Some issues, 19 Sep 2008
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 I cannot deem this an especially reliable book.

Why we should care about Latin America, 14 Nov 2007
As someone not very familiar with Latin America, I found Michael Reid's book was a brilliantly clear introduction to its history and politics that perfectly prepared me to follow his very detailed and convincing arguments (often enriched by stories of ordinary people's lives) about modern Latin American politics and economy - and what we can learn from the region's experiences.

Some issues, 19 Sep 2008
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 I cannot deem this an especially reliable book.

Why we should care about Latin America, 14 Nov 2007
As someone not very familiar with Latin America, I found Michael Reid's book was a brilliantly clear introduction to its history and politics that perfectly prepared me to follow his very detailed and convincing arguments (often enriched by stories of ordinary people's lives) about modern Latin American politics and economy - and what we can learn from the region's experiences.

Good, 01 Aug 2008
I rather enjoyed this book. It was an interesting historical account of Chavez and the rise of his movement (and himself) in Venezuela. I enjoyed reading about the coup in April 2003, and although I can appreciate people think the book is biased, I still thought it was insightful and interesting.
My only wish was that it had discussed the actual impact of Chavez's Bolivarian policies in Venezuela and how the lives of poor people have(or haven't) been improved since he came to power.
I would recommend this book to those who have an interest in the history of the country.

Balanced, informative, well researched and well written, 26 Aug 2007
This book is extremely interesting , informative and well written - and covers Venezuelan history to put the present in context.

While sympathetic to Chavez the author does not hold back from criticising him or his government - for instance covering police murders of native Indians who were protesting against the construction of electricity pylons on their land.

The book goes far beyond the caricatures of Chavez presented by the American government and much of the American media. He also puts Chavez's government in context in history - as a reaction to the broken election pledges and the massacre of hundreds in the Caracazo by Chavez' predecessor Carlos Andres Perez who was praised as a 'democrat' by the Clinton administration.

It also covers the real events of the two US-backed coup attempts against Chavez by interviewing participants and marchers on both sides.Gott also interviews Venezuelan political opponents of Chavez both on the right and on the left.



simpatico, 21 Jul 2007
Richard Gott's very readable book gives a good overall picture of the man and his 'revolution' written from a sympathetic view point but not without crititism. Gives a needed background on where Chaves philosophy comes from (Simon Bolivar)and hopefully where Chaves would like it to lead, given a chance by the neo-cons and other opponents both internal and external. If this had happened during the cold war then Chaves and his supporters would all be long dead after some CIA sponsered coup as in Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruaguay, or military intervention a la El Salvador, Granada, etc. One very important thing to remember, Chaves is the result and product of totally free democratic elections as are the other, if rather softer, left leaders appearing all over Latin America the last decade.

Very disappointing, 09 Jun 2007
Whatever your opinion about Hugo Chavez, if you want real insights into his personality and politics, this books simply doesn't deliver. Instead, the author uses cliches and unsubstantiated arguments to promote his own (very positive) view of the man. He seems to have lost all critical facilities: hardly questioning what Chavez says, or quoting from other figures. Some of the most interesting questions about Chavez - how sustainable are his social policies, how he might give up power - are never addressed. The chapter on Colombia is particularly poor - anyone who believes that the country's illegal economy is bigger than its legal economy hasn't done their research. All this makes the book unenjoyable to read - and the author's dull travel notes do little to liven it up.

Por ahora, 16 Sep 2005
This is a very good book, which I would strongly recommend, though I do have some reservations about its, at times, uncritical stance. The chapter on the attempted coup in April 2003 is particularly good; tightly written and informative. The reference to Denis MacShane, for instance, was white knuckle stuff. The background material, particularly on Samuel Robinson and La Causa R and its founding father, Alfredo Maneiro, is often moving. He also throws in some good "colour", as journalists say, explaining, for instance, how the phrase "por ahoro" ("for now") became famous after Chavez used it in a brief televised speech in 1992 to tell his fellow conspirators to end their coup attempt. My reservations stem from his perfunctory attitude to critics and other who are not "on message". For instance, I would like to have known why Chavez supporters referred to in the book who switched allegiances did so, perhaps in a glossary at the end. (I would like to have know in some detail, for instance, what Luis Miquelena's politics are.) I would also like to have had an explanation of what he means by "ultra leftist". It seems to me that he takes a slightly cavalier attitude to Chavez's semi-detached view of party politics and how this squares with a commitment to democratic action. I must say at times Chavez reminded me of a left-wing Napoleon III.

