PDA

View Full Version : Diversity and Latinamerica.



count markovalley
07-01-2013, 05:24 PM
As we are often told; Diversity is our great strength. If that's the case then let's take a close look at Latinamerica. This entire continent is the most racially diverse real estate on planet earth. People here are so racially diverse that you need to conduct DNA tests on the folks living here, to get an idea of their many racial backgrounds. Some communities are so racially mixed that it's practically impossible to sort them out.

But what is life like in Latinamerica. This part of the world is steeped in bitter poverty , illiteracy, disease, and depravity. And has been since the days when the spanish first started colonization.

Columbus left behind many nephews and nieces in many parts of south america, central america as well as cuba,puertorico,santo domingo and even in columbia ,a nation that bears his name.

Many in these regions still retain the blood composition of columbus in their veins but not one of these countries has ever produced a single individual with the stature and greatness of a columbus.
if diversity were a great strength ,something to be sought after ,then latinamerica, by all rights, should be the greatest continent in the world. but that's not the case.

KC
07-01-2013, 05:52 PM
The question that deserves to be asked is whether these countries are poor due to their colonization, exploitation and subsequent struggle to set up liberal institutions or whether they are so poor because of their racial diversity.

count markovalley
07-01-2013, 06:09 PM
You can't separate race from the culture that created it. The value of a race is not the visible differences and traits readily seen , but its accomplishments and not only that, but it's
the sum total of its accomplishments.

What the white race has accomplished was done over the millenia. In latinamerica ,totally new races were formed and the culture needed for these races to progress has yet to develop.
racial diversity in latinamerica is the best guarantee that progress will be extremely slow in coming. The obvious reason is that culture can only prosper within a specific racial community . without a community of common kinship ,shared values are difficult and become lost within a selfish
dog eat dog environment ;and that's what exists in latinamerica.

KC
07-01-2013, 06:16 PM
You can't separate race from the culture that created it. The value of a race is not the visible differences and traits readily seen , but its accomplishments and not only that, but it's
the sum total of its accomplishments.

What the white race has accomplished was done over the millenia. In latinamerica ,totally new races were formed and the culture needed for these races to progress has yet to develop.

I would argue that a combination of caudillo (dictator) style governments (which enslaved the population in many countries and stunted economic development) and the colonialism of the Spanish and the US is to blame for the slow development in cultural and economic benchmarks in some parts of Latin America. Rulers in Latin America's post-colonial era attempted to use their economies as a tool for their own political ambitions, often selling out their people in the process.

The difficult thing to decide in many cases is whether the average person in many of these countries was better off before or after achieving independence.

count markovalley
07-01-2013, 06:25 PM
I'm a life long student of Latin American history and I don't believe dictatorships stunted the economic growth of the indigenous populations of south america or mexico. china was and is still ruled by political force and they are increasing their worldwide standing. germany was totally destroyed and had been under a dictatorship and now germany economically rules europe. so i don't think you're correct.

Mister D
07-01-2013, 06:26 PM
That the countries with European majorities tend to do better than the others is rather suggestive.

Mister D
07-01-2013, 06:31 PM
The key feature of Latin America, as far as our topic is concerned, is the racial stratification of Latin American societies. I think diversity inevitably leads to that. ..

KC
07-01-2013, 06:33 PM
I'm a life long student of Latin American history and I don't believe dictatorships stunted the economic growth of the indigenous populations of south america or mexico. china was and is still ruled by political force and they're are increasing their worldwide standing. germany was totally destroyed and had been under a dictatorship and now germany economically rules europe. so i don't think you're a correct.

Regimes like Jorge Ubico's in Guatemala regularly enslaved significant portions of the population. Foreign companies were granted monopolies over ports, railroads and other vital infrastructure for any sort of export economy. Land reform efforts in the 1870s in Guatemala and again in the early 20th century kicked significant portions of the population off their land (redistributing it to the Ladino majority), forcing them into the far less fertile highlands. How is is that those things would not hamper economic growth?

count markovalley
07-01-2013, 06:46 PM
The indigenous groups that have indeed traditionally suffered and were exploited is indicative to their inability to resist. Being able to resist requires a strong community affiliation and bonding. Lacking these ingredients the indigenous found themselves too weak to preserve their identity and fell under those who possessed a greater racial affinity. They faced those who had a stronger belief that they had a greater right to the land its resources than the indigenous primitives that had only familial loyalties.

This may have hampered economic growth for all those who were destined for annihilation ,but not for the creoles . their economic life increased and they prospered greatly.

Cigar
07-01-2013, 06:54 PM
Tick Tock Tick Tock :)

count markovalley
07-01-2013, 07:07 PM
The paralytic mindset is the fundamental basis to our misfortune.

