Why is South America so... "quiet"?

[retromike22]

Why is South America so rarely in the headlines compared to the other continents? I feel that after the "pink tide" the entire continent just became very stable like Europe. And now with the Crimea crisis it feels like S.A. is even more stable than Europe.

Sure, there's some Venezuelan protests, but the continent on a whole is so "quiet." I can't think of any major disputes between two S.A. countries that could lead to a crisis or a war, or a S.A. country projecting its influence outside of the continent. (Perhaps other than Venezuela, but even less so now after the death of Hugo Chavez)

Is it because their constitutional makeups are so similar?
Or the pink tide?
Or the increasing economic integration?

[Simfan34]

What exactly is "quiet" about it?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Well, Chavez has taken King Juan Carlos and finally shut up

[ingemann]

It's middle income, stable and rather peaceful. That's a mix which mean that a continent become ignored. There are focus on Europe because Europe are rich, there are focus on Africa because it's chaotic mess, there focus on Asia because it's rising, while at the same time looking like wars can begin at any moment. There are focus on North America because USA lies there.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Plus it only has twelve countries (plus French Guiana), so there aren't as many opportunities for political news as Africa, Europe, or Asia have.

[Edu]

I suppose most conflicts that happen in the region (Which is a sort of unimportant region in terms of the world media) are internal conflicts that have more to do with corruption or bad economic management than with wars, which makes them rather forgettable.

[Velasco]

It's middle income, stable and rather peaceful.

What do you mean with 'middle income'?  If Latin American countries have something in common is the income disparity and a weak middle class. In some countries inequality has diminished and what under regional standards is called middle class has increased, but middle income people is not the majority of the population, which is rather poor. South American countries are more stable and peaceful if we compare their current situation with that of the 80s. However, there's not stability in Perú nor peace in Colombia -to give a couple of examples-. In the rest of Latin America México, Guatemala or El Salvador are far away from being 'peaceful'. To the contrary, there are high levels of violence and criminality in most countries including Venezuela, Brazil or Argentina.

I suppose most conflicts that happen in the region (Which is a sort of unimportant region in terms of the world media) are internal conflicts that have more to do with corruption or bad economic management than with wars, which makes them rather forgettable.

I think there are more issues there than corruption and mismanagement. It's more lack of interest by the US and European media.

[Storebought]

I suppose most conflicts that happen in the region (Which is a sort of unimportant region in terms of the world media) are internal conflicts that have more to do with corruption or bad economic management than with wars, which makes them rather forgettable.

The incidents that take place in South America aren't reported much because they don't fit established media narratives. South America has, to the best of my knowledge, no ongoing fundamentalist Islamic insurgency. It doesn't provide the bulk of the illegal immigrants to the US, nor does it compete with the likes of China or Mexico in the area of free trade.

That was entirely the opposite of the 1980s, when the news from South America fit perfectly within the contexts of the Drug War and the spread of Communist (or at least militant leftist) ideology throughout the third world.

[retromike22]

When I say "quiet," not only do I mean internal conflicts, but also mean disputes between separate countries.

Is it because most of the S.A. countries speak the same language and so they see each other as less "foreign" than they normally would?

[The Free North]

It should also be noted that South America is one of the most ethnically homogenous regions in the world.

Not inside the countries per se (europeans, mestizos, natives) but between the countries, everyone is pretty much the same.

[Velasco]

When I say "quiet," not only do I mean internal conflicts, but also mean disputes between separate countries.

Is it because most of the S.A. countries speak the same language and so they see each other as less "foreign" than they normally would?

Practically all the countries have territorial claims on their neighbours and nearly all have been in war between each other. Speaking the same language doesn't prevent a strong nationalism, something common to all the new countries (e.g USA). There have no been wars since the Argentinian military Junta invaded the Malvinas (you know those rocks as Falklands, an UK colony), but there were terrible conflicts in the past. The difference is that nowadays the governments are more democratic and prefer resorting to the diplomacy.

It should also be noted that South America is one of the most ethnically homogeneous regions in the world.

Not inside the countries per se (europeans, mestizos, natives) but between the countries, everyone is pretty much the same.

You are misguided. There is a big difference between Río de la Plata (Buenos Aires, Uruguay), a region where prevails people of European ancestry, and countries where the Amerindian population prevails like Bolivia. There are countries with a significant black population and others where it's irrelevant, the proportion of mestizos vary (and that is not an homogenous ethnic group, obviously). There are also big regional differences inside the countries (e.g Buenos Aires vs north of Argentina).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Bolivian Naval Force is still looking for a good coastline.

[ingemann]

It's middle income, stable and rather peaceful.

What do you mean with 'middle income'?  If Latin American countries have something in common is the income disparity and a weak middle class. In some countries inequality has diminished and what under regional standards is called middle class has increased, but middle income people is not the majority of the population, which is rather poor. South American countries are more stable and peaceful if we compare their current situation with that of the 80s. However, there's not stability in Perú nor peace in Colombia -to give a couple of examples-. In the rest of Latin America México, Guatemala or El Salvador are far away from being 'peaceful'. To the contrary, there are high levels of violence and criminality in most countries including Venezuela, Brazil or Argentina.

Being a middle income country doesn't mean that a country are dominated by a large middle class, it mean that the GDP per capita are above the undeveloped countries, it's another term for developing countries.

It also indicates (through not always) that a country have a relative diverse economy between the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors, and that access to electricity, severs, water and education are common through not necessary universal.

Most of Latin America fall in this category.

[Velasco]

That's meaningless, in my opinion. Just like this silly thread. Likely all Mideast countries fall in that category as well, whereas the poorest countries in the world almost never appear in the media. How much do you know about the civil war in Sierra Leone? That conflict only deserves sparse footnotes in the Western media. OTH, if the criteria for media attention was population, China and India would always be in the headlines. It doesn't happen.

[ingemann]

That's meaningless, in my opinion. Just like this silly thread. Likely all Mideast countries fall in that category as well, whereas the poorest countries in the world almost never appear in the media. How much do you know about the civil war in Sierra Leone? That conflict only deserves sparse footnotes in the Western media. OTH, if the criteria for media attention was population, China and India would always be in the headlines. It doesn't happen.

No most of the Middle East doesn't fall in that category, only the major oil producers and Lebanon (and turkey if we count it as Middle Eastern) fall in this category, and while i'ts someone ridiculous to put undeveloped Oil Kingdoms into the same category, if we ignore them we get a lot of countries, who are clearly not part of the 1st World, but still are much more well developed and well functioning than the 3rd World.

[Velasco]

The problem is that category is a hollow generalisation. You should check how is the situation in every country in terms of distribution of wealth, education, diversification of the economy (South American countries rely enough on commodities exports), regional differences, etc, etc. I don't think poor people in some Latin American countries live much better than the same population in Egypt.

As for GDP per capita, check the map.



You can see countries in South America in light blue (like Turkey or Lebanon), others in green (like Iran and Jordan), Paraguay is in yellow (like Iraq, Syrya and Egypt), Bolivia and a couple of republics in Central America in light and dark orange.

[beaver2.0]

Because nobody knows about it, and assume that nothing goes on there.