Some issues, 19 Sep 2008
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 I cannot deem this an especially reliable book.

Why we should care about Latin America, 14 Nov 2007
As someone not very familiar with Latin America, I found Michael Reid's book was a brilliantly clear introduction to its history and politics that perfectly prepared me to follow his very detailed and convincing arguments (often enriched by stories of ordinary people's lives) about modern Latin American politics and economy - and what we can learn from the region's experiences.

Good, 01 Aug 2008
I rather enjoyed this book. It was an interesting historical account of Chavez and the rise of his movement (and himself) in Venezuela. I enjoyed reading about the coup in April 2003, and although I can appreciate people think the book is biased, I still thought it was insightful and interesting.
My only wish was that it had discussed the actual impact of Chavez's Bolivarian policies in Venezuela and how the lives of poor people have(or haven't) been improved since he came to power.
I would recommend this book to those who have an interest in the history of the country.

Balanced, informative, well researched and well written, 26 Aug 2007
This book is extremely interesting , informative and well written - and covers Venezuelan history to put the present in context.

While sympathetic to Chavez the author does not hold back from criticising him or his government - for instance covering police murders of native Indians who were protesting against the construction of electricity pylons on their land.

The book goes far beyond the caricatures of Chavez presented by the American government and much of the American media. He also puts Chavez's government in context in history - as a reaction to the broken election pledges and the massacre of hundreds in the Caracazo by Chavez' predecessor Carlos Andres Perez who was praised as a 'democrat' by the Clinton administration.

It also covers the real events of the two US-backed coup attempts against Chavez by interviewing participants and marchers on both sides.Gott also interviews Venezuelan political opponents of Chavez both on the right and on the left.



simpatico, 21 Jul 2007
Richard Gott's very readable book gives a good overall picture of the man and his 'revolution' written from a sympathetic view point but not without crititism. Gives a needed background on where Chaves philosophy comes from (Simon Bolivar)and hopefully where Chaves would like it to lead, given a chance by the neo-cons and other opponents both internal and external. If this had happened during the cold war then Chaves and his supporters would all be long dead after some CIA sponsered coup as in Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruaguay, or military intervention a la El Salvador, Granada, etc. One very important thing to remember, Chaves is the result and product of totally free democratic elections as are the other, if rather softer, left leaders appearing all over Latin America the last decade.

Very disappointing, 09 Jun 2007
Whatever your opinion about Hugo Chavez, if you want real insights into his personality and politics, this books simply doesn't deliver. Instead, the author uses cliches and unsubstantiated arguments to promote his own (very positive) view of the man. He seems to have lost all critical facilities: hardly questioning what Chavez says, or quoting from other figures. Some of the most interesting questions about Chavez - how sustainable are his social policies, how he might give up power - are never addressed. The chapter on Colombia is particularly poor - anyone who believes that the country's illegal economy is bigger than its legal economy hasn't done their research. All this makes the book unenjoyable to read - and the author's dull travel notes do little to liven it up.

Por ahora, 16 Sep 2005
This is a very good book, which I would strongly recommend, though I do have some reservations about its, at times, uncritical stance. The chapter on the attempted coup in April 2003 is particularly good; tightly written and informative. The reference to Denis MacShane, for instance, was white knuckle stuff. The background material, particularly on Samuel Robinson and La Causa R and its founding father, Alfredo Maneiro, is often moving. He also throws in some good "colour", as journalists say, explaining, for instance, how the phrase "por ahoro" ("for now") became famous after Chavez used it in a brief televised speech in 1992 to tell his fellow conspirators to end their coup attempt. My reservations stem from his perfunctory attitude to critics and other who are not "on message". For instance, I would like to have known why Chavez supporters referred to in the book who switched allegiances did so, perhaps in a glossary at the end. (I would like to have know in some detail, for instance, what Luis Miquelena's politics are.) I would also like to have had an explanation of what he means by "ultra leftist". It seems to me that he takes a slightly cavalier attitude to Chavez's semi-detached view of party politics and how this squares with a commitment to democratic action. I must say at times Chavez reminded me of a left-wing Napoleon III.

