Top Everything of 2025

Another year in the books. Like every year, there were too many worthwhile things for me to make a single list for only one category. So, also like every year, I'm dropping a list with my top picks for a variety of categories. With that said, though, expect an upcoming post or two about movies from 2025, since I did get the chance to watch more movies last year than usual.

A quick note: I am in the process of writing a book right now (an introductory guide to the roots and rise of the Nazis), so most entries will be shorter than they have been in past years. I was initially going to have less categories than usual, but none of them felt right to get rid of. So, brevity will be the key for much of this year's list.

Anyway, these are my picks for what stood out to me in 2025. Enjoy! 

 

Movie: One Battle After Another

This almost feels like a boring pick considering how much attention it has received, but sometimes a near-universally acclaimed movie gets that much praise for a reason. Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, it follows Leonardo DiCaprio as a burnt out ex-revolutionary trying to protect his daughter as his and his baby mama's past come back to haunt them. The main villain, a goofy yet terrifying military officer played masterfully by Sean Penn, is an imposing foe.

Everything about One Battle After Another is incredible: the directing, the writing, the acting, the editing, the score, everything. It all comes together to make something special, something that perfectly balances style and substance. It's one of those rare movies that everyone from hardcore movie buffs to people who only watch movies once in a while can enjoy. I don't want to say too much more because it's one of those movies you don't want to know too much about beforehand, but if you haven't seen it, check it out!

 

Comedy Movie: No Other Choice

While this movie won't release widely until early 2026, it had a limited release in December. I was lucky enough to catch an early IMAX screening of it. It's directed by Park Chan-wook, who made Oldboy, The Handmaiden, and Decision to Leave, among others. He's not only arguably South Korea's most celebrated filmmaker, but one of the best filmmakers working today of any country.

Getting to the movie itself, No Other Choice is a black comedy thriller about a man (played by the incredible Lee Byung-hun) who works as a senior employee at a paper company. When the company is bought out by a bigger US company, it lays off a huge chunk of the Korean employees, including the protagonist. He then has to try to find a new job, but that proves harder than expected considering the job market. This then pushes him to try more... drastic measures to get a new job.

The thematic focus of this dark comedy is the struggles created by modern capitalism. It's reminiscent of Parasite in a broad sense, though there are some key differences. I'd say, as a whole, Parasite is a better film in terms of how it executes tension and theme, but this movie is funnier. You'll very rarely go more than a minute or two without at least chuckling, and you'll be laughing often. There's one scene in the middle that had me and the audience I watched it with howling. It was easily the funniest scene I saw in 2025. While the subject matter of this film is actually pretty heavy when you think about it, it's told in such a funny, entertaining way that it all goes down smooth.

  

Animated Movie: K-Pop Demon Hunters 

Unless you spent 2025 in a Tibetan monastery, you probably heard about K-Pop Demon Hunters. The story follows a trio of Korean girls who live a double life: they are both world-famous K-pop stars and demon hunters. The two feed into each other, in fact. Their music helps them keep the world of demons at bay. The main character of the movie, Rumi, is one of these girls, but she has a secret. She herself is part demon. Not even her two squad mates know this. A central question of the movie is: should you hide a 'bad' part of yourself?

The answer, of course, is no. As things unfold, she learns to be herself and embrace that side of her, as you could imagine from a kid's movie. There is also a bad boy love interest who himself is part demon; also as you can probably guess, he's not as bad as you would initially think, and ultimately has a change of heart. The story of K-Pop Demon Hunters is good but predictable, and drops the ball with the demon metaphor. In fact, I've also heard Korean friends criticize the portrayal of Korean spirits and deities as villainous demons, but that's only a message I can pass along, not one I can meaningfully comment on. What works about the story is the dynamic between the main character and her two best friends, as well as her dynamic with the bad boy love interest. It may be relatively predictable, but there's a real sincerity to it.

The best part of this movie, though, is the music. That's what really elevated it above the competition for me this year. While I didn't like any of the Saja Boy songs that much, I like all of the main group's songs. Golden and This is What it Sounds Like in particular are two of my favorite songs of the year. Maybe even two of my favorite songs from a movie soundtrack this decade. 

 

Actor: Benicio del Toro  

This was an incredible year for acting, making this a difficult category to narrow down. Stellan Skarsgård was great in Sentimental Value and Andor, Lee Byung-hun was great in No Other Choice and Squid Game, and Michael B. Jordan (my choice for actor of the year in both 2018 and 2015) was great in Sinners and... well, Sinners again, since he played two roles. And those are just the actors who had multiple roles this year. Wagner Moura in The Secret Agent, Timothee Chalamet in Marty Supreme, and Joel Edgerton in Train Dreams were all incredible in their singular roles this year.

