-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Hispanic growth extends eastward
Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fern
Elite Member
I'm highly sceptical of that. Actually, I just don't believe it.
Environmental conditions may dictate to some extent what you do economically, and in some cases your culture. If you live on the coast, you may be a fisherman etc.
IMO, culture is formed and influenced by ideas. Often the ideas of influential people of that culture.
IMO, it's not conditions + stressors = culture. It's culture + conditions & stressors = outcome or response.
(Warning, absurdly simple analogy alert! 😀 ) E.g., Germanic culture + economic hardship = war. Mexican or Irish culture + eco hardship = immigrate. Your *culture* will influence your response to any given situation.
If culture were purely dependant upon conditions and stressors, and we assume a homogenus world (same climate, same geography), we assume a globally homogenus culture. I don't think so, that's why I reject that hypothesis.
-----------------------------------
Cultures ARE different. That's what made international travel so enjoyable for me. Are some cultures better than others? That depends upon your point of view.
IMO, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with a person *discerning* whether they like a certain culture or not. To call them bigots for doing so is highly absurd. To have judgemnent is a good and necessary thing. To know WHY you like or dislike something is an important and admiral thing (this I picked up from French culture, I lived there many years and was married to a French woman).
People are entitled to their opinions, and there are too many *PC 'tards* running around calling so many people "bigots". The 'ole we must be tolerant, unless you disagree with me thingy.
Fern
Unfortunately there are some interesting natural experiments that largely prove you wrong. I believe you are wrongly attributing culture as a static factor, or at least one that is resistant to change. While someone's culture might influence their reaction to a specific event that takes place today, it is the accumulation of large numbers of events (the environment if you will) that in the end determines what that culture becomes.
If you look up the investigation of the Moriori and Maori tribes in Polynesia you will see that they are two groups of people that came from the exact same cultural starting point. (The Bismarck Archipelago by New Guinea) They ended up on different islands and in different environments. From there their cultures diverged in hugely different ways until they were finally reunited when the warlike Moriori came back and slaughtered their onetime kinsmen the peaceful and egalitarian Maori. This divergance ocurred within only a few hundred years. So culture is not in any way a static thing... not even in the slightest. It is continually molded by the environment.
I highly suggest you read this, as this and a few other similar examples offer the best information available as to how and why human cultures develop. It appears by all measures that environment is the dominant factor in the formation and direction of cultural advancement.
Of course the second problem with all this is the assumption that even if this culture were a negative influence towards governing, how many native born Americans primarily identify with this culture? Don't try to say a lot do, because they don't. There are reams and reams of studies on this that show that beyond the actual immigrating people themselves that Hispanics by and large adopt American culture.
And hell no there aren't too many people calling others bigots on here. There aren't enough. The sorts of things I'm reading on here are so divorced from reality, so mired in hillbilly-esque estimations of cultures based on stereotype, ignorance, and something they heard Lou Dobbs say that a lot of people need a good smack in the head. Of course there are some things in this world that are better then others, but if you're going to make that discernment... you should have a reason and evidence.
That's the difference between saying "black people don't sunburn as quickly as white people do" and "black people are lazy". One has evidence to back it up, and one is an ignorant slur.
imported_Tango
Golden Member
You are right. I remembered Claudius was the first emperor born outside Italy, but in fact considering Caligula was is nephew he must have been Roman.
But you got my point, Romans tended to accept different cultures inside their one, enlisting barbarians in the army and giving them the possibility of becoming political figures and even emperors.
In fact, the turn of the tide for the empire came after they tried to close the borders and lock the empire to its current borders.
Fern, my point about the tribesman is that they were the exact same people, the exact same culture, ideas, and beliefs. Put them in two different environments... and the different environments of the different islands changed their cultures so much as to be unrecognizable in a very short period of time.
I gotta run for now but I'll address the rest later.
I gotta run for now but I'll address the rest later.
imported_Tango
Golden Member
Cultures are indeed different. But the point is understanding how much culture plays a role in how successful a country is. The problem of Africa is not culture, it's history and world politics.
Congo doesn't suffer from it's original culture, it suffers from centuries of colonization and exploitation by European powers which didn't build infrastructures nor give locals access to education, yet changed dramatically the social landscape of the country. And then a post-colonial process in which borders were drawn with a ruler, disregarding tribal spheres of influence. And then economic exploitation of their huge riches, now not by foreign country but by western private companies, ready to use war as an instrument of market segmentation. You could put in there all the Switzerland's population and nothing would change. On top of that you have the climatic problems: malaria for example has an enormous degree of correlation with political and economic failure. And now the AIDS epidemic.
The irresistible economic emergence of some countries in the last 10-25 years (think Korea, Mexico, Brazil, India) is not determined by changes in their culture, but in changes of structural problems that have plagued them for centuries.
What I consider extremely simplistic is thinking you can judge an individual based on the country he is from. Do you think that refugees from Angola like war more than you? If anything they dislike it more than you, because they have experienced it on their own skin, and war forced them to move to another country. Just like European feeing from persecution 100 years ago.
In fact, the European who left their countries at the beginning of the 20th century were the ones disliking those regimes the most, because were the ones forced to move away.
In the same way, African immigrants now are the most inclined to condemn corruption no matter what, because often corruption is what forced them out of their country.
Nobody has war, famine and marginalization as parts of their cultures. Those living in countries were these elements are part of their everyday life suffer from it, and hate it. And if they move to another country you can be sure it isn't to replicate somewhere else the disasters they had to suffer for in their homeland.
