Forgotten Continent: A History of the New Latin America

by Michael Reid

A newly updated edition of the best-selling primer on the social, political, and economic challenges facing Central and South America

Ten years after its first publication, Michael Reid’s best-selling survey of the state of contemporary Latin America has been wholly updated to reflect the new realities of the “Forgotten Continent.” The former Americas editor for the Economist, Reid suggests that much of Central and South America, though less poor, less unequal, and better educated than before, faces harder economic times now that the commodities boom of the 2000s is over. His revised, in-depth account of the region reveals dynamic societies more concerned about corruption and climate change, the uncertainties of a Donald Trump-led United States, and a political cycle that, in many cases, is turning from left-wing populism to center-right governments. This essential new edition provides important insights into the sweeping changes that have occurred in Latin America in recent years and indicates priorities for the future.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Latin American History, Economics, International Relations, Travel

440 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Michael Reid is a journalist, writer and commentator on Latin American and Iberian affairs. He has been a staff journalist with The Economist since 1994. His books include "Forgotten Continent: The Battle for Latin America's Soul" (2007) and "Brazil: The Troubled Rise of a Global Power" (2014).

Reviews

[J.M. Hushour · Rating 2 out of 5]

Unabashed apologetics for some kind of nebulous, neoliberal, capitalist consensus on one hand, unsatisfying actual history on the other. Reid manages to offend all sensibilities by talking up all the deficiencies of Latin America, finding the root of its dictatorships and what he says as stale and staid ideas of "dependency structuralism" without giving enough due to the fact that for most of the 20th century it was the US doing that to keep dictators in power.
(Here is just a sampling of just the US interventions, and just the ones since WWII:

Guatemala 1954
Costa Rica mid-1950s (ongoing)
British Guiana 1953-64
Ecuador 1960-63
Brazil 1962-64
Dominican Republic 1963
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964
Chile 1964-73
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971
Jamaica 1976-80
Grenada 1983
Nicaragua 1981-90
Panama 1989
Ecuador 2000
Venezuela 2002
Haiti 2004
Honduras 2009)

Anyway, maybe he just didn't have time to look at all of that. Seems like there might be something to that whole supporting-dictators thing and maybe even illiberal economic intervention, but I can't stand economics, so I can't really say for sure. When it comes to the approach to the 20th century history of the region, it's hard to argue against the idea that the US was intervening to maintain (just as Africa is now becoming, and the Middle East has been) a abundant fount of resources, resources which folks living on top of should not reap the benefits of. Reid seems more interested in analyzing the region as a way of maintaining a dubious free market consensus rather than taking a long hard look at how periphery serves core. Sure, Latin America's "hard left" are a bunch of lameasses, but it'd be more interesting to learn how that came about than ignoring external factors...

[Kevin P. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just read this book, sorta had to. Reid writes well and clear and has a real balanced 3/4 of a book. A great history in the first few chapters, showing how the right and left have both betrayed democracy. However, he staunchly supports the Washington Consensus, arguing that everything that is good is due to the WC, anything bad had nothing to do with it. Here he loses the balance struck in the early chapters. You have to be looking through different glasses if you think that what Lula, Bacelet, Tabare and others is pure neoliberalism. A must read if you are in the field or about to travel extensively in the region, but don't swallow the whole pill

[Eric]

I'll submit the review I left on amazon. The original review can be found here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forgotten-Con...


Written by one of the leading editors of Economist magazine, Michael Reid's Forgotten Continent exalts the relative triumph of the free market and democracy in Latin American. His thesis follows that these successes (Brazil, Colombia, Chile etc.) however are in danger from far left populism in the region: Chavez's Venezuela and Morales' Bolivia. Further, Reid argues that contrary to popular opinion, most of Latin America's existing problems are combination of firstly historical factors linked to the continent's colonial past, and secondly the inability of its recent governments to manage their economies sufficiently. Rejecting that the United States has had much input into the direction of Latin America in recent years, he departs from the writings authors like Uruguay's Eduardo Galeano who remain deeply sceptical of capitalism.
His interpretation is somewhat refreshing, but there are a number of issues with this book:
1) Reid's admiration of Colombia. On page 277 (hardback) Reid even goes so far as to say, "[Colombia's] generals tenaciously resist submitting their officers accused of human rights abuses to civilian courts. They argue, plausibly enough, that they are fighting an internal war - one on a scale that none of the dictatorships faced."

