¿paraguayos Del Norte?

[ajoknoblauch]

Conservative NY Times columnist compares Republicans to 19th-century Paraguay: http://tinyurl.com/lbx6lch

 

[Bajo_cero2]

It is a pity that the author didn t go deeper into Paraguay bad example as soon as they were the most advanced and developed country in South América and irrationality destroy it.

 

[camberiu]

It is a pity that the author didn t go deeper into Paraguay bad example as soon as they were the most advanced and developed country in South América and irrationality destroy it.

This is utter bullshit. This is a fiction created by marxist historians both in Brazil and Argentina, that Eduardo Galeano grabbed and made it famous in his book.

The marxist came up with that because they wanted to create this image of an industrial country in 19th century South America where the proletariat revolution could have happened if it weren't the actions of evil capitalist England who supposedly incited the war. However, many historians that I personally know of went to Paraguay looking for evidence of this former "development and advancement" and found nothing. NADA. All the evidence points that Paraguayan industry was at most as advanced and developed as that of Brazil or Argentina at the time. The only advantage Paraguay had was that Solano Lopez had more time to build up his army. That is it. Paraguay was never this "industrial super power" in the heart of Latin America destroyed by english imperialism. That is pure marxist bullshit concocted by professors at UBA and UNICAMP.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Right, the NY Times is a left media that followed maxism...

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Right, the NY Times is a left media that followed maxism...

¿Sigue a Máximo? ¿En serio?

 

[camberiu]

Right, the NY Times is a left media that followed maxism...

Actually, the NYT is a a very left leaning newspaper. But that is besides the point.
The NYT is not an expert in the Tri-Alliance War.
Back in the 1970s, an openly marxist Brazilian historian called Julio Jose Chiavenatto published a book called "Genocídio Americano: A Guerra do Paraguai" where all this stories about Paraguay being a highly industrial and developed country that had to be destroyed by the UK, first came to be. On the book, Chiavenatto presented little or no sources or references to back up his claims, but most historians all over South American ran with the idea anyways, including Eduardo Galeano. This is not surprising considering that most historians in the region are very inclined towards marxism and the contents of the book fit perfectly within their discourse. So, a lot of the literature on the subject references the work by Chiavenatto. It was actually the version that I learned in junior high in Brazil, as did most Brazilians during my time. That is probably the literature that the NYT used. Can't fault them for not knowing any better. It was only in the 90s that some revisionist historians decided to check up on Chiavenatto's claims. I know a few myself that went to Paraguay looking for ruins, documents, testimonials, ANYTHING to confirm the claims that Paraguay was the most advanced and industrialized country in South America. They found no such evidence. The evidence they found was that Paraguay did have some industry, but it was mostly military and in no way more vast, advanced or sophisticated than that of Argentina or Brazil at the time. To this day, no evidence as been found to back up the claims first made by Chiavenatto back in the 1970s.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Actually, the NYT is a a very left leaning newspaper. But that is besides the point.
The NYT is not an expert in the Tri-Alliance War.
Back in the 1970s, an openly marxist Brazilian historian called Julio Jose Chiavenatto published a book called "Genocídio Americano: A Guerra do Paraguai" where all this stories about Paraguay being a highly industrial and developed country that had to be destroyed by the UK, first came to be. On the book, Chiavenatto presented little or no sources or references to back up his claims, but most historians all over South American ran with the idea anyways, including Eduardo Galeano. This is not surprising considering that most historians in the region are very inclined towards marxism and the contents of the book fit perfectly within their discourse. So, a lot of the literature on the subject references the work by Chiavenatto. It was actually the version that I learned in junior high in Brazil, as did most Brazilians during my time. That is probably the literature that the NYT used. Can't fault them for not knowing any better. It was only in the 90s that some revisionist historians decided to check up on Chiavenatto's claims. I know a few myself that went to Paraguay looking for ruins, documents, testimonials, ANYTHING to confirm the claims that Paraguay was the most advanced and industrialized country in South America. They found no such evidence. The evidence they found was that Paraguay did have some industry, but it was mostly military and in no way more vast, advanced or sophisticated than that of Argentina or Brazil at the time. To this day, no evidence as been found to back up the claims first made by Chiavenatto back in the 1970s.

No matter what the Times's editorial stance - I would say that it's normally rational - Douthat is a conservative columnist who compared his own Republican party to 19th-century Paraguay in the sense that Paraguay was a small country that declared war on two larger neighbors. with infinitely greater resources, that nearly surrounded it. A parable of foolishness.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Actually, the NYT is a a very left leaning newspaper. But that is besides the point.
The NYT is not an expert in the Tri-Alliance War.
Back in the 1970s, an openly marxist Brazilian historian called Julio Jose Chiavenatto published a book called "Genocídio Americano: A Guerra do Paraguai" where all this stories about Paraguay being a highly industrial and developed country that had to be destroyed by the UK, first came to be. On the book, Chiavenatto presented little or no sources or references to back up his claims, but most historians all over South American ran with the idea anyways, including Eduardo Galeano. This is not surprising considering that most historians in the region are very inclined towards marxism and the contents of the book fit perfectly within their discourse. So, a lot of the literature on the subject references the work by Chiavenatto. It was actually the version that I learned in junior high in Brazil, as did most Brazilians during my time. That is probably the literature that the NYT used. Can't fault them for not knowing any better. It was only in the 90s that some revisionist historians decided to check up on Chiavenatto's claims. I know a few myself that went to Paraguay looking for ruins, documents, testimonials, ANYTHING to confirm the claims that Paraguay was the most advanced and industrialized country in South America. They found no such evidence. The evidence they found was that Paraguay did have some industry, but it was mostly military and in no way more vast, advanced or sophisticated than that of Argentina or Brazil at the time. To this day, no evidence as been found to back up the claims first made by Chiavenatto back in the 1970s.

That is an educated reply that i enjoy to read.

 

[camberiu]

That is an educated reply that i enjoy to read.

Well, glad you found it useful. I recommend you this book then.

It demolishes many of the myths first created by Chiavenatto and Leon Pomer (Argentina). But unlike them, he presents all his sources, references, verifiable documents, and what not on the book. It is all very well researched and documented. And it shows that the version of the war that we learn in school was completely false and made up.