Ultimately, though, I had to go with the actor who gave life to my favorite film character of the year. In One Battle After Another, Benicio del Toro plays Sensei Sergio, a Mexican-American karate instructor who is coolness personified. Though he is dragged into the mess that transpires around DiCaprio's character, he manages to always keep calm, despite certain things that he has going on himself that could get him in huge trouble if found out. He is easily not just my favorite movie character of the year, but one of my favorite movie characters of the decade.

In addition to that role, he also plays a ruthless yet perpetually calm businessman named Anatole Korda in Wes Anderon's The Phoenician Scheme (funny to think that del Toro played two stoic characters with lots of influence on the people around them in a movie directed by a guy with the last name Anderson this year). Korda is trying to form a relationship with his daughter, who makes his heir in an attempt to connect with her. Like with most Wes Anderson movies, there a lot of emotional distance between the characters and the viewers. By the end of the movie, though, you see that there's a lot more to Korda than you initially think. That is, in large part, thanks to del Toro breathing so much life into the role.

Benicio del Toro is one of the best actors working today, and great representation for Latinos. He's got a lot of range, but really seems to be most at home when he's playing calm, cool, collected characters. I'm glad we have him.

 

Actress: Jessie Buckley 

Like with best actor, this is another extremely stacked category. Unlike best actor there aren't as many actresses pulling strong double duty (or at least among the movies/shows I've seen), but quite a few actresses put in excellent singular performances. Eva Victor in Sorry, Baby, Tessa Thompson in Hedda, and pretty much all the women in One Battle After Another (Chase Infiniti, Teyana Taylor, Regina Hall) and Sentimental Value (Renata Reinsve, Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas, Elle Fanning) really knocked it out of the park this year.

But, if I had to go with one actress/performance, I have to go with the one that moved me more than any other I saw this year. That would be Jessie Buckley as the protagonist in Hamnet. It stars Buckley as Agnes Shakespeare, the wife of William Shakespeare. The story follows the couple as they meet, fall in love, start a family, and have kids. Then tragedy strikes. It's a tragedy that actually did take place for the couple in real life, though the details around it aren't known. In fact, because there are no records about what actually happened during this tragedy, the story of the movie is based on a novel that simply speculates on what happened.

If the title sounds like his iconic work Hamlet, that's not a coincidence. According to this movie, it's William's grief channeled into his play. Agnes, though, is the protagonist. Initially, after the tragedy hits about halfway through, it creates distance between her and William. She blames him for seemingly caring more about his plays than his family. The rest of the story follows her on a really moving journey that I don't want to say more about in case you're reading this without having seen it.

What I will say, though, is that Buckley does an incredible job in her role. The way she carries the final scene in particular is one of the most emotionally affecting performances I've ever seen. She's been talked about as the favorite to win the Oscar this year for best actress, and I think she completely deserves it.

 

TV Show: Andor

While I don't watch that much TV, I do have series that I pay attention to. One series I really like, Righteous Gemstones, did a great job with its final season this year. In other years that could've been my pick for this category. Unfortunately for Danny McBride's hilarious dramedy series, however, Andor (which was also my TV show pick for 2022) really knocked it out of the park.

Like with the first season, this season does a great job of being a Star Wars show for adults (and smart teens). It's not just interested in lightsabers and Jedi (in fact, it's not interested in those things at all), it's interested in its themes, characters, and world-building. Rather than many other Star Wars spinoffs, which focus on what fans already like from the universe, Andor makes the universe more complicated and interesting by delving into exactly what it takes to spark a rebellion against an evil galactic empire.

If there's one different between this season and the first, it's about the role of the protagonist, Cassian Andor. In the first season, he goes from cynical rogue to dedicated revolutionary. In this season his character is already set. While he is still the main vantage character, there is more attention paid to the characters and world around him as the series moves toward its conclusion, which ends right where A New Hope begins. It's a fantastic season of television that really is the best sort of storytelling for an existing franchise. The Andor series is easily my favorite Star Wars saga next to the original trilogy. It may even be better.

 

Male MMA Fighters: Islam Makhachev

Islam Makhachev has come a long way in his MMA career. Starting as a one dimensional grappler, he has now beaten some worthy opponents and developed other aspects of his game, even if his wrestling is still by far his strong asset. Despite the worthy opponent's he's beat, though, his biggest issue is that he has yet to face enough of them. This has mostly not been his fault (he's had fights with good opponents fall through, plus the lightweight division in general has fallen off in recent years), but he does what he can in the position he's in.

In 2025, Islam first faced and defeated Renato Moicano. He had originally been scheduled to face Arman Tsarukyan, a more championship-caliber opponent, but Tsarukyan pulled out the day before due to injury. Moicano offered to step in. Islam accepted in order to save the event and beat him in the first round by submission. In doing so, he broke the record for UFC lightweight title defenses (4). 