This is utterly shocking. Is the author really saying that the argument used to justify the barring of officers from being held accountable for human rights violations by the army is a plausible one?? If Reid indeed means this, then he is de facto admitting that he believes human rights violations by the army in Colombia are justifiable.
Perhaps he would do well to read some Human Rights Watch reports on this topic.

2) On page 304 Reid flatly states, "Alongside old-fashioned farm protectionism, concern over climate change is adding a new version: opposition to 'food miles'. Yet growing food efficiently is good for the environment; the idea that food should not be traded internationally is no more logical than opposition to 'manufacturing miles'."

Here Reid appears to twist words a little bit. Indeed, GROWING food efficiently may be good for the environment, but Reid fails to mention that 'food miles' also include exports such as beef, poultry, pork and so on which contributes to environmental degredation. His argument falls flat because on the previous page (page 303) he boasts that Brazil is one of the world's largest exporters of precisely these things! Reid cannot really believe what he is saying.

3) The question of sources. For a book about Latin America, surprisingly few Latin American sources are cited in the bibliography. There are a few (mostly journal articles) But the majority of the sources used are English; produced in Europe or the United States. I do not understand why Reid has not drawn more material from Latin American academics themselves. Further, Reid makes frequent reference to Samuel Huntington and the latter's more or less defunct 'clash of civilizations' theory. Whether he agrees with this idea or not is unclear, although he writes that Huntington believes Latin America to be a separate civilization.

4) On page 108 Reid states that the argument that the United States helped organise the military coup in Brazil which brought twenty years of dictatorship to that country is "[not] well founded." He does not explain exactly why it is not well founded, but merely describes the (very real) internal political situation at the time. Reid's assertion runs contrary to the ample evidence that exists illustrating that the United States did play a significant role in the coup.

These are the biggest issues I have with the book, although there are plenty more. It's nicely written and easy to read, and the view is somewhat refreshing. But Reid's biases are clearly visible and do not consider this an especially reliable book.

[Marc · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read that book to get an overview of South American history and politics. The author is an editor for The Economist and has worked in Peru Brazil and Mexico. Needless to say he knows the region very well.

The book offers thoughts and analysis on several topics such as free trade, militarism, corruption, education, drug trafficking, political leaders in the region, populism, inflation...

Highly comprehensive and relevant

[Jennifer Flanagan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Took me some time to get through this beast, and I think I only absorbed 10%... but really enjoyed the walk around Central and Latin America, and the summary of the enormous political, economic, and social strides of each country on the content over the last few decades.

@tyler and @sofia - you guys will like this more, and then can tell me everything I missed!

[Jenna · Rating 1 out of 5]

If I wanted this much incorrect, blatant propaganda, I’d pick up an Oklahoma history textbook.

[Natali · Rating 4 out of 5]

Este parece un libro de historia. Si el lector no sabe mucho de América Latina, este puede ser un buen inicio. Sin embargo, hay muchas observaciones sesgadas, sobre todo en lo que tiene que ver con los gobiernos de izquierda y su desconocimiento casi absoluto de los impactos de la derecha. El caso Colombiano es casi el peor. Lo poquísimo que se menciona sobre Colombia tiene una ceguera impresionante al rededor de los procesos que han marcado la historia de este país, sobre todo en relación con el paramilitarismo. Igualmente, su visión del neoliberalismo es muy ingenua y solo achaca su deficiencia a los gobiernos de la región que son, o demasiado incompetentes, o demasiado ignorantes, o demasiado populistas.
No obstante tiene una gran cantidad de datos que, para un lector primario puede ser útil y teniendo en cuenta que América Latina supone un reto literario enorme, el trata de hacerlo de la manera más compacta y global.

[Keen Reader · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 Stars!

