Chile Blog Review: Roger Starkey
This is a review of the Below 15° North
This blog is alright, for some reason I don't exactly like the design, but the content is pretty current, and the writing is decent. Roger does political analysis that isn't above all Latin America, but it seems like he's in Chile, so there's a Chilean influence which makes it worth reading.
Oh yeah, and in addition to the political stuff there is a lot of fun guide-to-Santiago stuff based largely on personal narrative. This blog is really worth reading if you're looking to get a feel for what it's like adjusting to Santiago, Chile. You'll probably find a few practical tips along that way, as well.
So what do you think about Roger's Chile blog?
Write a review in the comments below, then read reviews of other Chile blogs
This blog is alright, for some reason I don't exactly like the design, but the content is pretty current, and the writing is decent. Roger does political analysis that isn't above all Latin America, but it seems like he's in Chile, so there's a Chilean influence which makes it worth reading.
More amazing was that the president actually admitted that mistakes were made in implementing the new public transportation system. Try getting an American politician–from any political party–to admit a mistake without a grand jury indictment.I used to be like that, in a new country, whatever they do is right because it's not the US. I was already headed away from that confused mindset a while back, let's just say Chile certainly gave me a little nudge in the right direction. Sure, there may be that rare occasion where Chile does something better but for Christ's sake let's be honest and not romanticize a dysfunctional third world government. Fortunately, he doesn't go overboard and overall it seems like he has a critical eye and a good sense of humor. Also some pretty pictures of Chile on his site.
Oh yeah, and in addition to the political stuff there is a lot of fun guide-to-Santiago stuff based largely on personal narrative. This blog is really worth reading if you're looking to get a feel for what it's like adjusting to Santiago, Chile. You'll probably find a few practical tips along that way, as well.
So what do you think about Roger's Chile blog?
Write a review in the comments below, then read reviews of other Chile blogs
posted by Chileno @ 1:32 PM
Share on Facebook
Search This Blog:
9 Comments:
This is less a comment about Below 15 North, which overall I like and had a pretty good description of Pisco Sour.
This post is more to point out that Chile is very far from being a third world country. Technically, that states is based on the Human Development Index, in which Chile ranked 38th in the world in 2006. Placing the quality of life here well above Costa Rica (48), Thailand (74), and Niger (177). Having just come from a third world nation (Cambodia- 129) I can't even begin to explain how easy life is here.
Thanks for the Clare-ification. Although I'm still left wondering at which HDI a country rises up to 2nd world...1st world?
Up to now I've been using "third world" figuratively, inspired in part by educated Chilean friends, in part by abusive work/labor conditions, 27% poverty (according to European standards, not Pinochet-era Chilean standards) or 80% fucked unless you consider living on less than 400/month to be feasible in Chile.
Should I stop using the term "third world" because a young, healthy North American finds it easier to live here than in Cambodia?
And is "third world" really a function of HDI?
If so, fine. I'll just use other language to describe Chile's problems, which are enormous, as you are probably well aware.
After all, HDI is but one index. What about Inequality? According to the World Bank, Chile is more unequal than Bolivia and on par with a number of African countries.
I live in the UK and studied geography at school. I can say that nowadays they are teaching people not to use the terms 1st, 2nd and 3rd world and instead use MEDC (More Economically Developed Country) and LEDC (Less Economically Developed Country). It sounds less dividing, because we're not in different worlds.
HDI is measured from GDP per capita, literacy rate, life expectancy and standard of living.
Inequality, in my opinion, isn't the best way to measure standard of living because there may be some immensely rich people in a country and some very poor people, which doesn't count for the whole of the country's population, and it's not a good way of comparing two countries. For example, the USA has some of the richest people in the world, but there are also immigrants who have a very small income, so there would be a lot of inequality, but it doesn't reflect on the overall development of the country. I think the best way to measure standard of living is by looking at the poverty rate, because then you get a percentage of the whole population who earn under a certain amount and you are only looking at the bad side of a country.
The following is a wikipedia page with world maps showing different countries' HDIs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
From the image, you can tell that Chile has a higher HDI than some MEDCs, such as Russia.
I don't know much about it to be honest, but I thought I'd share what I've been taught.
As I suspected, HDI doesn't prove or disprove "third world" because the latter is a totally ambiguous term anyway.
In this post I wrote "third world government" - it's a meaningless statement. What I want to get at is that the government, in a representative capacity, is totally dysfunctional. It doesn't represent the people of Chile, it doesn't defend them, it doesn't listen to them. So I appreciate the opportunity to Clare-ify. That's what I meant by "third world government".
But what about Roger's blog?