Islam's next was far more impressive. He moved up in weight and fought the welterweight champion, Jack Della Maddalena. He won by a dominant decision, managing the incredibly difficult task of becoming the champion for the weight class above him. This is impressive on its own, but especially against Della Maddalena, one of the better fighters in the UFC today. He now has tied former middleweight champion Anderson Silva for longest winning streak (16).

Overall, Islam had an incredible 2025 for the records he set and the fact he became champion for the weight class above his own. While his quality of opposition isn't the strongest, it's not really his fault that he has had so many fights either fall through or end with last minute replacements. he has beaten just above everyone put in front of him, which is damn impressive.

 

Female MMA Fighter: Valentina Shevchenko

What more can be said about Shevchenko? She's one of the best women to ever compete in combat sports. She was my pick for 2020 female fighter of the year and, honestly, could've easily been my pick a couple other times. She's well-rounded, composed, and strategic.

In 2025, she beat Manon Fiorot and Zhang Weili. While Fiorot is a solid opponent, Zhang is a world-class one. While Zhang did move up in weight (and indeed looked much smaller than Valentina in their fight), she's still a tough, skilled opponent who is a difficult fight for anyone. Beating her is no small feat.

 

MMA Fighter I Hope Bounces Back: Zhang Weili

I love Zhang and what she brings to MMA. Aside from her skills as a fighter, it's clear that she is a true martial artist in spirit. All of her social media posts about training are a true celebration of martial arts, and by all accounts she always is nothing but respectful and attentive wherever and whenever she trains. She is a great ambassador for MMA and the true beauty of martial arts. I hope she is able to recover from her loss to Shevchenko and come back better than ever. The MMA world needs martial artists like her. 

 

MMA Fight: Lopes vs Silva

Sometimes a good old fashioned brawl is just what you need. While there was some good fight technique on display, ultimately this was mostly a fun barn-burner where both fighters put it all on the line. Diego Lopes remains one of the most entertaining fighters in the UFC.

 

Scientific Discovery: Life On Another Planet?

I know it seems like I choose something involving possible life on another planet every other year on this list, but what can I say? I love astronomy, and I'm fascinated by the idea of life on other planets.

In April, the James Webb Space Telescope gave us data about the planet K2-18b. By looking at the light that filtered through the planet's atmosphere, scientists saw a sign of possible life. Specifically, they saw two gases (dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide) that, on our planet at least, are produced by living things like algae. What's extra interesting is that, even before this, K2-18b was already in the conversation as a planet that may contain life due to being an ocean-covered planet that may be temperate enough to host living organisms. This new discovery only adds to the tantalizing possibility that there may indeed be life on the planet.

 

Scientific Achievement: Pig Organ Transplants

Any scientific achievement that preserves human life is worth celebrating (assuming those achievements don't come at the expense of others, of course). In recent years, scientists have experimented with transplants using pig organs because their organs have similar traits to our own. Usually, however, transplants don't really work because our bodies reject the non-human organs.  

In this case, surgeons gave a gene-edited pig kidney to a man named Tim Andrews. This is the fourth such transplant that has happened, but this one is noteworthy because Andrews lived with the kidney for a record 271 days before it had to be removed. The gene-editing of the kidney and medicine schedule for Andrews worked incredibly well, considering the human body would never accept such an organ at all otherwise.

If this technology can be further developed, people will be able to live years with pig organs. Maybe even longer. It may not be sexy to think about people having pig organs inside them, but in a time where there is a shortage of donated organs for medical use, anything we can do to help others is worth doing.

 

Bullshit News Story: "Venezuelan Drug Traffickers"

In September 2025, the Trump regime began killing random fishermen in the Caribbean, accusing them of being cartel members. They did so without giving any sort of evidence that the individuals killed were involved in the drug trade. They also bizarrely accused them of smuggling fentanyl, rather than cocaine (you'd think they would at least try to lie better.

Later on in 2025, President Trump pardoned former conservative Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who had been sentenced to forty five years in prison for conspiring to smuggle over four hundred tons of cocaine into the United States. And we're still supposed to believe that the murders of these fishermen in the Caribbean were able drug smuggling.

 It's a bit surreal writing this post in January after the Trump regime invaded Venezuela and kidnapped President Maduro. While Maduro is certainly not my favorite world leader, he is the sovereign leader of Venezuela. The US does not have the right to decide it can just invade a country for no real reason. These killings of random fishermen were the ugly pretext, an attempt to claim they were on a mission to fight drug cartels. But, again, the flimsy evidence alongside the pardoning of Orlando Hernández shows how little the truth matters in any of this.