An educating and fascinating read, 27 Dec 2008
If you have ever wondered why, following 204 years of independence, Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere and perpetually on its knees, why there are 8000 UN troops in the country, why more than half the population exists on less than one U.S. dollar a day then you must read this book.

Randall Robinson eloquently traces the discovery of Haiti through to the slave revolt which led to its Independence.
A greater part of the book is devoted to the background and subsequent kidnapping in 2004 of its President.

The US government and media reports would have people believe that a twice democratically elected President would voluntarily choose to go into exile.
This book encourages you to think critically about the news and international events presented by the media. It is a truly an educating and fascinating read.

Some issues, 19 Sep 2008
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 I cannot deem this an especially reliable book.

Why we should care about Latin America, 14 Nov 2007
As someone not very familiar with Latin America, I found Michael Reid's book was a brilliantly clear introduction to its history and politics that perfectly prepared me to follow his very detailed and convincing arguments (often enriched by stories of ordinary people's lives) about modern Latin American politics and economy - and what we can learn from the region's experiences.

Good, 01 Aug 2008
I rather enjoyed this book. It was an interesting historical account of Chavez and the rise of his movement (and himself) in Venezuela. I enjoyed reading about the coup in April 2003, and although I can appreciate people think the book is biased, I still thought it was insightful and interesting.
My only wish was that it had discussed the actual impact of Chavez's Bolivarian policies in Venezuela and how the lives of poor people have(or haven't) been improved since he came to power.
I would recommend this book to those who have an interest in the history of the country.

Balanced, informative, well researched and well written, 26 Aug 2007
This book is extremely interesting , informative and well written - and covers Venezuelan history to put the present in context.

While sympathetic to Chavez the author does not hold back from criticising him or his government - for instance covering police murders of native Indians who were protesting against the construction of electricity pylons on their land.

The book goes far beyond the caricatures of Chavez presented by the American government and much of the American media. He also puts Chavez's government in context in history - as a reaction to the broken election pledges and the massacre of hundreds in the Caracazo by Chavez' predecessor Carlos Andres Perez who was praised as a 'democrat' by the Clinton administration.

It also covers the real events of the two US-backed coup attempts against Chavez by interviewing participants and marchers on both sides.Gott also interviews Venezuelan political opponents of Chavez both on the right and on the left.



simpatico, 21 Jul 2007
Richard Gott's very readable book gives a good overall picture of the man and his 'revolution' written from a sympathetic view point but not without crititism. Gives a needed background on where Chaves philosophy comes from (Simon Bolivar)and hopefully where Chaves would like it to lead, given a chance by the neo-cons and other opponents both internal and external. If this had happened during the cold war then Chaves and his supporters would all be long dead after some CIA sponsered coup as in Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruaguay, or military intervention a la El Salvador, Granada, etc. One very important thing to remember, Chaves is the result and product of totally free democratic elections as are the other, if rather softer, left leaders appearing all over Latin America the last decade.

Very disappointing, 09 Jun 2007
Whatever your opinion about Hugo Chavez, if you want real insights into his personality and politics, this books simply doesn't deliver. Instead, the author uses cliches and unsubstantiated arguments to promote his own (very positive) view of the man. He seems to have lost all critical facilities: hardly questioning what Chavez says, or quoting from other figures. Some of the most interesting questions about Chavez - how sustainable are his social policies, how he might give up power - are never addressed. The chapter on Colombia is particularly poor - anyone who believes that the country's illegal economy is bigger than its legal economy hasn't done their research. All this makes the book unenjoyable to read - and the author's dull travel notes do little to liven it up.

Por ahora, 16 Sep 2005
This is a very good book, which I would strongly recommend, though I do have some reservations about its, at times, uncritical stance. The chapter on the attempted coup in April 2003 is particularly good; tightly written and informative. The reference to Denis MacShane, for instance, was white knuckle stuff. The background material, particularly on Samuel Robinson and La Causa R and its founding father, Alfredo Maneiro, is often moving. He also throws in some good "colour", as journalists say, explaining, for instance, how the phrase "por ahoro" ("for now") became famous after Chavez used it in a brief televised speech in 1992 to tell his fellow conspirators to end their coup attempt. My reservations stem from his perfunctory attitude to critics and other who are not "on message". For instance, I would like to have known why Chavez supporters referred to in the book who switched allegiances did so, perhaps in a glossary at the end. (I would like to have know in some detail, for instance, what Luis Miquelena's politics are.) I would also like to have had an explanation of what he means by "ultra leftist". It seems to me that he takes a slightly cavalier attitude to Chavez's semi-detached view of party politics and how this squares with a commitment to democratic action. I must say at times Chavez reminded me of a left-wing Napoleon III.

