Terry's Book "Chuck a Sickie"

To start to comment on Terry’s book “Chuck a Sicky”

Brief history of USA, as seen from a Third World, Latin American country.

by Luis Octavio Corvalán

The US has been an inspiration for the new independent nations rising in America at the beginning of the XIX century.

The American Revolution, and specially the organization of the newly born nation, it’s Constitution and it’s Bill of Rights were the most modern and democratic way of government so far by that time. As you mention in your book, this is something to be proud about.  

It’s important to say that great part of that result is due to some very interesting men that coincided in time and space. One is Thomas Jefferson, that witnessed de French Revolution in his post as ambassador to France and knew the French thinkers of the XVIII century (Montesquieu, Rosseau, Voltaire, etc.) who’s ideas you can see inspiring the two big documents mentioned above. Franklin, Hamilton and other “father’s of the Nation, (as Sarah Palin fails to acknowledge) complete that group of distinguished personalities that debated in Philadelphia.

By that time, almost 200 years of colonial activity had gone by. But it’s population was mostly hard working farmers that were given a piece of land of their own and settled in a new land that was constantly growing towards the west. This is a big political merit and what makes the big difference today between the States, Canada, and the rest of America from Mexico down to Argentina, that came from a Spanish colonial system completely different, land possession wise.

The US was completely self minded through most of the XIX century as the frontier gradually wandered west. Once the frontier disappeared, they started to look abroad to expand their business and found necessary to do as most European countries that had colonies all over the world. They started then with a very distinguished and concrete imperialistic policy. This is not alleged by a resented third world thinker, this is mainstream US policies as historians like Foster Rhea Dulles (University of Michigan) or John Cawelti (U of Chicago) and dozens more agree.

This was quite clear even to President James Monroe back in 1823, when he introduced the Monroe Doctrine as a US policy, to keep European nations off American soil (all of America, north and south).

After WWII the US became the world’s leading super power and as such started a much more aggressive foreign policy and creating multilateral institutions that were all US based political, economic and military platforms to rule the world. Such as NATO, IMF, World Bank, UN Security Council and stuff like that.

The other winner that emerged strong after the war was the Soviet Union. Immediately the cold war years started.

Independent countries were forced into one or another side of the conflict, and wars started to try to prevent countries falling into the other powers influence. This explains Korea, Vietnam, the African independence wars and so on.

In our continent, supposed to be US’s back yard as defined by Monroe 150 years back, any democratic and legitimate government that didn’t obey or comply to the US foreign policy was overthrown. This was achieved by supporting illegal military action, undermining unfriendly governments, or simply assassinating political leaders or presidents in office. This happened all over the continent since the Cuban independence back in 1899 and continues as recently as the US support on the Honduran coup de stat a couple of years ago. So you see this policy starts way before the cold war and continues long after its end.

Unbelievably, the 11-S attack turned the US’s attention exclusively to the Middle East, and for several years Latin America has been off their mind. This allowed the sub-continent to grow in self determination, adopt different policies and grow economically as it haven’t grown in decades. In the 2005 American Summit George W. Bush tried to impose a continental free-trade policy that he called ALCA, in another attempt to regain the status of Big Brother that the US was slowly but constantly losing. The majority of the countries, including the big ones Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela said no, knowing what the US wants when making business. No good deal for the US can be a good deal for the rest of us. One hundred years of history is proof enough.

This is unknown to the common US citizen. I can say this because a lived there for 10 years, went to school and been able to see the world through those eyes. It’s easy to see the US as the best place to live, but now that times aren’t as easy as back in the 50’s and 60’s, they will have to face some deep contradictions that other countries in the world have solved several years ago. Health care, housing plans, public education and other issues has been left aside since Reagan told everybody that they were rich and didn’t need this kind of public policies. And most of all because the big money spending had to go to keep the US as a big imperialistic power with it’s army involved all over the world.  

 

This is, as its title suggests, a brief introduction as how a guy your age sees the US from a distant country, so we can, from here on, discuss your book.

I can say from reading the first pages, your concern is a healthy response compared to most of your fellow citizen’s absolute lack of political interest. I looking forward to give you my opinion on matters that you name in your book and that I agree and disagree with in practically equal proportions. If you wish I’ll continue my notes. Congratulations for the initiative.