 

Actual News Story: Continued Murder in Gaza

The genocide in Gaza started under Joe Biden. It was a genocide which he gave just about unconditional support to. Kamala tried to distance herself from the genocide in rhetoric, but gave no concrete policy explanations for exactly what she would do different. Donald Trump did something similar, except even more chaotically, stupidly, and dishonestly; sometimes he claimed he would bring peace between the two sides, other times he crudely referred to political opponents as "Palestinians" in a bizarre, gross case of 1800s-style racism.

Upon becoming president, Trump more or less continued Biden's policy of letting Israel to whatever it wanted. There were some differences in the details (he applied a bit more pressure on Israel than Biden had, yet also cracked down more on refugees coming from Palestine), but the broad outline was the same. Eventually, however, Trump did force Netanyahu to come to the table, leading to negotiations that created a ceasefire in October. That could have been a positive (if not way too late) development, if not for the fact that the ceasefire never really happened.

Yes, fighting between the two sides largely stopped. Mostly from the Palestinian side. Meanwhile, Israel has killed more than 400 Palestinians since the "ceasefire" went into effect. They may have slowed down the slaughter, but they're still consistently killing Gazans. Mostly civilians. The genocide has already been an incredible stain on humanity; unfortunately for the people of Gaza, there is still no real end in sight for the suffering.

 

Photo: Immigrant S.O.S. Call for Help

Another absurd aspect to everything the US is doing to Venezuelans (and Caribbean fishermen in general) is the fact they're pretending to do this out of concern for Venezuelans themselves. Meanwhile, Venezuelan migrants held in US detention centers formed an S.O.S. sign, signaling both the awful conditions they faced and their worry that they might get shipped off to one of the many shady super-prisons in El Salvador. It's a striking reflection of just how barbaric our immigration system is.

 

Badass: Gaza Aid Flotillas

Since the genocide in Gaza began, many around the world have tried to help in whatever small ways they can. Most of the time that meant demonstrations, donations to aid groups, and boycotting Israeli goods. In June of 2025, there was a group of particularly noble people who wanted to do more. They wanted to break the siege Israel imposed on Gaza and deliver aid directly.

Twelve brave souls rode aboard a boat called the Madleen through the Mediterranean to deliver vital aid to the people of Gaza. On the way, people who supported Israel's genocide harassed and even attacked the Madleen, but they rode on. On June 9th, however, the Israeli military seized the Madleen, imprisoned everyone aboard, and eventually deported them. The aid was not given to the people of Gaza.

This only inspired more action, with more people. More waves of flotillas departed, trying to get aid to the people of Gaza. An especially big wave of vessels set sail in October. Some governments, including Spain and Greece, claimed they would protect the flotillas. Unfortunately, while a few of these governments did follow through on sending escorts, they abandoned the flotilla vessels once they got close to Israel. None ever made it to the shores of Gaza.

It's a hard pill to swallow to know that the murders won. But, we can at least celebrate the courage of those on the vessels themselves. There have been more attempts since for flotillas to bring aid to Gaza. There are even more attempts being planned for 2026. Hopefully there will be a break and Gaza can get relief from the outside world that isn't controlled by the very people massacring them. 

Making Sense of the South American Protests

So, as most of you clicking this have heard, protests are currently popping off all over South America right now.  It started with Ecuador, which had tens of thousands of people (especially Indigenous, student, and worker protestors) successfully block "austerity" measures, the full definition of which we'll get to in a bit.  There are now similar protests in Chile and Colombia.  There have also been protests in Bolivia about the recent coup against Evo Morales, which I'll talk about at the very end.

Being a historian of Latin America, I thought it'd be helpful to try to explain a bit of South America's history to help make sense of everything.  Not only because I'm a giant nerd who wants to make use of his history degree to convince himself grad school wasn't a giant waste of time and money, although that certainly is true, but also because there are some really important points here to be made about economics, democracy, empire, paranoia, and what it means to be human.

So, yeah, kind of a big deal.

What I'll do here is start by briefly clarifying a few things about South America, then summarize its history up to and during the Cold War.  After that I'll talk about what has (and hasn't) changed since the Cold War, which is key to understanding these protests.  I'll mostly be giving an overview of the region as a whole, though I'll also occasionally zoom in to a specific country just to give a clearer picture of everything.  I'll do all this the only way I know how: with dumb picture captions and an earnest attempt to be helpful. 

Enjoy!

SOUTH AMERICA

According to really racist people, here's a map of Mexico!

Before we get into the history, we should quickly define exactly what South America is.  Some of the most common questions I get when talking to friends about Latin America are questions like "who are you?" and "why are you in my house, and why do you have an entire bottle of scotch?"  But, on occasion, I also get asked if there is a difference between South America and Latin America.