An educating and fascinating read, 27 Dec 2008
If you have ever wondered why, following 204 years of independence, Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere and perpetually on its knees, why there are 8000 UN troops in the country, why more than half the population exists on less than one U.S. dollar a day then you must read this book.

Randall Robinson eloquently traces the discovery of Haiti through to the slave revolt which led to its Independence.
A greater part of the book is devoted to the background and subsequent kidnapping in 2004 of its President.

The US government and media reports would have people believe that a twice democratically elected President would voluntarily choose to go into exile.
This book encourages you to think critically about the news and international events presented by the media. It is a truly an educating and fascinating read.


An exhaustive account of US policy in Central America., 07 Jun 1999
Leogrande documents the strong role the United States played in El Salvador and Nicaragua during the civil wars in these countries. He apologizes for excluding Guatemala because that would make his necessarily long work even longer. The actions of all players - the CIA, State Department, National Security Council, the Sandinistas, the Contras, the FLMN (Salvadoran rebels), the Organization of American States (OAS), and many others - are presented in a detailed narrative which illuminates the extraordinarily intricate background behind the headlines. As such it shows the tremendous power, resources and determination the United States has for controlling events south of its border. Though lengthy, I found this book extremely absorbing for I experienced history coming alive on its pages. Leogrande has produced a valuable work which will no doubt appear on any major bibliography on US policy in Central America.

182 Pages of Index, 17 Apr 1999
Mr. LeoGrande has written a 590 page book with an additional 182 pages of notes and index. Only a university with a great basketball program such as UNC (the publisher) could afford to humor such a person. On the book cover, it states Mr. LeoGrande is an employee of "American University" yet doesn't bother to inform me about this school. Is it well-known like Harvard or MIT? At any rate he knows how to go on and on about his chosen subject.

Great analysis of the U.S.-El Salvador relations durings 80s, 19 Jan 1999
LeoGrande's academic analysis of the U.S. military involvement in Central America is the best account yet of the U.S. foreign policy towards Central America during the Eighties. Although, his focus is on El Salvador and Nicaragua, it is the painstaking assessment of the relations of the U.S. and El Salvador during the 1980s that makes this book valuable to its readers. Regarding El Salvador, the theme of the U.S. foreign policy was simple: support the Salvadoran military to stop the marxist-led FLMN guerrillas even if the military's death squads engage in massive human rights violations. The book should be useful not only to those interested in Central America, but also to those who live with, work with and do business with Central Americans in the United States. The Civil War in El Salvador displaced over 1 million persons, most of whom fled to the United States. During the Salvadoran Civil War, about 60,000 people died. The children and grandchildren of Salvadorans who were able to make it to the U.S. should find LeoGrande's book as an excellent introduction to the reasons why their forebears came to the United States. LeoGrande's book is informative, engaging and insightful.

Some issues, 19 Sep 2008
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 I cannot deem this an especially reliable book.

Why we should care about Latin America, 14 Nov 2007
As someone not very familiar with Latin America, I found Michael Reid's book was a brilliantly clear introduction to its history and politics that perfectly prepared me to follow his very detailed and convincing arguments (often enriched by stories of ordinary people's lives) about modern Latin American politics and economy - and what we can learn from the region's experiences.

Good, 01 Aug 2008
I rather enjoyed this book. It was an interesting historical account of Chavez and the rise of his movement (and himself) in Venezuela. I enjoyed reading about the coup in April 2003, and although I can appreciate people think the book is biased, I still thought it was insightful and interesting.
My only wish was that it had discussed the actual impact of Chavez's Bolivarian policies in Venezuela and how the lives of poor people have(or haven't) been improved since he came to power.
I would recommend this book to those who have an interest in the history of the country.

