Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Zeihan on Geopolitics"
channel.
-
Incidentally, Mara Salvatrucha formed in the U.S. and was exported back to Salvador. Initially in the U.S. it was an ethnic street gang competing with other street gangs, but they got really ruthless and deadly when they got organized by ex-members of the Salvadoran military (who had been sent to the U.S to assassinate Salvadoran rebels who were hiding).
It’s also important to remember exactly what as going on in El Salvador at the time. The U.S. supported the dictatorship with weapons and training for the military and the security services, with the CIA training the security services (secret police). I don’t know what techniques were taught, but the Salvadoran secret police was infamous for torture and for sending death squads to assassinate priests, journalists, dissidents, etc. Basically any sort of opposition was mercilessly destroyed.
So if we wonder why Salvador is a crime infested shït hole, we need to recognize that we played a major part in it becoming that way. We can’t pretend that we had nothing to do with destabilizing that country when we are confronted by immigrants fleeing the violence.
It’s much the same deal with Guatemala, although I think we were less directly involved there. Ditto Honduras.
Anyhoo, U.S. policies really damaged Central America. You can argue that the region was already effed up, but we definitely made it worse. Before we get all anti-America, though, we need to remember the context. The Cold War was still on. Nicaraguan communists (the Sandinistas) had overthrown the U.S. supported dictator there. Our government feared Nicaragua would become another Cuba, and that the other Central American countries would follow suit.
Imo, the Cold War fears had justification, but our methods were not justified. We fucked up, guys. I don’t know how we can fix it. For a start, perhaps we should avoid xenophobia when Central Americans come to our borders seeking refuge from the violence in their countries.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@roberttaylor3594 That’s what I was thinking might be possible. Enclaves are not a bad thing if there is social movement and respect. I didn’t know about the high real estate prices, which could put a kink in things. You don’t want your enclaves to be impoverished ghettos which will cause isolation, social problems, and hinder social movement.
The “melting pot” concept of U.S. immigration is only partly true. I’m from L.A., which is one of the more multi-cultural cities in the U.S. Los Angeles is not a soup of different ethnicities mixed together. It’s a stew with chunks of ethnic cultures to give it flavor. (And sometimes the flavors clash, sometimes they complement each other, but I don’t want to take the analogy too far.)
It wasn’t always like this. It happened over decades. Different minority groups suffered from prejudice at different times, there has been conflict between different communities (and there still is). But those communities also learned to be mutually supportive in fighting for their rights.
I don’t want to sound like a liberal, but I want to point out why people come to Los Angeles from other countries to begin with: freedom and economic opportunity—generally more of it than in the places from where they came, even if what they found here wasn’t perfect freedom and opportunity. They don’t come to the U.S. because we are socialist. They come because we are capitalist and free.
I think the U.S. could benefit from more immigration. That might sound funny coming from a conservative, but conservatism in the U.S. has become tainted, and has transformed into something else.
From what Pete says, I imagine Canada could benefit from more immigration as well.
It was interesting that Pete only mentioned the First Nations once and obliquely when he said “native” was a loaded word. How do the original inhabitants of Canada fit into the picture? Are they so few as to not be a big factor in Canadian society?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1