Latin America is the area colonized by the Spanish and Portuguese during colonization.  Latin America has four main areas: Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and South America.  Mexico is self-explanatory.  Central America is the rest of the North American landmass under Mexico (basically, everything from Guatemala to Panama).  The Caribbean is every island nation in the Caribbean Sea.  Finally, South America (pictured above) is the continent south of Central America.

 If you're interested in information about other parts of Latin America, here's a recent post I did explaining the current Central American refugee crisis, here's a post I did about Mexican politics to explain the 2018 presidential election winner, here's a post I did about the complex legacy of Fidel Castro, here's a post I did about Nicaraguan revolutionary/poet Gioconda Belli, and here's one of my first posts connecting Immortal Technique's music to Latin American (particularly Central American) history.

Anyway, with that out of the way, let's get to some actual history!

SOME BACKGROUND BEFORE THE BACKGROUND

"YO, I HEARD YOU LIKE BACKGROUND (and outdated memes)"

South America's history has been a bit different from Central America's.  Its countries are larger, it's further away from the United States, and it's gotten a lot more immigrants from outside the western hemisphere.  These factors, among others, have helped give South America more of its own identity and stability than Central America.

It should be pointed out that South American countries each have their own characteristics.  In terms of population and economic strength, Brazil, Chile, and Argentina are by far the biggest countries.  Demographically, mountainous and jungle areas tend to have higher Indigenous populations.  Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador are the countries with the biggest Indigenous populations, whereas Argentina has the highest European-descent population (at 97% it's whiter than some European countries), followed by Uruguay at about 90%.  Brazil has the highest African-descent population, followed by Venzuela.

After gaining independence from Spain (or, in the case of Brazil, from Portugal) in the 1800s, each country had their own way of doing things.  Sometimes this meant clashes.  For example, from 1864 to 1870, Paraguay went to war with Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina.  Paraguay's lost devastated the country; it hasn't been a major presence in South America since.  Another war happened from 1879-1884, when Chile fought with Bolivia and Peru over coastal territory.  Chile's gained territory, which is why Bolivia is now land-locked.

Independence governments were generally defined along their place on two spectrums.  One is the democratic vs non-democratic spectrum we all know.  Another is the liberal vs conservative spectrum, which is not the same sort of liberal vs conservative spectrum from the modern US.  In 1800s Latin America, the liberals were based loosely on the US system of government: free markets, a secular constitution, industrialization, and parliamentary republicanism.  The conservatives, on the other hand, believed in a version of governance resembling colonial governments:  power would remain mostly with the church and large plantation owners, and the economy would change little from how it was structured during colonization.

Most governments, then, were somewhere between democratic and non-democratic, and somewhere between liberal and conservative, with liberalism tending to win out in the long run.  Of course, this was largely among wealthy, European-descent men living in the cities- most other groups were left out until during the 1900s.

SOUTH AMERICA DURING THE EARLY COLD WAR

Me, thinking of the fact that Argentina didn't declare war on the Nazis

and has a population that is whiter than a Kid Rock concert.

Beginning in the 1900s, the US started to create diplomatic and economic connections with South America.  Unlike in Central America and the Caribbean, however, it didn't really intervene with direct force (other than supporting the Panama independence movement from Colombia).  Seeing what the US did further north, though, made South America trust the US less and less.  Then FDR won the 1932 US election.  His Good Neighbor policy, which had the US end its occupations of the region and respect Latin American autonomy, restored Latin American respect for the US.  That was a large part of why almost every Latin American nation agreed in 1942 to break ties with Nazi Germany (except Argentina).

After World War 2 the countries of South America saw US prosperity and wanted a piece of the action. The US, now the biggest industrial producer after Europe had been devastated, used many Latin American resources to fuel its industries.  The leaders of South America- some democratic, some not, most now at least somewhat liberalized- had to ask themselves, what would their economy look like?  What industries would they focus on?  How would the governments organize themselves?  How would tax revenue be spent?

The prevailing model that became popular among leaders, academics, and progressive-minded citizens was called Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI).  ISI meant protecting domestic industries with heavy tariffs that allowed a country to develop without outside competition.  It was almost always paired with a strong welfare state- in other words, a state with a progressive tax system that invested in public services.  The goal of ISI was to create countries that had a strong industrial economy with redistributive policies and public programs to combat poverty.

Ultimately, the ISI model had mixed results, both in the sense that it worked in some places better than others, and in the sense that in general it was neither wonderful nor horrible.  Perhaps, if given longer, the ISI model could've been given time to develop and work itself out.  As anyone from the US who is historically literate can tell you, often the best thing for a developing country (or set of countries) is to be left alone.  Not in isolation, of course, but to at least be able to develop at its own pace without having to worry about outside interference from a nearby superpower.