Balanced, informative, well researched and well written, 26 Aug 2007
This book is extremely interesting , informative and well written - and covers Venezuelan history to put the present in context.

While sympathetic to Chavez the author does not hold back from criticising him or his government - for instance covering police murders of native Indians who were protesting against the construction of electricity pylons on their land.

The book goes far beyond the caricatures of Chavez presented by the American government and much of the American media. He also puts Chavez's government in context in history - as a reaction to the broken election pledges and the massacre of hundreds in the Caracazo by Chavez' predecessor Carlos Andres Perez who was praised as a 'democrat' by the Clinton administration.

It also covers the real events of the two US-backed coup attempts against Chavez by interviewing participants and marchers on both sides.Gott also interviews Venezuelan political opponents of Chavez both on the right and on the left.



simpatico, 21 Jul 2007
Richard Gott's very readable book gives a good overall picture of the man and his 'revolution' written from a sympathetic view point but not without crititism. Gives a needed background on where Chaves philosophy comes from (Simon Bolivar)and hopefully where Chaves would like it to lead, given a chance by the neo-cons and other opponents both internal and external. If this had happened during the cold war then Chaves and his supporters would all be long dead after some CIA sponsered coup as in Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruaguay, or military intervention a la El Salvador, Granada, etc. One very important thing to remember, Chaves is the result and product of totally free democratic elections as are the other, if rather softer, left leaders appearing all over Latin America the last decade.

Very disappointing, 09 Jun 2007
Whatever your opinion about Hugo Chavez, if you want real insights into his personality and politics, this books simply doesn't deliver. Instead, the author uses cliches and unsubstantiated arguments to promote his own (very positive) view of the man. He seems to have lost all critical facilities: hardly questioning what Chavez says, or quoting from other figures. Some of the most interesting questions about Chavez - how sustainable are his social policies, how he might give up power - are never addressed. The chapter on Colombia is particularly poor - anyone who believes that the country's illegal economy is bigger than its legal economy hasn't done their research. All this makes the book unenjoyable to read - and the author's dull travel notes do little to liven it up.

Por ahora, 16 Sep 2005
This is a very good book, which I would strongly recommend, though I do have some reservations about its, at times, uncritical stance. The chapter on the attempted coup in April 2003 is particularly good; tightly written and informative. The reference to Denis MacShane, for instance, was white knuckle stuff. The background material, particularly on Samuel Robinson and La Causa R and its founding father, Alfredo Maneiro, is often moving. He also throws in some good "colour", as journalists say, explaining, for instance, how the phrase "por ahoro" ("for now") became famous after Chavez used it in a brief televised speech in 1992 to tell his fellow conspirators to end their coup attempt. My reservations stem from his perfunctory attitude to critics and other who are not "on message". For instance, I would like to have known why Chavez supporters referred to in the book who switched allegiances did so, perhaps in a glossary at the end. (I would like to have know in some detail, for instance, what Luis Miquelena's politics are.) I would also like to have had an explanation of what he means by "ultra leftist". It seems to me that he takes a slightly cavalier attitude to Chavez's semi-detached view of party politics and how this squares with a commitment to democratic action. I must say at times Chavez reminded me of a left-wing Napoleon III.

An educating and fascinating read, 27 Dec 2008
If you have ever wondered why, following 204 years of independence, Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere and perpetually on its knees, why there are 8000 UN troops in the country, why more than half the population exists on less than one U.S. dollar a day then you must read this book.

Randall Robinson eloquently traces the discovery of Haiti through to the slave revolt which led to its Independence.
A greater part of the book is devoted to the background and subsequent kidnapping in 2004 of its President.

The US government and media reports would have people believe that a twice democratically elected President would voluntarily choose to go into exile.
This book encourages you to think critically about the news and international events presented by the media. It is a truly an educating and fascinating read.


An exhaustive account of US policy in Central America., 07 Jun 1999
Leogrande documents the strong role the United States played in El Salvador and Nicaragua during the civil wars in these countries. He apologizes for excluding Guatemala because that would make his necessarily long work even longer. The actions of all players - the CIA, State Department, National Security Council, the Sandinistas, the Contras, the FLMN (Salvadoran rebels), the Organization of American States (OAS), and many others - are presented in a detailed narrative which illuminates the extraordinarily intricate background behind the headlines. As such it shows the tremendous power, resources and determination the United States has for controlling events south of its border. Though lengthy, I found this book extremely absorbing for I experienced history coming alive on its pages. Leogrande has produced a valuable work which will no doubt appear on any major bibliography on US policy in Central America.

