- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
Eminentoes
Nuts to the Brown-Eyed Visionaries
I'm boycotting Brazil nuts.
The top nut in Brazil, Brazil's president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silvamade (big enough to be known simply as Lula, like Beyonce or Madonna) told British Prime Minister Gordon Brown that the world's current economic crisis was caused by "white people with blue eyes."
Waving his finger at Brown, Lula, a socialist, said that people in poor countries shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of people in rich countries. "It is a crisis caused and encouraged by the irrational behavior of white people with blue eyes," he said, "who before the crisis appeared to know everything, but are now showing that they know nothing.."
As a pro-capitalist white guy with blue eyes, I should sue. Isn't it illegal to generalize about eye color and economic ignorance? Isn't there some U.N. declaration that says it's a crime against humanity to openly and publicly link skin color with things like a propensity to approve bad loans or accumulate toxic assets?
And why aren't the blue-eyed a protected minority? We're only eight percent of the world's population --- and shrinking, as we continue to be less prolific in breeding than the brown-eyed (which doesn't bode well for the future, given that Louisville University professor Joanna Rowe's research shows that the blue-eyed are better skilled at planning and more accomplished in academic achievements).
In any case, seeking to internationally spread the wealth, Lula added, "I do not know any black or indigenous bankers, so I can only say it's wrong that this part of mankind, victimized more than any other, should pay for the crisis." That doesn't mean, of course, that indigenous bankers don't exist or that they're any less crooked, just because Lula doesn't know any.
Piling on, the New York Times ran this headline in its "Week in Review" section three days after Lula went after the world's blue-eyed money-grubbers: "G20 --- English-speaking Capitalism On Trial."
And so I'm guilty on all four counts -- an English-speaking white capitalist with blue eyes.
Well, two can play that game. If they want to link eye color and language to economic performance, how about the economic success (or lack thereof) of Spanish-speaking Fidel, the longest-running brown-eyed collectivist in Lula's hemisphere?
With a per capita income equal to Italy in 1959, Cuba was the fourth richest nation in Latin America when Castro shot his way into power. Today, after a half century of anti-capitalism, Cuba is the fifth poorest, even with brown-eyed leadership and after being on the receiving end of Soviet welfare for over two decades.
"Castroite Cuba emerged from this Soviet largesse with among the lowest per capita incomes in the hemisphere," writes Cuban-American author Humberto Fontova, "a lower credit rating than Somalia, fewer phones per capita than Papua New Guinea, fewer internet connections than Uganda, and 20 percent of her population gone -- all at total cost of their property and many at extreme cost to life and limb."
Readers of the New York Times might be excused for not seeing the political and economic disaster that was on the horizon when Castro was organizing his revolutionary coup in the hills. "Fidel Castro has strong ideas of liberty, democracy, social justice, the need to restore the Constitution," reported Times correspondent Herbert Matthews in February 1957 as Castro was beginning his two-year march on Havana. "The program is vague and couched in generalities," wrote Matthews, "but it amounts to a new deal for Cuba, radical, democratic and therefore anti-Communist."
To be fair to Matthews, he was wrong about Castro intending to deliver an anti-communist new deal, but he was right about Castro having "strong ideas" about liberty and democracy -- he was against both.
For another failed model of brown-eyed anti-capitalism, Lula and the Times might want to take a look at Tanzania. From independence in 1961 until the mid-1980s, Julius Nyerere decimated Tanzania's economy through a combination one-party rule and a socialist model of economic development.
The Bureau of African Affairs at the U.S. Department of State lists Tanzania's natural resources: "Hydroelectric potential, coal, iron, gemstones, gold, natural gas, nickel, diamonds, crude oil potential, forest products, wildlife, fisheries."
None of those natural assets much matter, however, when brown-eyed central planners destroy individual incentives and undercut development by way of despotism and anti-capitalism.
Today, after its ambitions for independence and prosperity were undermined by over two decades of Nyerere's anti-business destruction, Tanzania ranks at the bottom of the U.N. Human Development Index. Life expectancy is 50, the economy is overwhelmingly donor-dependent, and per capita income is $1.10 per day -- all without any blue-eyed devils running the show.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Rocco| 4.8.09 @ 7:24AM
As much as I generally agree with Mr. Reiland in other articles, I must take issue with his position on Brazil, as one who lived there and traveled there extensively over 21 years. Perhaps one of the most amazing transformations is that of Lula, from wild-eyed communist to the responsible president that he has been for the past 6 years. 20 years ago I would have never imagined him being president, or doing what he has done for Brazil's economy. That statement about bankers, as stupid as it sounds, was made for domestic consumption, for his base (the PT, or Workers Party). What you need to look at is what he has done. He inherited a stable economy, sound currency and low inflation from Pres. Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and built upon it. Brazil had always had high inflation until the mid 1990s - the last year I lived there, inflation was running at several thousand percent a year! He has maintained Brazil's position as an exporter, has maintained private enterprise and has not renationalized any industries. Inflation continues to be low, the "real" solid, the stock market (BOVESPA) reasonably attractive, and under his stewardship, Brazil finally attained investment grade ratings from the rating agencies. Bear in mind that I am conservative, pro-free enterprise and all the rest, but give credit where it is due, and judge by his deeds, not his words, including the occasional stupid statement.