There were two things that jumped out at me in this blog, both from the same post...
One is that he thinks the "entire city" is easily accessible from the metro. Hahaha. Wait, until he's been here for two more months and has to try to actually get somewhere non-touristy. 1 metro and 3 micros later he'll be singing a different tune.
The second thing that caught my eye was that he actually wanted to swim in the pools on the way up the teleferica ride. Ummm, EW! You could not PAY me to get in that water.
About the whole third world country issue...does it really matter what you call it? Third world country living is all dependent upon where you live and who you are. Some people in the US live in third world conditions. Some people in Chile live way better than a lot of people in the US. For Clare, Chile doesn't seem like a third world country because she's lived in worse conditions. For my husband's nana who makes 150 lukas al mes and does not have enough money to get her kids a decent education or even to buy them new shoes and clothes when they outgrow them, I don't think she cares whether Chile is considered a third world country or not. If the rich keep getting richer and Chile's government somehow manages to fudge the statistics so that Chile completes the first world country requirements, my guess is that none of that will do a damn thing to make her life any better.
I've added Roger's blog to my RSS feed.
In the tiny 4th world country inside my head, that is a positive review. ;)
--chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org
Except the thing is, its not actually comparative-- the whole third world thing. Its a look at overall how people are living, surviving or failing to thrive in a country.
Chile does not have large scale starvation or malnutrition. It does not have a majority of the population living on a dollar a day or less.
And, I do think that the distinction makes a difference. I mean, even if you look around Latin America, Chile is one of the most well off nations. (which, although it does not reach every person in the country-- is a fair overall statement). And yes, there is desigualdad here-- there is in many places. That doesn't decide the placement of a country.
regardless of whether Chile is or isn't, I have a problem with the terminology 'Third World' (and second and first world for that matter). It's outdated and refers to the First World as the West, the Second World as Communist countries/The Soviet Union and the Third World as everyone else.The Cold War is over, people, so lets stop using othering,discriminatory and inaccurate terminology. I prefer 'Minority' and 'Majority' World (no prizes for which is which) or 'Developed' and 'Developing' Countries is acceptable too, and both are more pertinent.
Clare, I think the problem is that you're reacting to the term "third world" as if it meant something. As far as I can tell, and from what you've expressed here, there is no real measurement of "third world". It is not determined by HDI, nor by inequality. It is an ambiguous, largely meaningless term, as I and Aussie have already pointed out.
So I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're reacting to.
>>>its not actually comparative
Clare, everything about your argument has been comparative up to now. You deem Chile "not third world" because your experience here is different from Cambodia, and Chile has a higher HDI than Cambodia and many other countries.
Even in this latest comment you continue comparing Chile to the rest of Latin America.
I'm happy that you consider Chile the best off among its neighbors, there are many measurements attesting to that I'm sure. I wonder, however, why you go to such great pains to describe how great Chile's HDI is, in comparison to other countries, and then you chide me for comparing when it comes to Inequality, which you so brush aside with disturbing ease, saying, "there is in many places"
I don't dispute your thorough, and tedious listing of relative HDI figures, but I'm concerned about the overall message you're trying to forward.
I would ask you to think more deeply about what it means that Chile has one of the WORST levels of inequality in the world. It's okay to compare. The World Bank did.
Now, if you want to compare Chile and Cambodia be my guest. I'm sure it would make a wonderful discussion. My arguments about the economic and labor abuse being inflicted upon Chileans don't negate that conditions for many are worse in other areas of the world.
Yet pointing out that "it could be worse" in no way hinders the argument that the situation faced by Chileans is REALLY BAD. The economic success is concentrated in the hands of very few - those who control the media and paint a rosy picture of this "rising star". The government is but a rubber stamp for nakedly pro-big business policies which were mapped out under the duress of dictatorship. Today's government is, economically, but an extension of the dictatorship and in many ways even more brutal.
Chile is for sale, as it always has been. (See the film I helped produce Deserted Memory about a nitrate mining town converted into a concentration camp). Everything is exported and the wealth gained has never been accessible by the poor. Lagos exacerbated that, and the environment also suffered.
If there was less inequality, people here could be doing a LOT better than they are, but they're not. There is a shitload of poverty in Chile, and the government goes to great pains to disguise it.
Australiana, I'm sure I've said third world plenty before, influenced by Chileans who describe their country as such. In this instance, however, I said "third world government". I'm not exactly a fan of being PC when characterizing those who actively engage in campaigns to destroy the lives of others, as does the Chilean government. "Third world" is about as meaningful as "scum bag", and I think I'll stop using it because it's far too flattering.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home