182 Pages of Index, 17 Apr 1999
Mr. LeoGrande has written a 590 page book with an additional 182 pages of notes and index. Only a university with a great basketball program such as UNC (the publisher) could afford to humor such a person. On the book cover, it states Mr. LeoGrande is an employee of "American University" yet doesn't bother to inform me about this school. Is it well-known like Harvard or MIT? At any rate he knows how to go on and on about his chosen subject.

Great analysis of the U.S.-El Salvador relations durings 80s, 19 Jan 1999
LeoGrande's academic analysis of the U.S. military involvement in Central America is the best account yet of the U.S. foreign policy towards Central America during the Eighties. Although, his focus is on El Salvador and Nicaragua, it is the painstaking assessment of the relations of the U.S. and El Salvador during the 1980s that makes this book valuable to its readers. Regarding El Salvador, the theme of the U.S. foreign policy was simple: support the Salvadoran military to stop the marxist-led FLMN guerrillas even if the military's death squads engage in massive human rights violations. The book should be useful not only to those interested in Central America, but also to those who live with, work with and do business with Central Americans in the United States. The Civil War in El Salvador displaced over 1 million persons, most of whom fled to the United States. During the Salvadoran Civil War, about 60,000 people died. The children and grandchildren of Salvadorans who were able to make it to the U.S. should find LeoGrande's book as an excellent introduction to the reasons why their forebears came to the United States. LeoGrande's book is informative, engaging and insightful.

Misleading title and sub-title, just another anti Castro book, 10 Feb 2008
I bought this book in an airport whilst travelling and I wish I had not bothered. I normally plan my serious book purchases but the alluring subtitle; "Raul Castro and the Future of Cuba's Revolution" caught me like a fish and reeled me in.

The book turned out to be not much more than the typical Fidel biography you would expect from someone that has worked for the USA intelligence agencies. I didn't expect much apart from speculation with regard to the future of the island as nobody can accurately predict just what will happen when Fidel does die.

But I was disappointed that Raul Castro is hardly mentioned in detail throughout the book, the focus is on the past and on Fidel and there are plenty of books from the same perspective that have been written before and written better than this one. I want to know more about Raul and the other people in the Cuban government and that is why I bought this but I ended up feeling let down.

The book could also have benefited by having more documented proof of some of his assertions. There is plenty of evidence from the CIA's own declassified files for the various terrorist attacks against Fidel and against Cuba since the USA government went off the revolution and became openly hostile towards it. Surely the world would benefit from seeing similar evidence out in the open for Latell's claims about Cuban sponsored terrorism instead of relying solely on interviews which without proof amount to little more than gossip. With the sources he has access to and his time spent working in the roles he has I would have expected a more credible book than this one.

There is a need for unbiased works on Cuba and the Castro brothers, this book does not fulfil that need and is a waste of money unless you want to add another anti-Fidel book to your collection.

Some issues, 19 Sep 2008
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 I cannot deem this an especially reliable book.

Why we should care about Latin America, 14 Nov 2007
As someone not very familiar with Latin America, I found Michael Reid's book was a brilliantly clear introduction to its history and politics that perfectly prepared me to follow his very detailed and convincing arguments (often enriched by stories of ordinary people's lives) about modern Latin American politics and economy - and what we can learn from the region's experiences.

Good, 01 Aug 2008
I rather enjoyed this book. It was an interesting historical account of Chavez and the rise of his movement (and himself) in Venezuela. I enjoyed reading about the coup in April 2003, and although I can appreciate people think the book is biased, I still thought it was insightful and interesting.
My only wish was that it had discussed the actual impact of Chavez's Bolivarian policies in Venezuela and how the lives of poor people have(or haven't) been improved since he came to power.
I would recommend this book to those who have an interest in the history of the country.

Balanced, informative, well researched and well written, 26 Aug 2007
This book is extremely interesting , informative and well written - and covers Venezuelan history to put the present in context.

While sympathetic to Chavez the author does not hold back from criticising him or his government - for instance covering police murders of native Indians who were protesting against the construction of electricity pylons on their land.

