Jared Diamond, 'Upheaval'

Jared Diamond talked about his book, Upheaval: Turning Points for Nations in Crisis, on " how successful countries recover from crises.

[henrygarciga]

Throughout his reign, “Pinochet did not build a single hospital in all his years of power and the country’s infrastructure was left practically untouched until the return of democracy” (Muñoz 309). The results of Pinochet’s military regime and his refusal to deviate from the most perverse interpretation of laissez-faire capitalism may have created economic growth on paper, but for most Chileans, this “growth” meant little to them. “In 1970, 20 percent of Chile’s population had lived under the poverty line; by 1990, when Pinochet left office, the poor had doubled to 40 percent. Average salaries during the Pinochet years were lower than in 1970 [before the coup]” (Muñoz 309). There is no evidence that Pinochet’s privatizations led to a booming economy, and much evidence that it, in fact, hindered the country’s development.

[levinb]

Really disappointed in Diamond here in his analysis and thesis. Really boring and bland, even on his talking points on Chile before and after the coup d'etat.
"In 1967, Chileans that I talked to were proud of their 'democracy' given the 150 year legacy!"

"They were proud of their 'democracy'."
"It wasn't too hard to guess that after the election of President Allende their would be a coup d'etat, since he only got a plurality of the electorate's votes." [That's still democracy, Jared, we have a plurality system here as well in the U.S.! Would you 'expect' a coup d'etat with the plurality elections of our presidents?]
"People expected the coup d'etat to last only months, it lasted 17 years." [So much for that argument you made earlier with your 'personal data' when you talked to those Chileans in 67. I guess they were 'content' with 'waiting' for democracy to return to their country?]


-4 Years Later, R. Nixon is elected president, and Kissinger is the top aide and advisor, and the Cold War still rages on. Also, the U.S. wants to maintain Hegemony over all of Latin America via the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary. *NONE of this context is provided by Diamond.*

-All you need is a more critical view of U.S. foreign policy and hegemony, and then we can avoid talking about politically loaded and obfuscating words like "national identity" and "democracy" and "compromise and pragmatism." This kind of talk is an ego boost, and is a sore sight to see from someone who's previous work was so logical in his analysis of history.



There's nothing new here, and in fact all I have heard is a re-hash of the typical arguments and theory behind "American Pragmatism" with the focus on finding "Truth" through a "process of compromise and pragmatism."
His lack of critical analysis in this 10 minute excerpt leads me to think that he is only reliable when the focus of the study is on Geography and the historical theory of change from studying geography.

What a pity of a thesis, how shallow this "intellectualism" on display here really is.