As far as the other countries go, Cuba, Tanzania and the rest, Prof. Reiland, I'm with you there.
Rocco| 4.8.09 @ 7:28AM
BTW, Lula's record is not too bad for a semi-literate former metalworker and trade union leader, compared to certain Ivy League grads in the presidency in this country. Perhaps it says something about the wisdom of the common man?
frost| 4.8.09 @ 8:44AM
Just looked in to see - - and, THANK YOU, Rocco! Amen too.
Didn't see any boarded-up storefronts in prosperous Rio - - and, at least they have a president who's not afraid to drill for oil and self-sufficiency, unlike the inept inhabitants (previous and present) of the White House. Add the lack of Political Correctness (Brazil is much as we were 40-50 years ago insofar as Freedom is concerned) and, yeah, it's one of the very few good choices in this sorry situation.
Obrigado, Rocco -- well said; muito bom.
Rocco| 4.8.09 @ 10:42AM
Com muito prazer! Um grande abraco, meu amigo.
Rocco| 4.8.09 @ 10:42AM
Com muito prazer! Um grande abraco, meu amigo.
Rocco| 4.8.09 @ 10:42AM
Com muito prazer! Um grande abraco, meu amigo.
Pingback| 4.8.09 @ 11:06AM
Topics about Phones » Nuts to the Brown-Eyed Visionaries links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Alex| 4.8.09 @ 11:18AM
Trying to link race to competence is troubling and I think is a futile exercise. For example, the worst communists were Russians, a lot being light skinned and blue-eyed as well, and Swedes tend to be social-democrats (which we call socialists). So while I understand the point that this author is making, we should reject Lula's racist point of view offhand and not entertain the opposing racist view. This road never leads us anywhere good...
That said, Lula's comment highlights something that is happening in Latin America that we have been foolish in ignoring. The "have vs. have-not" mentality is flourishing throughout the region and will have grave consequences for the U.S. if not addressed sooner than later. The problem is that after a decade or two of incompetent and/or corrupt "liberal" (free-market, pro-democracy) leadership, the socialist movement experienced a renaissance under the extremist Castro-Chavez brand and the moderate Lula-Kirchner brand. While the latter is better (not necessarily good though) for their own nations and for the world, the former seems to be picking up steam in countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. Mexico almost fell under Chavez's spell in the last election...
What happens when the extremist takes power is an immediate period of economic restructuring that benefits the lower classes for a little while. But after nationalization claims all free enterprises and the government coffers begin to dry up, the state begins rounding up the opposition and destroying democracy. At that point it is too late and the countries become ever more radicalized and poor, channeling all their anger at the United States (see Cuba under Castro). Lula's idea of "poor vs rich" stems from his own socialist world-view and threatens to radicalize the last holdouts in Latin America that still believe in the idea of freedom.
We shouldn't "brown-bash" when the real problem is ideology. Communists/socialists try to use racism and reverse-racism as a weapon... we shouldn't play their game. I myself am a brown-eyed "visionary," but I dream of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... a dream that is currently being threatened around the world by other "visionaries" with eyes of all hues.
frost| 4.8.09 @ 3:08PM
Since the color of skin has been introduced, I sure find Lula's comments a lot less offensive than those from longtime Cuba/Fidel sympathizer and Angela Davis pal Barbara Lee and the ultra-idiots comprising the Congressional Black Caucus. They're deserving of a lot more regognition than, as Rocco so accurately pointed out, Brazil's a mighty "going concern" with less restrictions and fewer regulations (in most areas, at least) than we have here. I've only been there twice, but found it to be a wonderful place (one tip, don't bother buying a car, the busses are FUN)!!!
Marc Jeric| 4.8.09 @ 3:22PM
I arrived in Rio on work assignment in 1973 on the day when the Brazil government knocked off 3 zeros from their currency. Changing some dollars at the airport they gave me 7 cruzeiros for one dollar. That evening in the hotel restaurant I saw the soup quoted at 7,000 cruzeiros - Jesus, I thought, that is $2,000! But the waiter saw my confusion and explained that it was only $2 - they did not have time to reprint the menus! He said that every few months they had to reprint them. What with the budgets of our Democrats with absolute power I would invest in printing shops - a lot of reprinting is in store for us here!
Daphne| 4.8.09 @ 9:44PM
frost, I thought you left in a big snit. Just couldn't stay away from AmSpec, Huh? LOL!! Who is your phony friend, Geoff? You're a nutball.
Lingerie| 9.12.09 @ 10:59PM
sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie