I think it might be unnecessary! Probably fine to just give more context in a comment (it’s what I did heheh).
It being 1971, it might be missing commentary on the Iran-Contras thing and the Panama invasion among others but by then the pattern the book describes was well-established.
The Author Disowned It: Years later, Eduardo Galeano admitted he lacked the economic training to write it and that the narrative was too simplistic.
Zero Sum Fallacy: It assumes the West is rich only because the South is poor. Modern economics rejects this idea. Wealth is created, not just stolen.
Ignores Local Failure: By blaming imperialism for everything, it absolves centuries of corrupt local leaders and bad domestic policies of any responsibility.
It’s a Manifesto, Not History: It cherry picks facts to fit a villain/victim narrative rather than analyzing complex geopolitical reality.
If only the global economies of the world were as simple as they were in the 70s.
A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies is much better in terms of reflecting the human cost from a contemporary of the obliteration of 150 million natives and Africans for the enrichment of Europeans. US Americans eventually got into the act too with slavery, banana wars, taking land and peoples that didn't belong to it, Monroe doctrine, CIA-backed coups, and funding and training right-wing death squads like The School of the Americas.
This is a 1971 book by Eduardo Galeano. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Veins_of_Latin_America
I assume it made front page since it’s topical to the current situation between the USA and Venezuela and its future implications.
yes, I could put the 1971 on the title, but then I should remove something else as it goes over the limit.
I think it might be unnecessary! Probably fine to just give more context in a comment (it’s what I did heheh).
It being 1971, it might be missing commentary on the Iran-Contras thing and the Panama invasion among others but by then the pattern the book describes was well-established.
Thanks for bringing this interesting book up!
The Author Disowned It: Years later, Eduardo Galeano admitted he lacked the economic training to write it and that the narrative was too simplistic.
Zero Sum Fallacy: It assumes the West is rich only because the South is poor. Modern economics rejects this idea. Wealth is created, not just stolen.
Ignores Local Failure: By blaming imperialism for everything, it absolves centuries of corrupt local leaders and bad domestic policies of any responsibility.
It’s a Manifesto, Not History: It cherry picks facts to fit a villain/victim narrative rather than analyzing complex geopolitical reality.
If only the global economies of the world were as simple as they were in the 70s.
La versión original en castellano/español:
https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r31206.pdf
A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies is much better in terms of reflecting the human cost from a contemporary of the obliteration of 150 million natives and Africans for the enrichment of Europeans. US Americans eventually got into the act too with slavery, banana wars, taking land and peoples that didn't belong to it, Monroe doctrine, CIA-backed coups, and funding and training right-wing death squads like The School of the Americas.