The other day I had a very intense debate with a person who was hoisting the book of the open veins of Latin America and its contents. Arguing that the value and content of the book were invaluable because the book viewed history from an objective approach. But is it so?

In the book, Galeano analyzes the history of the Americas as a whole, from the period of European colonization to contemporary Latin America, describing the effects of economic exploitation and political domination of Europe and later the United States on the region.

One thing that this sophist - a way of describing a person who thinks he knows and only has mastery of the word, a pure demagogue - did not know is that the same author took back the writing of this book that he still hoisted.

Maybe too late, maybe after he caused too much damage, but he got here. Eduardo Galeano recognized in his famous work Las venas abiertas de América Latina that:

But being a heavy book wouldn't be serious, more important is that he admitted that

He also acknowledged that the book was written without proper knowledge of economics and politics.

With these statements, Eduardo Galeano is one more of the left-wing Latin American intellectuals who, after having nefariously influenced the ideas of millions of people, admit, at least partially, their mistakes. Just like Raúl Prebisch did with his structuralist theory or that of Fernando Henrique Cardoso with the dependency's theory. Recognition does not cease to be an advance, even if it comes without awareness of the evils caused and without repentance.

Intellectuals who are successful in disseminating their ideas have a huge burden of responsibility for what they influence in a society. The ideas that they propose become part of the common sense of a society or a good part of it, have a much greater influence than any politician because only intellectuals mark a culture, for better or for worse.

The open veins, in its summary version of other theories about the looting and dependence of Latin America by world powers, was a resounding success among the young, it ended up becoming a kind of Bible for the left. Its success can be explained by the fact that it is a heavy but well written book, it explains complex subjects in a simple way, appeals much more to emotion than to reason, and bears the blame for all our ills on others, foreign and distant. Just like another Marxist book.

I understand it because I read it when I was young, I was about 16 years old and I thought I was the owner of the truth when I recited Galeano's words in any debate. 4 years later I see my reckless ignorance as a child with the cultural heritage of a millennial teenager.

When you read the book it is easy to understand that an explanation of our underdevelopment in times of stagnation and crisis that argued that our sufferings were due to the fact that other countries were bad and exploited us and that therefore we had no blame was popular.

With the pass of time, however, the reality was responsible for shattering these errors. Evidence that poor countries through a path of institutional strengthening and cultural change were on their way to development showed that Galeano and his minions were wrong from begining to the end. That's why, even though the writer of Open Veins says he doesn't regret it, it's important that he admits he wouldn't read his book again and that he knew little about economics and politics when he wrote it. Just read the book and you'll see that he's telling the truth now.

The enormous damage caused by the success of your ideas is already done and there is no turning back. But it is now clear that Galeano was not a genius who masterfully understood history, economics, politics, and sociology and put it into a manual that had all the answers. He was a prophet of self-indulgence and xenophobic hatred that prevented Venezuela and other countries on the continent from seeking answers to their problems in their own mistakes.