Unfortunately, this was the Cold War.

A BATTLEGROUND OF IDEAS

(ALSO, A LITERAL BATTLEGROUND

Brazilian soldiers: "We helped beat Hitler! We'll never have to worry about far-right violence again!"

After World War 2, a series of escalating tensions led to beef between the United States and Soviet Union.  Both wanted to promote their political/economic systems to the rest of the world.  They especially wanted to create subordinate spheres of influence nearby, as a matter of both power and safety.  For the USSR, that was eastern Europe.  For the US, that was Latin America.  Though the US was ultimately more worried about Europe (and even Asia) than Latin America, it saw Latin America as its own backyard.

As mentioned above, this was hardly a new idea for Central America and the Caribbean.  For South America, however, it was (once again, other than Colombia).  The United States now took extreme interest in South American politics.  Its mixture of paranoia and racism meant that it tended to see popular movements for economic and political rights as Soviet-orchestrated plots to overthrow US-friendly governments and replace them with Soviet satellites.  Surely these angry brown people couldn't really think for themselves!

Though this post is about South America, two other incidents are important to briefly discuss because of their influence.  One is the 1954 US overthrow of the democratically elected president Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala.  Arbenz initiated democratic, labor, education, and land reforms; other than the 1952 land reform bill, which nationalized unused excess land from giant agricultural estates, Arbenz was much more FDR than Lenin.  With the 1954 coup, Latin America saw the US was willing to overthrow even non-communist social democrats (that is, a democratically elected government with a strong welfare state).  This radicalized many people across Latin America.

One person the coup radicalized was Che Guevara.  His politics became more militant after seeing Arbenz fall- he came to believe Arbenz had made a mistake by allowing an open political democracy.  Of course, in 1959, he helped Fidel Castro overthrow US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista.  Fidel's success inspired many across Latin America, and his success through revolution only further radicalized people.  His later victory against the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 (which he anticipated in large part thanks to learning from the 1954 Guatemalan coup) cemented Fidel's status as a symbol of Latin American resistance.

Generally it was workers, students, the poor, ethnic minorities, and Indigenous communities that became attracted to leftism, while the church, the military, and the wealthy stood opposed.  This increasing polarization made ISI's comparatively moderate approach look less appealing.  The fact that the US CIA started messing with South American politics- raising money for pro-US candidates, starting anti-opposition propaganda programs, creating secret deals with their candidates, giving the green light to anti-leftwing political violence, etc- only further undermined the prevailing ISI system.

THE DEATH OF ISI, DEFEAT OF DEMOCRACY

With how frustratingly dumb US policy was, I can't help but wonder if this guy was secretly in charge.

Ultimately, ISI was not given much room to work in South America.  It brought some decent results, but came with drawbacks.  Though it achieved some industrial growth and some wealth redistribution, many were left dissatisfied.  It also accumulated a lot of debt and didn't receive much US support.  Though some leaders from the US sympathized with the center-left leaders who pushed ISI, the hardliners who preferred more "secure" options to guarantee US interests almost always won out in determining US policy.

During the 1950s and 1960s, democracy had either began, reemerged, or continued through much of South America.  The US alternated between supporting and undermining them.  We'll look Chile, which was arguably the most democratic country of South America.  It had become democratic in the late 1800s, and except for a couple years of military rule in the mid-1920s, had remained so.  This democratic tradition, mixed with its size, economic power, and relatively successful welfare state made it arguably the most well-off country in the region.  The US CIA had no serious right-wing opposition to fund.  Unlike in other South American countries, it instead funded a social democratic center-left party, the Christian Democrats.  They won the 1964 presidential election.

In 1970, however, Chile elected a Marxist candidate from the Socialist Party, Salvador Allende.  Allende nationalized various industries (most notably copper and banking), implemented universal healthcare, distributed milk to needy families, sped up land redistribution started by the Christian Democrats, supported Indigenous communities with social programs, and created ambitious public works projects.  This terrified the US.  Their mission was to get Allende overthrown; in the meantime, they wanted to "make the economy scream" in order to ruin his agenda.

Allende's presidency started out well, but US sabotage bore down on the Chilean economy and created severe unrest, which the CIA only helped escalate with more well-funded anti-Allende propaganda campaigns.  In 1973, a military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet overthrew Allende.  As the link from the above paragraph (from the CIA itself!) says, the US at the very least knew about, supported, and indirectly helped the coup.  Whether the US was directly involved is a subject of controversy to this day.