“Coffee transformed the economies of Brazil. Colombia, Venezuela and Central America; grain, meat and wool did the same for Argentina and Uruguay; oil for Mexico and Venezuela; mining for Chile, Peru, Bolivia and Mexico; and sugar for Cuba, Mexico and Peru. A new middle class arose-of merchants, lawyers and doctors.”

In spite of the fun, primary colours on the cover this book actually provides quite a detailed and at times complex history of the continent in question – never shying away from deeper economic or political matters, though often it feels incredibly forgiving and lenient on the United States.

There are so many points to pick out but one of the many was learning that Uruguay was responsible for one of the world’s first welfare states, they banned the death penalty and legalised divorce. They imposed an 8 hour working day, social insurance and free secondary education and state monopolies were created to run services from the port to electricity generation and insurance.

At one stage he speaks about the chronic paranoia of leaders such as Chavez insisting that,
“In fact, the US never paid much attention to South America. The larger countries of Latin America showed as much diplomatic independence towards the US as do those in Europe.”

Which of course is absolute nonsense. Adding to the fact that, as said in here,

“In all, between 1898 and 1934, there were some 30 separate military interventions by the US in nine countries of the Americas-all of them in the Caribbean basin.”

There are the many covert and overt operations carried out by the CIA and the US government from the end of WWII onwards which tortured, terrified, displaced or killed millions upon millions of ordinary citizens throughout South America, not bad going for a nation that “never paid much attention.”

But still there is a lot of good research in here and Reid often digs deep, even if a bizarre and distorted version of a pro-American narrative often seems to emerge so that the US often comes across more like a grouchy but largely benevolent uncle, rather than the tyrannical and oppressive force it really has been looming over much of Latin America since way back in the 1800s. There remains a lot of quality in here and I certainly learned a lot, even if I was puzzled by many of his other conclusions.

[Andres Sanchez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Si uno quiere desasnarse del efecto nefasto que la teoría de la dependencia, los "estudios" "culturales", la izquierda y Las venas abiertas de América Latina han tenido en un continente, este libro es un remedio ideal. Es fuerte, contundente y necesario para entender el presente, el pasado y, sobre todo, el futuro de un continente que, honestamente, siento que cada vez existe menos.

[John Crippen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was almost the perfect balance of history and current political/economic analysis, for an entire continent, in under 400 pages. Incredible. Highly recommended for others who, like myself, are looking for an introduction to Latin America or who are trying to understand how a particular country fits into the larger context of the region.

[Adriaan Jansen · Rating 4 out of 5]

''The democratic will is vulgar; its laws, imperfect. I admit all this. But if it is true that soon there will be no middle way between the empire of democracy and the yoke of one man, ought we not try rather for the former than submit voluntarily for the latter?'' (Alexis de Tocqueville).

Forgotten Continent was first published in 2007. It is strange to see that now, 11 years later, many issues that seemed to haunt Latin America have now also manifested themselves in the United States and Europe. What were typical Latin American issues only a decade ago, are now global issues we also see in our own societies. Some examples:
- Populism
- Inequality
- Immigration
- Radicalisation
- Undue influence of the rich.
- The rise of the outsider

Populism. Not all aspects of good old Latin American populism have appeared in western societies, but there are similarities. For instance, the first part of Michael Reid's definition: ''By populism I mean 2 things: first, a brand of politics in which a strong, charismatic leader purports to be a saviour, blurring the distinction between leader, government, party and state, and ignoring the need for the restraint of executive power through checks and balances. Second, populism has often involved redistribution of income and/or wealth in unsustainable fashion'' (page 12). Also some of the causes of populism are familiar. Reid mentions 4 of them:
1. Nostalgia for a bygone era. E.g. ''Argentina's Juan Peron became a symbol of 'the only period in which the worker was happy' ''(page 12).
2. Extreme inequalities of income and wealth. ''This reduces the appeal of incremental reform and increases that of messianic leaders who promise a new world'' (page 13).
3. Wealth of natural resources. ''Many Latin Americans are taught at school that their countries are rich, whereas in truth they are not'' (page 13). Thus many Latin Americans may be tempted to conclude that if they are poor while their country is rich, then someone else must be taking (unfair) advantage. ''Populist blame poverty on convenient scapegoats: corruption, 'the oligarchy', American 'imperialism' or multinational companies'' (page 13). Reid observes what was later also the main point of ''Why nations fail'': Hard work and effective institutions make countries wealthy, not natural resources.
4. New politics of identity.

