super-national identity. For example almost all Latin American states features Simon Bolivar as a national father. Perhaps one can (occasionally) apply a lense that all of Latin America is a super-nation (though not a super-state like, say, the EU) with highly highly highly autonomous sub-national divisions?
If John Green ever decides to cover a Latin American nation the same way they did "US History" I want them to cover Venezuela first. Ok, I'm bias because I'm Venezuelan, but it was the first Nation that got it's independence in April 10th of 1810 and the first coup attempt from Independence (Gual and Epaña) in 1797 and it has done some very cool things. The other nation that I would accept to be covered first would be Argentina for having a similar background.
+Lucciano Bartolini Actually, that wold be Haiti (although depending on who you talk to they might not consider it Latin America). But yeah, Venezuelan history is awesome and it would be great to have someone cover it in videos like these
That's why I said it depends who you are talking to. The Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Cuba and Haiti can be considered Latin American nations (even when they are in the Caribbean Sea).
***** Considering that Cuba, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico tried to be a part of the Great Colombia once, I suppose they could be considered, but I would like to research more on the subject.
It just depends on the language you speak. English speaking countries make clear distinction between the Caribbean and the Americas, latin-based languages don't do this, since they considered the whole area part of a continent called America. This is also why English speaking countries tend to consider America as the US, whether the rest of the region calls America the entire land mass: North and South, from Greenland to the Patagonia (and yes they do include the Caribbean). If you find that I am mistaken through your research please correct me though, since we are all here to learn something new.
I feel like you don't give Latin America enough justice. While they may have started the 1800s with bad wars of independence, by 1900 some of them were emerging powers, like Brazil and Argentina
I agree, there is so much more that can be said about Latin America. For instance, the Aztec, Maya, and Inca are all deserving of their own episodes, and surely the Guarani and Yaghan people are at least worth mentioning. Then you have the conquests of those nations by the Spanish, which, although the stories are horribly tragic, are still very interesting and episode worthy. And although Simon Bolivar was mentioned in a different World History episode, we would do well with a more thorough explaination of his exploits and other independence movements. Then you have 20th century history, with Pinochet, the Perons, Che Guavara, and other such figures and events. And still at least mention that Chile, Peru, and Bolivia all fought a big war for control of the precious rescorce of bird poop on the Islas Ballestas. I do hope they make a few more episodes covering at least some of that.
Ewetube Username As Simon Bolivar was mentioned, he should've mentioned Santander in Colombia, San Martín in Argentina, Artigas in Uruguay, Santa Cruz in Bolivia, O'Higgins in Chile and de Sucre in Venezuela too and that's only the 19th century ones.
Just wanted to say that Thought Cafe's Thought Bubbles have been wonderfully animated (as in animated wonderfully) these last few World Histories. Great job!
I can't tell how much these videos help me in my college assignments. John Green, you've done a great job in explaining vast concepts in ten to fifteen minute interactive videos. Although I need to watch the video twice or thrice to understand a theory, the videos have just the right amount of information I need to know about a certain topic. CrashCourse is the best.
as a History student, but specially as a latinamerican, this video is so wrong ._. the entire argument of a nation-state product of foreign threats, or simply a militarist state is almost entirely an eurocentric conception -not even mentioning its a misconception-. and the idea theres no such an strong nation-state in latinamerica its not even product of that, its product of the complex processes that followed the crisis of the metropoli in the new world...
Jajjajaja. Es que Green tiene las mejores intenciones, pero su limitante es la no lectura de autores latinoamericanos sobre procesos latinoamericanos. Su no empaparse con la historia del lugar contada por sus lugareños lo aleja demasiado de un resumen más apropiado, o como diríamos en Arg., un resumen "como la gente". Al verla de afuera es difícil. Además que los regímenes militares latinoamericanos son toooodos distintos.
+Nicanor Cuevas Cabrera Mientras un video de diez minutos no puede resumir la historia de un continente, las intenciones de Green de conseguir principios teóricos que en parte puedan explicar la historia de latinoamerica son más loables que muchos intentos de los latinoamericanos de interpretarse a sí mismos basados en nimiedades históricas. Los latinoamericanos nos perdemos buscando identidad en tonterías, incluso cuando tratamos de narrar nuestra propia historia. Y por el contrario, nos faltan marcos teóricos fuertes para interpretarnos y proyectarnos hacia el futuro. Y ahí es donde la visión de alguien como Green puede acercarse mucho más a una historiografia "productiva y útil" (limitada a un simple video de RU-vid) , y no quedarnos en repasos resentidos de nuestra propia historia que no llevan a nada o, en el peor de los casos, a interpretaciones fanáticas y faltas de base como el chavismo o el peronismo.