Fern
Elite Member
The bolded part first - I look at it from a completely different way. IMO, your culture will define success. I.e., people from different cultures may well define success differently.
Here in the USA it's primarily defined by material posessions. I reject with that definition myself. Why should the various Africans (who radically differ one from the other in culture anyway) view success as we do?
Oh, and the colonialists are long gone from Africa. It's far past the time to stop that old lame excuse.
Jeebus, the USA was a colony once too. But the post-colonial trajectory of the USA and Africa is radically different.
Hell, most countries were *colonies* at one time. Mexico (Spain), Egypt (British), Canada (British), Spain (Moors), the Carribean (British, French, Spain, Holland, USA), parts of SA, Austrailia (British), Yugoslavia (Italy/Venice, Germany/Hapsburg, USSR) etc etc.
Fern
imported_dna
Golden Member
..... and the thread continues while overlooking Mexico's push to get rid of its underprivileged citizens, and no doubt some of its criminal elements.
Never mind minor details, let's keep discussing the cultural sensitivities of 5-year olds because that's what we're all missing right now: a pinch of sensitivity and a dash of political correctness.
Never mind minor details, let's keep discussing the cultural sensitivities of 5-year olds because that's what we're all missing right now: a pinch of sensitivity and a dash of political correctness.
Is that what this thread is about? I thought it was about Hispanic growth in the Eastern part of the country. And, of course, the opportunity for everyone with more typing skills than brains to express what they dislike about Mexicans (under the guise of "illegals").
Feel free to turn it into something more. Maybe the Illuminati is behind it.
I read the OP. Guess what? I quoted the TITLE of the thread. So try reading a little yourself, Sniper.
As for shuffling race cards, let's go ahead and skip all the formalities, and get to the heart of what we have to say to each other: f*** off.
Are you dense? I am definitely not afraid of competition in the field I'll be entering. There are not enough qualified people to fill all of the positions, and the number of jobs is only increasing. The folks who are qualified for the field I'll be entering already don't have trouble coming here.
I am just sick of the attitude that we should only let in the best of the best, when many years ago we let in any free white man. I mean, jesus christ...this country didn't become great by only letting in the best of the best.
imported_Tango
Golden Member
Yes, most countries were colonies at some point, but the way the colonists structured them varied a lot based on what they found.
There is quite a lot of specialized literature considering this problem, and I would suggest you Emerging Financial Markets by professor Calomiris if you are interested.
But, in short, the variables determining if an ex-colony is successful or not are:
1) Local Population: the biggest it is the less the conquering power needs to build institutions. In the US there was very little population, so European powers needed to use settlers to exploit the soil. European settlers of course demanded similar institutions as those they has in their motherland. Conversely, where a big local population is present, the European powers simply used them to extract the riches without any need to build institutions similar to those present in Europe.
2) The amount of natural resources: the more you have of them, the more likely you are to be screwed. The US or Canada had nothing. When Europeans reached north america they saw just a lot of land to be worked, nothing to be easily stolen. That's why they applied a model favoring European settler relocating to the colonies and working the land. There was no other way to exploit the territory. Of course now we know the US had terrific mineral riches, but at the time this was unknown.
On the other hand, when explorers got to Congo or Brazil, they found gold and emeralds literally on the surface, ready to be taken. That's why they found much easier to simply subjugate the locals and have them work extracting the riches of the land. Those places didn't require European settler to be exploited.
3) Knowledge intensive resources Vs. raw natural resources. Basically, countries where agriculture was the only way to exploit the soil received much better institutions because they were not exploitable without European settlers, as the locals were not able to use the agricultural technologies necessary for working the land (they were hunters/gatherers). Where instead minerals were the primary resource slave labor was more than enough.
This also determined whether a class of local bureaucracy was formed or not. Where colonial power had no need for a local command class, they simply built no schools, roads, railways or courthouses. They left in place the tribal system they found and used it to control vast amounts of people.
You can check these variables in the history of dozens of countries and you'll find they always apply. Then there's the second round of problems: the decolonization period and the cold war. This period had an enormous impact on developing countries, most notably in the political instability determined by the two super-powers destabilizing the countries by proxy wars and civil wars, trying to expand their spheres of influence.
And then the third stage: the western companies exploiting the countries using the same weapons once used by great powers. Civil unrest, wars, and tribal conflicts.
I don't know if you have ever been to Africa, but if you'd go I'm 100% you'd stop calling this a "lame excuse". All these elements are clearly in effect even now as we type. In some cases you have two neighboring countries, inhabited by the same people (before the colonization they were the same tribe), and with exactly the same economic structure, but with completely opposite situations in terms of standards of living. And if you look at what's the only difference in their history you'll find it's the way colonists implemented the legal, cultural and economic institutions when they colonized them. Think Botswana Vs Zambia, Namibia Vs. Angola or Argentina Vs. Brazil.
I have no problem with people coming here legally, maybe you do??? 😉
Where do you get this "best of the best?? A feeble attempt to put words in my mouth perhaps? I want to get the best we can get. We have people standing in line to come here legally. The more people we decide we need to let into the country the farther down the list of applicants we go. Why shouldn't we cherrypick the best of those applicants? IMHO, we'd be DENSE not to.
But apparantley many of you would rather just let the Mexicans cross the border illegally, so they can have giant rallies in the streets where they wave the Mexican flag and demand their rights from the US, and complain about the racist white guys that are providing them with their jobs.
Sorry, but to me that is undesirable behaviour but is also a recipe for disaster and it also hurts their cause.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