Inequality. ''Extreme inequality provides fertile ground for populism'' (page 313). For this and other reasons, inequality may endanger healthy democracy. Reid offers some lessons from the Latin American experience:
1. ''If capitalism is to thrive it needs to be underpinned by an effective state and social policies, which have to be paid for with an adequate level of tax revenues''.
2. Everybody should be equal before the law.
3. Fairness and accountability: ''If the government bails out delinquent or even unfortunate bankers when ordinary people are losing their jobs because of austerity, as happened in Ecuador, México and Venezuela, it is hardly surprising if popular resentment with the political systems grows''. (page 313). This last remark, written before the financial crisis of 2008, is directly applicable to Europe since 2009.

Radicalisation. ''Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable'' (John Kennedy, page 86). In 1954, the CIA planned and executed the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz. This scandalous attempt at regime change by the United States was a disaster: it killed the Guatemalan democracy and was the starting point of 4 decades of dictatorships and violence. Also, it served to radicalize many on the left, among them Che Guevara. ''Guevara thought the coup showed that the United States was a priori ruthlessly opposed to any attempt at social and economic reform in Latin America. So he inferred that the left should be prepared to fight US interference rather than try to avoid or neutralise it... It was Guatemala which convinced him of the necessity for armed struggle and for taking the initiative against imperialism'' (pag 86). This was not the first, nor the last, time that American actions abroad led to radicalisation.

Undue influence of the rich. ''The close association between democracy and market capitalism conceals a paradox, in that market economies generate inequalities in political resources (i.e. influence and access). The undue influence of the rich and powerful poses a special challenge to democracy in egregiously unequal societies'' (page 271).

The rise of the outsider. People without much political or governing experience are propelled to center stage. Their personal fame and distance from the usual ruling elites can trump any lack of experience or know-how. ''A particular troubling kind of personalistic political leadership was that of rich men putting their money to work for political advantage'' (pag 290).

Al this makes Forgotten Continent a strangely relevant book, 10 years after it was first published.

The subtitle, ''the battle for Latin America's soul'', refers to the threat that populism poses to the incipient and fragile democracies of Latin America. Reid, a journalist who works for The Economist, takes the side of those sometimes flawed democracies.

Reid's recipe for development is a mix of democracy and capitalism. He occasionally goes too far in this prescription: he praises the Washington Consensus perhaps too much, and is far too lenient when he describes the Telmex case and the origins of the wealth of Carlos Slim.

Key points of the Washington consensus according to Reid:
1. Achieve macroeconomic stability: tame inflation through control of fiscal deficits (i.e. balance the budget).
2. Dismantle protectionism: open up to foreign trade, competition and investments
3. Reform the role of the state, promote the role of the markets: get the government out of producing goods through privatisation (page 135).

To be fair, Reid does mention one important shortcoming of the Washington Consensus: ''Perhaps the most important missing commitment was to equity, to slashing poverty and inequality. '' (page 155).

Reid also gives several explanations for the frequent failures in economic development and the consolidation of democracy in Latin America, and rightly points out that the answer lies in an interplay between several of the following factors:
1. Dependency theory. In short, capitalism and foreigners are to blame for Latin American misfortunes. The rise of the Asian Tigers and later China has largely disproved this theory. Unfortunately, dependency theory led to counterproductive attitudes: ''Apart from being wrong, dependency theory had the unfortunate consequence of encouraging Latin Americans to blame all their woes on outsiders, rather than taking a closer look at themselves'' (page 40).
2. Culture.
3. Policy mistakes
4. Institutional weakness. What has often been missing in Latin America is a political and economic system in which law, property rights and enforceable contracts underpin economic development. What matters is that decisions by the state should be predictable, something that has not always been the case in many Latin American countries.
5. History. The circumstances in which Latin America was colonised and became independent.
6. Geography. Climate, Obstacles to transport.