KC
07-01-2013, 07:18 PM
The indigenous groups that have indeed traditionally suffered and were exploited is indicative to their inability to resist. Being able to resist requires a strong community affiliation and bonding. Lacking these ingredients the indigenous found themselves too weak to preserve their identity and fell under those who possessed a greater racial affinity. They faced those who had a stronger belief that they had a greater right to the land its resources than the indigenous primitives that had only familial loyalties.

This may have hampered economic growth for all those who were destined for annihilation ,but not for the creoles . their economic life increased and they prospered greatly.

I think lack of advanced military technology combined with lack of immunity to disease caused the indigenous civilizations of Latin America to succumb so easily to the invading Spaniards/Portugese. The lack of community you describe is not a characteristic of the tribes in question.

count markovalley
07-01-2013, 07:24 PM
The indigenous of whatever continent only have the family unit as the basis to their community bonding. Beyond that they seldom if ever venture.
When you look at the over one hundred thousand incas staring down pizarros two thousand spaniards ,one wonders whether their lack of technology had anything to do with their ultimate defeat.

Mister D
07-01-2013, 07:27 PM
I think lack of advanced military technology combined with lack of immunity to disease caused the indigenous civilizations of Latin America to succumb so easily to the invading Spaniards/Portugese. The lack of community you describe is not a characteristic of the tribes in question.

Keep in mind though that that (i.e. the decline of the indigeous population) was not what the Spanish wanted.

The Portuguese have sometimes been compared to marauding Vikings (in 16th Century Africa, for example) but I think that is unfair. They wanted very much to replace what they destroyed and tried but lacked the resources to do so.

KC
07-01-2013, 07:28 PM
The indigenous of whatever continent only have the family unit as the basis to their community bonding. Beyond that they seldom if ever venture.
When you look at the over one hundred thousand incas staring down pizarros two thousand spaniards ,one wonders whether their lack of technology had anything to do with their ultimate defeat.

The Spaniards came with not only better military equipment, but disease and horses. One must not forget that the Americas had no equivalent to the horse to be used the same way for military purposes. It is not as though there had been no war in the Americas before the Spaniards arrived, they were accustomed to fighting other tribes, but they had never experienced anything like the Spaniards.

Mister D
07-01-2013, 07:29 PM
That's certainly true.

KC
07-01-2013, 07:29 PM
Keep in mind though that that (i.e. the decline of the indigeous population) was not what the Spanish wanted.

The Portuguese have sometimes been compared to marauding Vikings (in 16th Century Africa, for example) but I think that is unfair. They wanted very much to replace what they destroyed and tried but lacked the resources to do so.

No, but they did want to wrest control of the territory from the indigenous population.

Mister D
07-01-2013, 07:33 PM
No, but they did want to wrest control of the territory from the indigenous population.

Of course. no different than any other imperialism.

count markovalley
07-01-2013, 07:35 PM
the indigenous were not thought of as fully human until decades after cortez arrived .

KC
07-01-2013, 07:35 PM
Keep in mind I am not arguing with the notion in the OP that diversity can be harmful. It certainly can be, it all depends on how well people are integrated into a culture despite diversity. I'm arguing with the notion that diversity is the primary reason for the underdevelopment of many Latin American countries. That I think is more appropriately due to colonialism and the struggle towards liberal self government, especially in the Banana Republics.

KC
07-01-2013, 07:39 PM
the indigenous were not thought of as fully human until decades after cortez arrived .

"...[W]hat's the use? They don't wear breeches."
-Michele de Montaigne on the indigenous tribes of the Americas

Dr. Who
07-01-2013, 07:41 PM
The indigenous groups that have indeed traditionally suffered and were exploited is indicative to their inability to resist. Being able to resist requires a strong community affiliation and bonding. Lacking these ingredients the indigenous found themselves too weak to preserve their identity and fell under those who possessed a greater racial affinity. They faced those who had a stronger belief that they had a greater right to the land its resources than the indigenous primitives that had only familial loyalties.

This may have hampered economic growth for all those who were destined for annihilation ,but not for the creoles . their economic life increased and they prospered greatly.
If, for the sake of argument, diversity is responsible, then Europeans are responsible for the diversity, because when they came, there was a thriving and successful civilization, which was plundered and destroyed by the Spanish. It was Europeans who brought the slaves. It was Europeans who left their progeny there in charge. It was Europeans who altered the culture and brought the Catholic Church to wipe out the indigenous belief system and it is the descendants of the original Spaniards who have been the wealthy elite ever since. Has it not occurred to you that it is not in the interests of the wealthy elite to have a normal democratic society, but rather a very rich elite, almost no middle class and the rest very poor and uneducated. How best to enjoy a cheap labor pool and fill their own pockets? Let's also not forget the military dictatorships supported by the US which did not benefit the peoples of South America, but ensured American access to cheap resources. Yes I can see how diversity is to blame.

Mister D
07-01-2013, 07:41 PM
Keep in mind I am not arguing with the notion in the OP that diversity can be harmful. It certainly can be, it all depends on how well people are integrated into a culture despite diversity. I'm arguing with the notion that diversity is the primary reason for the underdevelopment of many Latin American countries. That I think is more appropriately due to colonialism and the struggle towards liberal self government, especially in the Banana Republics.