The more I study history the more I realize that the Difference between a "Hero" and a "Villain" is not their actions, but the Narrative. The Context of the story you are telling will show that *Che Guevara* is either a Heroic Liberator and Revolutionary or a Bloodthirsty, Civilian Murdering Douche bag. Or if *George Washington* a Nobel Nation Builder or an Evil Monster who burns whole Villages of innocent natives. Some historical characters are more "heroic" or "villainous" than others... but the Context of the story, and the perspective you approach a character can Greatly change whether or not they are a Hero of Villain.
And this is how you teach history: with unbiased, sassy and reliable information. I applaud at the very first fact: America is the whole continent. Great video. Great lesson. Gracias ;)
Thank Mr. Green to set things in place. I remember the day I was called not a "real american" by a police officer in U.S. I toll him that I was born in Chile, a beautiful country located in South America and even when United States is located in North America, both countries belong to one continent called "America" in honor to Americo Vespuccio. Yep, I did not get a ticket ;)
+Cycling in Edmonton from the Eyes of a Teen He was trying to give me a ticket for over speed, but I asked him for a prove of that because he was just using his eye and guessing, no laser pistol to take measurements.
The last sentence, the conclusion, is just marvelous! Absolutely great work here in Crashcourse. You guys really have provided the insights that many learners and I have always wanted to connect with. I'm from China, the other side of the world. Please keep on your fantastic work.
Wait wait wait. The life expectancy in Canada _IS_ as high as the countries of europe and we started as a colony, not as an empire extracting ressources. Also australia. Perhaps the reasons why South America kind of sucks is not that they _were_ colonies to the europeans in the past, but rather because they _are_ colonies to the American corporations, and that any attempt to nationalise their ressources and be managed properly results in CIA managed revolutions. And USA doesn't acheive as well as the rest of the occident because, like you said, you have no taxes.
There is loads of nations in europe that have both good healthcare and are fairly safe that never had any colonies, they just aren't as rich as the countries that came into being from former colonial empires.
Me as a Canadian: "Yep we got nothing here! Just move along! Yup!" *Shoves oil, freshwater, timber, gold, iron, titanium, diamonds, hydro power, natural gas, potash, uranium, the arctic passage back in the closet* "Yup just lame old nothing at all Canada here... YUP!"
"Not particulary destructing"... tell that to president Paraguay and its Industrialized country, OH! Wait you can! Becos it was detroyed in the Triple Alianza war... Check your data !
he didn't say every war wasn't destructive, he said GENERALLY they weren't. the triple alliance war was one of the exceptions being very very destructive
Botswana is the proof nation states work, because they are one nation with mostly one ethnic group and one language and they're doing very good compared to the rest of Africa.
Not always the case. SA success can be attributed to european favoritism during decolonization. FWIW multi-ethnic states CAN succeed (See America, Canada, Rome, HRE) but make it that much more difficult due to conflicting ethnic interests and culture wars. Countries like Botswana, the Scandinavian countries, etc. have it easier in the sense that in general their populations agree with each other more when it comes to governance, norms, and foreign policy, leading to less conflicts and turmoil among their own people. Divided countries fight each other more often and aren't as strong when it comes to making decisive actions. The trick is to be flexible enough that the state's "greater culture" is agreeable enough to the point that it keeps each group in check.
heavytransit I would definitely agree with that especially with regards to Canada. The stark contrast between Anglo-American and Latin American culture is very interesting but not that either are superior or inferior to the other. As a US citizen, I'm very interested to see how the way relations between Anglo-America and Latin America develop or deteriorate. Hopefully it's the former not the latter!
heavytransit Mr./Mrs. heavy transit...what are you talking about...the languages are all european...the peans seem to know each other well...you're crazy we share a lot...our history books and education system is heavily controlled...that is why most people don't know anything...because our education system is retarded our kids and eventually our adults and citizens are,,,retarded
Not all Latin America is in the same hemisphere (hemispheres are divided by the Ecuador in north and south) but we are in the same continent, AMERICA. People on the US insist on calling them self Americans and dived America into two, and separate your self from the rest of us. We study some of US history, we know your presidents, most of us even speak your language as a second language.