Finally, Reid argues that Asian countries managed to grow and develop in the second half of the 20th century because they designed their economies to be export-oriented. ''In sharp contrast to industrialising countries in Asia, exports were neglected. Latin America deliberately turned away from the world economy just as international trade began its long post-war boom'' (page 118). Again, this disproved the dependency theory. Latin America's choice for protectionism and industrialisation as a substitute for imports resulted in corruption, weak industries and companies, and high prices for consumers.

Forgotten Continent is a very dense book, that covers a lot of ground. Although written more than 10 years ago, even now in 2018 many of its observations are still relevant, and not only for Latin America.

[Vicky Hunt · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Sweeping View of the Latin American World

Those who serve revolution plow the sea.”
–Simon Bolivar, 1830

Revolutions and coups, political corruption, influential leaders and politicians, natural resources, boom cities, campesinos, urban settlements, financial markets, infrastructure… everything is here from the Southern cone of South America to Mexico. Michael Reid has not only done an excellent job of covering the Latin American world, but he has revised and expanded the work in 2017. I read the Kindle & Audible versions. The Audible is just the older 2010 edition. But, the Kindle is the update, and it has all the illustrations and charts, as well as more up-to-date information.

“In the wake of the Wall Street Crash of 1929, and the resulting world economic depression, no fewer than 16 countries suffered military coups or authoritarian takeovers of other kinds.”

I read the book for my Journey Around the World in 80 books for Argentina, but it covered every country in the Latin American world and it took almost a month to finish, by the time I compared the two editions I read. Interestingly, Reid’s work is recommended by other excellent political writers like Francis Fukuyama, whose work I find not only informative but unbiased and reflecting a well-thought out weighing of all factors. Reid looks at all the angles. He covers the instances of past US interventions in Latin America, good and bad. The book has the effect of offering a synopsis of the political and economic news over the past few centuries. But, the focus seems to be on modern development and Latin America’s place in the global economy in this century, the oil resources, industrialization, and still developing democratization; things that are of value to improve Latin America’s bargaining power in a world that largely discounts its worth today.

Reid explores the seeds of Democracy, the Cold War, the Washington Consensus, the Commodity Boom, Reformers, and the many contributing factors to failed states and how they are struggling to rise today. It is not a simple book, but is information intense while retaining a high interest level. I could not determine a reason for the order of the book. I didn’t really see it as chronologically ordered. The result is in a sort of fragmented disconnect for me, since I prefer to see the ‘big picture’ first, and I usually look for an outline in the table of contents. Here, it comes across like a series of essays, perhaps. It is recommendable for people who enjoy reading political type books, but not for those who expect a level of simplification or order.

[Federico Castillo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Forgotten Continent is a very recent take on latin america. It covers roughly from the 90's to around the beginning of the Trump era in US. A good overview, covers basically every country with certain depth. His covering of Venezuela was updated (first version in 2007 had a very different picture) and it is worth the read.

In these days of internet rage we all live in bubbles and echo chambers via Twitter and Facebook. It is important to read points of view that we do not completely subscribe to. In this case, his take on Colombia put me a little off (downplaying the Banana Massacre) but again, that is no reason not to read it.

One thing that I want to remark is his insistence that Latin america (mentioning Galeano's Open Veins explicitly) perhaps put too much blame on external factors, and in particular US, for everything that is wrong with the continent. He brings some nuance to the discussion, conceding that the intervention in Guatemala was particularly atrocious. But that the support against Allende in Chile was not created in a vacuum, there was already a faction that wanted a coup and US backed it, so US cannot be blame more than half for that one.

I definitely agree that there are problems within Latin american countries that have nothing to do with US. A good example is the lack of subway in Bogota, Colombia. A textbook example of incompetence, poor management, corruption, political disagreement (being against a version of it just because it was proposed by an opposing party) and there is no one else to blame but the city itself.

[Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

Introduction to Latin America, everything you should have learned in school, but didn't because we don't think that Latin America is as important as the rest of the world. Reid takes the average US Citizen thru the political and economical history of Latin America with an emphasis on the last 5 decades.

Why I picked up this book: It's on the US Army recommended reading list and I thought that I have a better grasp of Latin America than the average American thanks to 4 years of Spanish in school.

Why I finished it: Reid was a reporter for the Economist, so he does focus on the economic side of development and its good and bad consequences. And I know less than I thought I did.

[Nicolás · Rating 5 out of 5]

The last chapter - So Near and Yet So Far - is magnificent and sums up the urgency of incremental reform in Latin America in order to counter popularism and regressive revolution.

[Milan Baes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Voor een overzichtswerk is dit echt goed!

[Avil Ramírez Mayorga · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un gran repaso respecto al porqué "somos como somos", mediante el cual el autor reflexiona sobre nuestros antecedentes históricos y los retos a los que nos hemos ido enfrentando. Aún pese a nuestras diversas diferencias, los latinoamericanos tenemos tanto un pasado y culturas comunes, así como retos conjuntos que enfrentar en el futuro inmediato. A la vez, Reid si bien reconoce que han habido cuantitativos y cualitativos progresos en los últimos años, también enfatiza que siempre se debe velar por las mejoras en la institucionalidad, la innovación, la competencia en el sector privado y la presencia de un Estado fuerte (no tanto de tamaño sino de efectividad en cuanto al cumplimiento de su rol).

[Will · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book, like its subject matter, proceeds in fits and starts. Parts of it are more intelligible than others. There is quite a bit of jumping around in space and time. Many of the themes are quite cogent; a few are more easily undermined. What it does, is paint some of the larger and comparative political and economic brush strokes of Latin American history for the reader. A pleasant and informative read, but dense and not altogether intuitively organized. I would recommend, but also with a word of caution that one might not get too much out of it.

[Trystan W · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very comprehensive & quite well balanced (I think) overview of (mainly modern) latin american history. Quite insightful, a bit biased at times, but quite good

[Carolina Díaz Flores · Rating 2 out of 5]

Muy tendencioso en varios puntos (Chávez, Peña Nieto y Lula), pero en general buen resumen de historia política de LATAM.

[Isak · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The Forgotten Continent" is a pretty great introduction to the Latin American region as a whole, marked by a comprehensive yet succinct overview, extensive research, passionate storytelling, and engaging prose. Its greatest achievement is probably that of clearly defining and answering one big question surrounding the region: why has development lagged so much over the last century? I would recommend it both to people who have already studied some of the region's history and are familiar with its standing today (like myself) and to complete newcomers who know very little but are interested.

The book is at its best when discussing the region's politics and economics, specifically in the first half. It successfully synthesizes the region's history up to the 20th century in ~40 pages or so, providing an excellent background that is not only narrowly historical, but also institutional and philosophical (the sections on Bolívar and Santander were especially interesting). What follows is a country-by-country political history, which is mostly on the mark, and not without its surprises. Again, what's engaging about these sections is that Reid always provides an informed stance on issues, events, and characters, which are well-argued and interesting even when the reader might disagree.

There are some shortcomings. The latter third drags, especially for people familiar with the region's more recent afflictions. It also somewhat breaks from the structure, talking about common regional issues, from a perspective that's not as centered on politics. Lastly, it doesn't develop some of its most interesting ideas. The pseudo-feudal caudillo institutional structure brought up in the beginning doesn't carry over to the later chapters, and certain political dynamics central to, for example, weak judiciaries, are merely mentioned rather than explored. A lack of continuity between the later chapters makes "The Forgotten Continent" end up feeling more like a collection of essays rather than a cohesive story by the end.