Whatever the amount of US assistance, Pinochet came to power in 1973.  His authoritarian dictatorship killed thousands of people and kidnapped, tortured, and exiled ten of thousands more.  Unfortunately, this was not uncommon across South America.  In fact, by the mid-1970s, every South American country was ruled by a military dictatorship.  In some of these countries, leftist insurgencies emerged in response.  In November 1975 Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay's dictatorships launched the US-approved Operation Condor, a coordination effort between the dictatorships to violently repress leftists in the region- not just leftist insurgents, but non-violent leftists, suspected sympathizers, and Indigenous people as well.  Democracy and human rights suffered devastating defeats.

AUSTERITY: DICTATOR TESTED, US APPROVED

"Did you get social democracy again?  Mom, we've already had that!"

"Don't worry honey, this time I got austerity flavored dictatorship!"

"Wow, I can't wait to try it!  Thanks mom!"

The South American dictatorships didn't stop at remaking their political systems.  They remodeled their economies based on austerity- in other words, severe cuts in taxes, social spending, regulations, and tariffs, as well as privatizing most public services.  All of these involved drastic overhauls of their economies, but this was especially true in Chile, which went from the most left-wing to the most right-wing economic system of South America thanks to the "Chicago boys"- economists living in Chile from the University of Chicago who believed in extreme free market economics.  They used Pinochet's dictatorial control over the economy to open Chile up to draconian austerity.

Pinochet's policies initially stumbled the Chilean economy before creating growth, especially from 1978-1981, which are considered the dictatorship's prime years.  In 1982, however, Chile's economy crashed hard.  Its GDP decreased 15%, its industrial production nosedived, bankruptcies tripled, unemployment his 30%, what remained of public banking lost 45% of its reserves, and the private banking industry collapsed entirely.  Ironically, this forced Pinochet to return to some Allende-era regulations, as well as re-nationalize most of the banking sector once again.

It should be noted South American dictatorships suffered these sorts of collapses even with support from the US and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  The IMF is an international financial branch of the UN that implements economic development programs and gives loans to countries in need, but often at a cost, since the loans usually come with requirements.  Many have criticized their loans as predatory, the international equivalent of a shady payday lender whose clients are desperate and have few alternatives.

Thanks to an IMF bailout, Chile eventually recovered.  Pinochet, like most of these South American dictatorships, remained in power.  Though Carter cut aid to some of the South American dictatorships for their human rights abuses, the CIA remained linked to them; then, with Reagan's election in 1980, all regard for human rights flew out the window and the US was back to fully embracing them.

Regardless of who led the US, however, these dictatorships continued to open up their economies to austerity and global capitalism while suffocating political and human rights.  The repression of dissent continued, though it wasn't nearly as devastating as what happened in Central America.  But, y'know, "better than genocidal death squads that threw Central America into despairingly bleak crisis" isn't exactly a high standard.

THE END OF THE COLD WAR,

THE CONTINUATION OF AUSTERITY

Not so fun fact: Pinochet has become extremely popular among alt-right trolls.

By the end of the Cold War, most of the South American dictatorships had returned to democracy.  Those that didn't returned soon thereafter.  Some of the dictatorships bowed out before being overthrown, allowing them to keep some power and influence, such as Pinochet relinquishing power in 1990 and remaining the Chilean military's commander in chief until 1998.  Others were forced out, like Argentina's in 1983, and their militaries more drastically overhauled.

In having to rebuild South America, the region's governments found themselves in a bind.  They had to figure out how they could heal, rebuild democracy, and reform their economies while also trying to navitage the new world they found themselves in.  The US, no longer scared of the USSR, was less paranoid about Latin America.  It was also less willing to help it.  The US motto was "trade, not aid" because it cared little about its southern neighbors now that they didn't have to worry about the Soviets "in their backyard" anymore.

The center-right, center-left, and left emerged as electoral forces.  The center-left generally emerged the strongest in most countries, but this was not the center-left social deomcracy of a generation ago.  The military dictatorships had entrenched austerity into South America.  On top of that, bailouts from the IMF came with austerity requirements.  The center-left, then, had to heal the physical and emotional costs of US-backed dictatorships and push for economic reforms while also having to avoid serious problems, lest the IMF offer a bailout package at the expense of those reforms.  And that's assuming they were working in good faith, when in fact some of these politicians had financial ties to the new free market system.

Some parties, therefore, have had success navigating this balance, while others haven't.  The center-left has often given into austerity, but there have been exceptions.  President Lula da Silva of Brazil is a notable example.  There have also been some candidates from leftist political parties who have won elections, such as Michele Bachelet in Chile and Jose Mujica in Uruguay.  They have generally been more successful in resisting austerity.  Of course, there's also Hugo Chavez, who came to power in 1999 in Venezuela.  He sided more with Cuba than the US/IMF/World Bank consensus, and had a political system where the lines between democracy and authoritarian rule blurred, but he also did a lot to help the poor.