0ElaEnchanted0 I apologize, when I mean hemisphere I mean the Western Hemisphere. Here in the US, we learn the continents as North America and South America as opposed to one giant America. But that's trivial really. And yes in the US, many of us do call ourselves Americans (I'm guilty of it from time to time) but if you tell any reasonable US citizen that their non-inclusive use of the term "American" offends you, we tend to stop. Outside of US History, we mostly learn European History (with an emphasis on England) but that's probably a remnant of our Anglosphere heritage. And we are encouraging more US students to learn different languages. I take Spanish (though it's pretty abysmal), my friend is teaching me Portuguese (it's even more pathetic), and I know a tiny bit of Cantonese (my father laughs whenever I speak). Just as you don't want the US to oversimplify Latin America, please don't oversimplify us.
heavytransit That's a really great point. I remember when I visited Costa Rica, I tried speaking Spanish to the locals both within and outside my class group. Though my Spanish is certainly nothing to be proud of, it caused me to feel a greater affinity for the Costa Rican people and I felt that they appreciated how hard I was trying to connect with them. And it made my experience that much more memorable.
Love crash course. You are never going to get every historical lense in a 13> min videos which I feel like ppl unfairly critique in the comments. These videos are concise, entertaining, and thought inducing and you gotta love a history lesson like that.
+Octave deLaMoussaye Triple Alliance war was still massive, though. Heck, even the War of the Pacific (Perú vs Chile) was still quite big for Latin American standards.
+Carlos David Ricaurte Orozco Yeah but the war of the Triple Alliance introduced chemical warfare, machine guns, fighter aircraft and armored vehicles of trench warfare. Oh really? That was the World War... ok nevermind.
"... what do you have Canada: trees, snow, hockey? We got hockey in Dallas!" Yep, that's true... on the other hand Canada does have oil and doesn't that sound like heroine to a junkie, my fellow Yanks?
Why are people saying John hates Europe? All he said about colonialism is true, and I didn't sense any censorious tone in his words. Europe dominated much of the world and fucked them up pretty good and got rich and developed and now people from all the former colonies are migrating to their former overlord because they think their now-independent countries suck. All of this is true and you can't deny it. We've all played our dirty little tricks, Europe played their dirty tricks well and they are now successful, that's it. It's state-building! It's politics! And what do you expect it's never going to be anything noble! Sorry for the Machiavellianism here but that's the truth. There's simply no country on earth that hadn't committed any crime. Colonialism is long gone and none of the European countries are imperialist now and they acknowledge it was bad and are trying to amend it. That's the story. How is telling truth about colonialism Europe-hating?
Basically he's just asking what the differences are between nation-states being built in Latin America and in Europe. He just gives a bunch of theories about the differences, but doesn't really answer the question (on purpose).
In my opinion the imposition of the western "nation-state" model onto people and cultures who do not live in circumstances conducive to such institutions is maybe the primary destabilizing factor in the "developing world" besides global corporate capitalism. It seems papa Europe is never comfortable with smaller entities such as tribal or sectarian cultural enclaves simply being left to their own devices. Interventionism and exploitation go hand in hand.
The term Latin America was coined in the 1860s when the French emperor Napoleon III was trying to extend French imperial control over the whole region. He and his ministers used the term to try to suggest at least some degree of cultural similarity between the region and France. The region consists of people who speak Spanish, Portuguese and French. These languages (together with Italian and Romanian) developed from Latin during the days of the Roman Empire and the Europeans who speak them are sometimes called 'Latin' people. Hence the term Latin America. - Anish Lamba, Faridabad For anyone who was curious, like I was, about why its named Latin America.
Thanks J. Green for making these videos despite having to produce freaking movie, thanks for your efforts, you and professor Meyer and Stan helped me in choosing the career of history professor. Thanks again and good luck.
This video is pretty interesting until John randomly begins to talk about colonialism (with a very tenuous connection), doubtless in his never-ending crusade to avoid seeming like he has an ounce of good things to say about Europe.
With the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide approaching, would a video on it be in order? I'm not just saying this for it to coincide with the anniversary, either. It would certainly make for a good video as a platform on the disastrous effects of two nationalist movements colliding with each other, on top of delving into the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the cult of personality that still remains to this day of Ataturk in Turkey.
SidheKnight You took the words out of my mouth! Yes, thanks for the great video John. It's an incredibly interesting perspective and helps me feel prouder, in a way, for being from latin america. I am definitely looking forward to any other future videos regarding our region!