However, I don't really get criticisms from other reviews. Many seem to take issue with Reid being fiscally conservative and downplaying the US's role in LatAm interventions. But anyone who read the book would clearly find mention of almost all such interventions, as well as their disapproval. Chile might be the only exception - Reid highlights popular support for the coup, downplays its violence, and fails to mention the complicity between Kissinger and the Pinochet regime. Ultimately, though, it's a helpful perspective for a country much more polarized on the dictatorship and Allende than may seem from the outside. You may not like it, but it's certainly relevant. Lastly, for anyone who accuses him of being a "neolib"... part of his point is that the discussion on communism vs. capitalism is outdated, and to his credit, he provides good arguments against traditional socialist thinking in line with dependency theory. To sum up, you may not always agree with the guy, but Reid provides an interesting perspective that is always well argued and never morally egregious, and I can't see why anyone would fault him for it.

[Denys Slobodeniuk · Rating 5 out of 5]

У якийсь момент моє зацікавлення Латинською Америкою набрало більш конкретних форм, але зіштовхнулось із браком дійсно якісної не те що аналітики - іформаційного порядку денного. Якщо цю проблему можна вирішити планомірним моніторингом поточної ситуації в регіоні і легеньким "підчитуванням" із Вікіпедії, то для більш ґрунтовного дослідження потрібен суттєвий бекґраунд - яким ця книга, безсумнівно, є.
"Забутий континент" - чудовий приклад хоч і побіжного, але цікавого та насиченого огляду історії/економіки/культури Латинської Америки (і Карибського басейну) від моменту здобуття цими країнами незалежності на початку 19 ст. до сучасності.
Це була моя перша подібна книга англійською, через що переповнена публіцистичною лексикою робота здавалась дещо складно написаною, але тут уже питання до мого лексичного запасу:)

[Mrs. Thornton Wolff · Rating 1 out of 5]

It’s clear from the very beginning of this book that the author is economically conservative and makes little attempt to hide that. Fine…I still plunged on with an open mind. However the condescending tone, the frequent stereotypical caricaturization of Latin American people, and the almost comedic attempts to downplay US intervention in foreign policy as well as the violence of military dictatorship made this book unreadable. The comparison of all developing countries to the standard of western democracies feels outdated and best and naive at worst. I knew I’d only do a disservice to myself if I continued forward, so I abandoned it.

[Alicen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is written by the editor of The Economist's Latin America section and it shows. His prose is well-researched and covers a variety of different issues facing Latin America but isn't so mired in economic terms or complicated facts that it's hard to follow. I learned a lot from this book and would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in this part of the world, which is so close to my heart.

[Jordan Hoover · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not a real history, more of a biased argument for a return to more liberal economic programs in latin america, besides ample evidence that this does not work and actively hurts the lower classes in the country. I should've figured as much as he's a journalist fro the Economist, not a real historian of LA by any means.

Look elsewhere if you want actual history. Born in Blood and Fire is a good introduction.

[Meg - A Bookish Affair · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fantastic book that contains a lot of the history of Latin America and the politics. It's fantastically informative and points out a lot of the issues that Latin America has. The author discusses a lot of the issues between the United States and Latin America and why they have been so troublesome.

[Morgan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very readable account of recent South American history to help explain the current economic and political climate.

[Chris McDonald]

An excellent look at a new topic. Pity i cannot keep it all straight.

[Pete · Rating 5 out of 5]

Forgotten Continent : A History of the New Latin America (2017) by Michael Reid is a very good, in depth look at Latin America. Michael Reid was a correspondent in Latin America from 1982 until the mid 2010s. He wrote for The Economist and other publications.

The question of why Latin America isn’t richer is important. Latin America is rich in natural resources and hasn’t suffered many wars in the past century. In 1900 Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. Reid states there are three theories as to why Latin America isn’t rich. The first is ‘Dependency Theory’ that poor countries are exploited by richer states who sell high value manufactured items to poor countries who sell commodities that decline in price. The second is a ‘reactionary culture’ that is based on strict Catholicism and is anti-capitalist. A third is geography and bad institutions. Reid rejects all three. The first because it doesn’t really work, there are commodity exporting countries like Australia and Norway that are wealthy, the second because Spain and Portugal have managed to become well off with an Iberian culture and the ‘bad institutions’ idea because it’s somewhat circular reasoning.