I agree about diversity. I don't think it's that. Racial stratification of Latin American societies is the most obvious effect of diversity rather than underdevelopment.

count markovalley
07-01-2013, 07:41 PM
let's get real; the spaniards were looking for gold.

you can't integrate people into a culture . see, that's the big fallacy in our current thinking.This is why black youngsters have such a difficult time in public schools.

You can't realistically expect people to conform to a culture they took no part in creating.

The indigenous could not resist those that possessed a greater will to survive than they had. Indigenous at the time of the fall of the aztec empire committed suicide by the thousands. indians today have a very high suicide rate.
disease being the cause of indian decimation is just a canard.

KC
07-01-2013, 07:44 PM
I agree about diversity. I don't think it's that. Racial stratification of Latin American societies is the most obvious effect of diversity rather than underdevelopment.

I thought the OP was an argument that diversity caused underdevelopment, not that diversity causes racial stratification. The latter point is almost certain.

Mister D
07-01-2013, 07:45 PM
the indigenous were not thought of as fully human until decades after cortez arrived .

Of course not. Who knew anything about them?

Sublimus Dei was promulgated by Pope Paul III in 1537.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimus_Dei

Mister D
07-01-2013, 07:46 PM
I thought the OP was an argument that diversity caused underdevelopment, not that diversity causes racial stratification. The latter point is almost certain.

That was the argument in the OP and I agree with you on that point. It's wrong.

count markovalley
07-01-2013, 07:50 PM
If, for the sake of argument, diversity is responsible, then Europeans are responsible for the diversity, because when they came, there was a thriving and successful civilization, which was plundered and destroyed by the Spanish. It was Europeans who brought the slaves. It was Europeans who left their progeny there in charge. It was Europeans who altered the culture and brought the Catholic Church to wipe out the indigenous belief system and it is the descendants of the original Spaniards who have been the wealthy elite ever since. Has it not occurred to you that it is not in the interests of the wealthy elite to have a normal democratic society, but rather a very rich elite, almost no middle class and the rest very poor and uneducated. How best to enjoy a cheap labor pool and fill their own pockets? Let's also not forget the military dictatorships supported by the US which did not benefit the peoples of South America, but ensured American access to cheap resources. Yes I can see how diversity is to blame.


The diversity occurred due to the fact that unlike the anglo colonials ,the spanish did not bring their wives until about 5o-60 years after their arrival. This is why the mexican or most of them are the product of intense diversity.

Mister D
07-01-2013, 07:51 PM
The diversity occurred due to the fact that unlike the anglo colonials ,the spanish did not bring their wives until about 5o-60 years after their arrival. This is why the mexican or most of them are the product of intense diversity.

You mean miscegenation.

Mister D
07-01-2013, 07:53 PM
"...[W]hat's the use? They don't wear breeches."
-Michele de Montaigne on the indigenous tribes of the Americas


It clearly appears that there are no races in the world, however rude, uncultivated, barbarous, gross, or almost brutal they may be, who cannot be persuaded and brought to a good order and way of life, and made domestic, mild and tractable, provided . . . the method that is proper and natural to men is used; that is, love and gentleness and kindness.




Bartolome de Las Casas (1474 - 1566)

count markovalley
07-01-2013, 07:54 PM
you spell better than i do.

count markovalley
07-01-2013, 08:09 PM
If, for the sake of argument, diversity is responsible, then Europeans are responsible for the diversity, because when they came, there was a thriving and successful civilization, which was plundered and destroyed by the Spanish. It was Europeans who brought the slaves. It was Europeans who left their progeny there in charge. It was Europeans who altered the culture and brought the Catholic Church to wipe out the indigenous belief system and it is the descendants of the original Spaniards who have been the wealthy elite ever since. Has it not occurred to you that it is not in the interests of the wealthy elite to have a normal democratic society, but rather a very rich elite, almost no middle class and the rest very poor and uneducated. How best to enjoy a cheap labor pool and fill their own pockets? Let's also not forget the military dictatorships supported by the US which did not benefit the peoples of South America, but ensured American access to cheap resources. Yes I can see how diversity is to blame.

Whose progeny did you think they would've left in charge. whose pockets do you think they should've filled?

Ever heard of juan peron?

Cigar
07-02-2013, 07:13 AM
you spell better than i do.

It's important to them that you make correct spellings ... or else. :grin:

count markovalley
07-02-2013, 04:33 PM
I don't believe that Latinos are evil people; but they will finally destroy the usa. It's a matter of the indigenous populations of north america reclaiming the lands they lost with the arrival of the europeans peoples.

count markovalley
07-08-2013, 05:45 PM
we can't afford to provide healthcare services to people who reproduce like a bunch of rabbits in a wire cage.