My instructor for the Documentaries class I'm taking is having us read a book that goes through Central and South American history over the past century. It's quite a read, composing of assorted snippets of news clippings and stories about the incredible turmoil that these people have undergone. The stories often have an American connection to them, mostly involving our need to dabble in the violent politics being played out in each of these countries. Of course the primary motivation we had was to ensure that some socialistic philosophy didn't take root among the peasants who were working in abject poverty while the elite, supported by huge American corporations, lived lives of luxury. Any attempt at distributing the wealth, whether it be simple agrarian reform, unionization, etc., was put down with torture, kidnapping, and death.

Often the instruments of this horror were trained and financed by our own military and intelligence services. In not one instance did we end up backing someone that proved to be just and ethical.

Now I am not saying that these countries would've prospered under socialistic or communistic governments. There's plenty of history to prove that any move to the ideological extremes generally is followed by death and suppression of human rights. What I'm getting out of the book though is that none of these societies were allowed to sort things out naturally and evolve as our country did. Every time some huge corporation in the US had their bottom line threatened by political change in South and Central America, our Marines and intelligence services found this moral justification to prop up the guy that kept the money flowing. The blood and suffering of millions of people resulted from our intervention.

Chavez is most likely a pig of a man and would never be a guest at my dinner table but I have no concerns about where his country is going. That is up to the citizens of Venezuela to sort out, not the United States. We suck at nation building.

Art