Reid also looks what the United States has done in South America and discusses how much of an impact that has had. In the case of Guatemala in 1954 it is clear that the US strongly backed the coup and was crucial in it coming to pass. However, for other coups and military takeovers Reid argues that the US did assist some of them, but it did not direct or cause them.

The book then delves into the history of Latin America, rapidly from the Spanish and Portuguese conquest to more modern post WWII history. For anyone who isn’t intimately familiar with Latin America there is a lot to learn. I had not heard of the Federal Republic of Central America until reading the book.

The way that Latin America changed after WWII and tried to protect it’s own industry but failed to build much exporting industry and instead that higher tariffs and poorly run state industries made Latin America poorer is very interesting. The contrast to the few successes in Asia is telling.

The rise and fall of dictatorships across the region is described. Chile, Peru, Argentina and Brazil and their dictatorships all get considerable attention. The remarkable rise of Democracy in the region from the early 1980s onward also gets attention. In 1980 there were only about three democracies in the whole of Latin America where as today only Venezuela and Cuba are dictatorships.

Reid writes about the rise of Chavez in Venezuela and the decline of democracy there. The book also spends considerable time discussing charismatic populists and the damage that they have done throughout the region. The failure in most countries to create stable political parties is interesting.

While in many ways Latin America has been a disappointing story Reid also points out that as well as the rise of Democracy in the region extreme poverty has also declined from ~16% of the population to ~4% of the population from 1990 to the mid 2010s.

Latin America’s chronic problems with corruption, crime and violence are not ignored. Reid also examines these issues. Poor education systems are endemic throughout the region.

The book ends in a somewhat upbeat manner. Democracy and economic growth are improving Latin America. Chile is doing particularly well. Many countries seem to be slowly improving and reducing corruption, albeit gradually. In some ways the slow progress adds to the notion that Latin America is a Forgotten Continent. Things are not as bad as in Africa nor is economic growth booming as it has in parts of Asia.

Forgotten Continent is an excellent book by a writer who shares his deep knowledge of Latin America. It’s somewhat hard going but the book is very much worth a read.

[Nicolas · Rating 5 out of 5]

La segunda edición del continente olvidado abarca la historia política y económica de América Latina desde la independencia de sus estados a inicios del siglo XIX; y hasta mas o menos mediados del año 2017. El autor se concentra mas que todo en la segunda parte del siglo XX y en la evolución mostrada por los países latinoamericanos en temas sociales, económicos y políticos. Con capítulos especiales de integración regional, sobre Cuba y Venezuela, creo que sea uno de los mas completos de este tipo.

De las cosas que más me gustaron del libro fue la manera objetiva en que relata los hechos políticos sucedidos en el continente contrarío a las creencias o consensos locales culturales, que terminan siendo rezagos políticos de problemas pasados o actuales, dando no solo su opinión sino también argumentando con indicadores. Si bien hay cientos de autores latinoamericanos muy capaces, no tener los sesgos de haber nacido en el continente le da un poco mas de valor a este libro.

La realidad en latinoamericana es que la mayoría de los países si bien se sienten muy unidos culturalmente entre si, políticamente y económicamente no se conocen, a tal punto que las noticias rara vez cruzan los medios de comunicación a la escala que si llegan noticias de Europa, de USA o de China. Este libro muestra relata históricamente y a través de las situaciones actuales cuales como funcionan estas relaciones y da ciertos consejos que la región debería seguir para lograr salir de esa trampa del ingreso medio y del subdesarrollo.

En alguna parte de las notas del libro alguien comentaba que era indispensable para cualquier persona que quisiera hacer política dentro de Latinoamerica y pienso que no hay declaración mas acertada. Conocer su historia, la política y la politiquería que se ha dado en cada país y en la región como enseña este libro le dan unas bases muy acertadas a cualquiera para poder innovar y/o retomar en practicas que fortalezcan y desarrollen a nuestros países. Además que la memoria colectiva y la realidad política muchas veces queda rezagada por concepciones falsas que quedan en las sociedades como hechos históricos.

Este libro es una recomendación pura para cualquier persona que tenga curiosidad de entender latinoamerica como continente a través de su historia conjunta y sus retos actuales.