This is where we find South America today: still trying to carve its own path, with the US still a tangible presence in the not-so-far distance.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

The people of Latin America, standing up for a better world.

The protests today are, generally, against corruption, austerity, and inequality.  These are different in different places: Ecuador's were explicitly about austerity, for example, while Colombia's are focused more on corruption (as well as the peace deal with the FARC rebels).  I'll do a bonus section about Bolivia in a moment.  Overall, though, the countries of South America are still trying navigate that balance between cooperation and competition between each other, the US, and the rest of the world.

It's hard to say what'll happen from here.  Aside from general issues of inequality and corruption, there are issues of drug violence, Indigenous rights, climate change, and labor protections, among countless others.  There's much to take care of.  I don't pretend to know the solution to every one of those issues, though I do know they will be tougher to address if the US is focused more on expanding the influence of multinational corporations and financial institutions than the well-being of South Americans.  Still, the people South America have made their own way and achieved impressive feats, even when the US was against them.

All I can say is I wish the people of South America well.  I hope the US learned its lessons from the Cold War- though, considering US corporations and institutions continue to profit from the system it set up, I can't help but doubt it.  On the other hand, though, one of the most pleasant surprises I've had studying Latin American history in more depth is seeing how many people opposed many of the previously mentioned operations (many, often from the State Department but sometimes even the CIA) resigned in protest, and also how many times certain officials managed to prevent bad things from happening.  Perhaps, with us out of the Cold War, voices of reason and empathy can prevail more often.

One could make the argument that a lot of today's problems in Latin America are the result of US policy.  Perhaps, if there were a longer view in US policy, we wouldn't be fighting the drug cartels or trying to figure out how to deal with refugees, who are overwhelmingly just people trying to keep them and their families alive.  Hopefully, we as humans in the grander scheme of things can learn to see both the practical and moral reasons to see each other as people, deserving of respect.

Thanks for reading!

BONUS: BOLIVIA

 Evo Morales

Okay y'all, here's a quick bit about Bolivia.  Basically, Evo Morales won the 2005 election to became the first ever Indigenous president of Bolivia, a country that is majority-Indigenous and was in severe poverty.  He wasn't just a token Indigenous person, either; he did a lot for Indigenous people: he brought Indigenous symbols into office, had a largely Indigenous administration, and tackled Indigenous-related issues.

He also accomplished much for Bolivia in general, including reducing severe poverty by half, reducing inequality by a stunning 19%, nationalizing key industries to provide affordable public services to Bolivians, and legalizing coca growing to fight back against the drug war (which further helps Indigenous people, who have historically harvested coca for both cultural and economic reasons).  All of this while growing the GDP an average of 4.8% each year.

Basically, he was a giant hit.  In 2010 the World Bank even changed Bolivia from a lower income to a lower-middle income nation.  He won two more elections in 2009 and 2014, easily.  By the 2019 election, he had reached his maximum term limits.  Instead of stepping down, he ran a referendum through the popular vote to have term limits abolished.  He lost by a slim margin and brought his case to the supreme court of Bolivia, which ruled he could run again.  Now, while that is shady and I personally like term limits, Bolivia is a democracy and he entered into the 2019 elections as a candidate who could've been outvoted.  This is where things get messy.

Long story short, in Bolivian politics, you need at least 40% of the total vote and a 10% margin of victory to win the election.  If not, you have to do a runoff.  No one, even the opposition, dispute Evo won, nor that the first 80% or so of election returns showed Morales in the lead by a little less than 10%.  What is disputed is that when the last returns came in- mostly from the countryside, where his strongest base is- it showed him winning by over 10%, meaning no runoff.  Morales offered to do a new election with international oversight to make sure it was fair.  The military said no and forced him to resign.

There is still no evidence the elections were messed with, like, at all.  Now, again, I like term limits, and reports from Bolivia do say some people were growing disenchanted with Morales holding onto power.  But when a legitimate election is held, the winner calls for a new election when the results are questioned, the military forces that leader to step down, and the replacement government (which wasn't elected in any way whatsoever) allows security forces to do whatever they want with immunity from prosecution, then yeah, this is definitely not a victory for democracy.

I hope democracy prevails.  It's hard to say how much involvement the US government had in this.  We do know from leaked audio tapes that Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Bob Menendez talked to Bolivian opposition leaders about actions to take against Evo Morales.  It's hard to trust the US government, therefore, but it's also hard to know the exact extent of US involvement.  Is it just some of Trump's cabinet and Rubio, Cruz, and Menendez, or does it go deeper?  It's hard to know, but either way, it's not good.  With there being no set timeline for new elections, and violence escalating, I just hope the people of Bolivia end up alright.  Not just for their sake, but for everyone's.