The book goes far beyond the caricatures of Chavez presented by the American government and much of the American media. He also puts Chavez's government in context in history - as a reaction to the broken election pledges and the massacre of hundreds in the Caracazo by Chavez' predecessor Carlos Andres Perez who was praised as a 'democrat' by the Clinton administration.

It also covers the real events of the two US-backed coup attempts against Chavez by interviewing participants and marchers on both sides.Gott also interviews Venezuelan political opponents of Chavez both on the right and on the left.



simpatico, 21 Jul 2007
Richard Gott's very readable book gives a good overall picture of the man and his 'revolution' written from a sympathetic view point but not without crititism. Gives a needed background on where Chaves philosophy comes from (Simon Bolivar)and hopefully where Chaves would like it to lead, given a chance by the neo-cons and other opponents both internal and external. If this had happened during the cold war then Chaves and his supporters would all be long dead after some CIA sponsered coup as in Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruaguay, or military intervention a la El Salvador, Granada, etc. One very important thing to remember, Chaves is the result and product of totally free democratic elections as are the other, if rather softer, left leaders appearing all over Latin America the last decade.

Very disappointing, 09 Jun 2007
Whatever your opinion about Hugo Chavez, if you want real insights into his personality and politics, this books simply doesn't deliver. Instead, the author uses cliches and unsubstantiated arguments to promote his own (very positive) view of the man. He seems to have lost all critical facilities: hardly questioning what Chavez says, or quoting from other figures. Some of the most interesting questions about Chavez - how sustainable are his social policies, how he might give up power - are never addressed. The chapter on Colombia is particularly poor - anyone who believes that the country's illegal economy is bigger than its legal economy hasn't done their research. All this makes the book unenjoyable to read - and the author's dull travel notes do little to liven it up.

Por ahora, 16 Sep 2005
This is a very good book, which I would strongly recommend, though I do have some reservations about its, at times, uncritical stance. The chapter on the attempted coup in April 2003 is particularly good; tightly written and informative. The reference to Denis MacShane, for instance, was white knuckle stuff. The background material, particularly on Samuel Robinson and La Causa R and its founding father, Alfredo Maneiro, is often moving. He also throws in some good "colour", as journalists say, explaining, for instance, how the phrase "por ahoro" ("for now") became famous after Chavez used it in a brief televised speech in 1992 to tell his fellow conspirators to end their coup attempt. My reservations stem from his perfunctory attitude to critics and other who are not "on message". For instance, I would like to have known why Chavez supporters referred to in the book who switched allegiances did so, perhaps in a glossary at the end. (I would like to have know in some detail, for instance, what Luis Miquelena's politics are.) I would also like to have had an explanation of what he means by "ultra leftist". It seems to me that he takes a slightly cavalier attitude to Chavez's semi-detached view of party politics and how this squares with a commitment to democratic action. I must say at times Chavez reminded me of a left-wing Napoleon III.

An educating and fascinating read, 27 Dec 2008
If you have ever wondered why, following 204 years of independence, Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere and perpetually on its knees, why there are 8000 UN troops in the country, why more than half the population exists on less than one U.S. dollar a day then you must read this book.

Randall Robinson eloquently traces the discovery of Haiti through to the slave revolt which led to its Independence.
A greater part of the book is devoted to the background and subsequent kidnapping in 2004 of its President.

The US government and media reports would have people believe that a twice democratically elected President would voluntarily choose to go into exile.
This book encourages you to think critically about the news and international events presented by the media. It is a truly an educating and fascinating read.


An exhaustive account of US policy in Central America., 07 Jun 1999
Leogrande documents the strong role the United States played in El Salvador and Nicaragua during the civil wars in these countries. He apologizes for excluding Guatemala because that would make his necessarily long work even longer. The actions of all players - the CIA, State Department, National Security Council, the Sandinistas, the Contras, the FLMN (Salvadoran rebels), the Organization of American States (OAS), and many others - are presented in a detailed narrative which illuminates the extraordinarily intricate background behind the headlines. As such it shows the tremendous power, resources and determination the United States has for controlling events south of its border. Though lengthy, I found this book extremely absorbing for I experienced history coming alive on its pages. Leogrande has produced a valuable work which will no doubt appear on any major bibliography on US policy in Central America.

