First of all, I understand the term "backyard" used by the United States for Latin America. But as a Latin American I am offend by the use of theterm in the article by Allan Cruickshanks ("The disease of socialism," Jan. 24). You can't just throw it out there. That term implies ownership and that devalues the millions of people in Latin America.
Also, this "worry" for the situation in Latin America devalues what the people in these countries have voted for when they elected Chavez (Venezuela), Morales (Bolivia), Vasquez (Urugauy), Da Silva (Brazil), Bachelet (Chile) and Ortega (Nicaragua), who are all socialists or have socialist tendencies. One may argue that some of these elections were suspicious. But, what about Bush's win over Gore?
We must understand that socialism is not the opposite of democracy, it is the opposite of capitalism. We must also try to understand why, in the past and the present, capitalism has been a synonym for genocide in many parts of Latin America. If any of these leaders get out of hand (it's a possibility for any leader), like the pro-United States dictators that supported the United States in the Cold War with murder in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, we can trust that the people will revolt. I know this because I lived through revolts of this sort.
Bruno Elias
CLAS II