182 Pages of Index, 17 Apr 1999
Mr. LeoGrande has written a 590 page book with an additional 182 pages of notes and index. Only a university with a great basketball program such as UNC (the publisher) could afford to humor such a person. On the book cover, it states Mr. LeoGrande is an employee of "American University" yet doesn't bother to inform me about this school. Is it well-known like Harvard or MIT? At any rate he knows how to go on and on about his chosen subject.

Great analysis of the U.S.-El Salvador relations durings 80s, 19 Jan 1999
LeoGrande's academic analysis of the U.S. military involvement in Central America is the best account yet of the U.S. foreign policy towards Central America during the Eighties. Although, his focus is on El Salvador and Nicaragua, it is the painstaking assessment of the relations of the U.S. and El Salvador during the 1980s that makes this book valuable to its readers. Regarding El Salvador, the theme of the U.S. foreign policy was simple: support the Salvadoran military to stop the marxist-led FLMN guerrillas even if the military's death squads engage in massive human rights violations. The book should be useful not only to those interested in Central America, but also to those who live with, work with and do business with Central Americans in the United States. The Civil War in El Salvador displaced over 1 million persons, most of whom fled to the United States. During the Salvadoran Civil War, about 60,000 people died. The children and grandchildren of Salvadorans who were able to make it to the U.S. should find LeoGrande's book as an excellent introduction to the reasons why their forebears came to the United States. LeoGrande's book is informative, engaging and insightful.

Misleading title and sub-title, just another anti Castro book, 10 Feb 2008
I bought this book in an airport whilst travelling and I wish I had not bothered. I normally plan my serious book purchases but the alluring subtitle; "Raul Castro and the Future of Cuba's Revolution" caught me like a fish and reeled me in.

The book turned out to be not much more than the typical Fidel biography you would expect from someone that has worked for the USA intelligence agencies. I didn't expect much apart from speculation with regard to the future of the island as nobody can accurately predict just what will happen when Fidel does die.

But I was disappointed that Raul Castro is hardly mentioned in detail throughout the book, the focus is on the past and on Fidel and there are plenty of books from the same perspective that have been written before and written better than this one. I want to know more about Raul and the other people in the Cuban government and that is why I bought this but I ended up feeling let down.

The book could also have benefited by having more documented proof of some of his assertions. There is plenty of evidence from the CIA's own declassified files for the various terrorist attacks against Fidel and against Cuba since the USA government went off the revolution and became openly hostile towards it. Surely the world would benefit from seeing similar evidence out in the open for Latell's claims about Cuban sponsored terrorism instead of relying solely on interviews which without proof amount to little more than gossip. With the sources he has access to and his time spent working in the roles he has I would have expected a more credible book than this one.

There is a need for unbiased works on Cuba and the Castro brothers, this book does not fulfil that need and is a waste of money unless you want to add another anti-Fidel book to your collection.

An excellent read!, 21 Apr 2008
A well written and interesting book covering not just the story of Cardoso's life but also offering an insight into the extended political history of Brazil. Cardoso is a highly intelligent and interesting figure (indisputable, even if you don't subscribe to his politics!) with many fascinating experiences to recount. As with every biography, a certain amount of context and critical analysis is needed. For example, Cardoso very much plays down the significance of the economic crisis in Brazil during his presidency. Nonetheless, this book is definitely worth a read!

Some issues, 19 Sep 2008
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 I cannot deem this an especially reliable book.

Why we should care about Latin America, 14 Nov 2007
As someone not very familiar with Latin America, I found Michael Reid's book was a brilliantly clear introduction to its history and politics that perfectly prepared me to follow his very detailed and convincing arguments (often enriched by stories of ordinary people's lives) about modern Latin American politics and economy - and what we can learn from the region's experiences.

Good, 01 Aug 2008
I rather enjoyed this book. It was an interesting historical account of Chavez and the rise of his movement (and himself) in Venezuela. I enjoyed reading about the coup in April 2003, and although I can appreciate people think the book is biased, I still thought it was insightful and interesting.
My only wish was that it had discussed the actual impact of Chavez's Bolivarian policies in Venezuela and how the lives of poor people have(or haven't) been improved since he came to power.
I would recommend this book to those who have an inter