Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 16 Mar 2007 00:07 Post subject: European Immigration Trends
The long and short of it is that most Europeans countries are shrinking dramatically in population because people are emigrating and just not making babies. The only reason any population growth is happing is due to immigration from the Middle East and Africa. Russia is going to be interestingly unstable I think, being that I have read it estimated that Russia (due to Slavic population decline) will be like 40-50% Muslim in 50 years. Seems Muslims take seriously that clause in the Qur'an to make kids. France is currently about 12% Muslim...I read that will be like 30% by 2050, Germany will be similar...well a little less...the UK, not sure but I know that the native Brits population increase peaked in the late 70's all immigration growth since then has been due to newer immigrants.
Call me a pessimist but based on what I have seen and on historical example I think that Russia will destabilize and see a upturn in racism and ethnic/racial related violence...they will likely become more authoritarian not less as Orthodox Slavs try to maintain cultural hegemony.
I'm guessing France, Spain, the UK, Germany, and the Scandinavian countries will remain stable but they will have to "get over themselves" similar to how WASPS had to do in America in the 1950-60's. I expect this to go smoother in the UK, Scandinavian countries, and France and very volatile in Germany and Spain. All of these states need more immigration to prop up their expensive welfare states and aging white population...problem is I would ague not immigration, but immigration from where. I have long argued they have allowed the wrong kind of folks to immigrate, the ones who are least likely to assimilate and the ones most likely to be violent and criminal minded when they do not get what they want how they want it (namely folks from the Middle East and North Africa), especially the lower class ones.
Time will tell how this will work out. Japan, is facing similar demographic problems and have loosened up a little on immigration but nowhere near as much as Western Europe...it seems they feel they can mechanize themselves to economic stability...that remains to be seen, but necessity is the mother of invention and believe me, there is no way in hell Japanese are going to import 20-30 million foreigners...not going to happen. They are one of the most homogeneous nations on earth, that is how they like it, and it will likely stay that way until hell freezes over. Time will tell...honestly, based on historical president, I think long after there is no more Russia, France, and UK there will still be a China and Japan...they were their before and long will be there after...maybe sometimes unity is strenght...
UN predicts huge migration to rich countries
By David Blair
Last Updated: 10:19am GMT 15/03/2007
Can the UK cope with nine million more people?
At least 2.2 million migrants will arrive in the rich world every year from now until 2050, the United Nations said yesterday.
Europe's population change: Click to enlarge
Britain's population will rise from 60 million to approaching 69 million by 2050 - almost entirely because of immigration.
The latest figures from the UN's population division predict a global upheaval without parallel in human history over the next four decades.
There will be billions more people in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Of these, tens of millions will migrate to Europe and America, while the indigenous populations of most countries in the rich world will either stagnate or decline.
In total, the world's population will grow by 2.5 billion and reach about 9.2 billion by 2050.
advertisement
This increase - almost all of which will occur in Africa, Asia and the Middle East - is the equivalent of the global population in 1950.
While some countries will grow exponentially, others will shrink dramatically.
The UN predicts the steady depopulation of vast areas of eastern Europe and the former Communist world, as a result of high levels of emigration and birth rates running persistently below replacement levels.
Bulgaria's population will fall by 35 per cent by 2050. Ukraine's will plummet by 33 per cent, Russia's by one quarter and Poland's by one fifth. There will be 10 per cent fewer Germans and seven per cent fewer Italians.
But the flow of migrants across borders will dramatically increase the populations of other developed countries.
"The population of the more developed regions is expected to remain largely unchanged at 1.2 billion, and would have declined, were it not for the projected net migration from developing to developed countries," said the UN.
The level of sustained, mass migration across borders that the world will experience over the next four decades is unprecedented.
Between 1970 and 1980, the rich world took about one million migrants a year from poor countries. During the next 43 years, immigration will run at more than twice that level and approach 2.3 million every year from now until 2050.
Of these migrants, some 400,000 will leave Africa every year and about 1.2 million will emigrate from Asia. The gap in wealth and opportunity between the rich and poor worlds will be the most significant "pull factor" behind this change. But the pressure exerted by rapidly rising populations in developing countries will also be an important underlying cause.
By 2050, India will have the highest population in the world, totalling almost 1.7 billion people. There will be 292 million Pakistanis, giving their country the fifth biggest population. Nigeria will have 289 million people - making it the world's sixth most populous country - and Uganda's population will rise to 93 million, comfortably exceeding the totals in both its larger neighbours, Kenya and Tanzania.
This massive population growth will lead to land degradation on a huge scale and place an immense strain on the limited water resources of poor countries. Malawi cannot feed its present population of 13 million - and every year its soils become more degraded and yields steadily fewer crops.
By 2050, the UN forecasts that it will have almost 32 million people - more than twice as many as today. Population growth on this scale will almost certainly leave Malawi permanently dependent on international food aid to keep millions of its people alive.
The UN's population predictions have proved largely accurate in the past. While the margin of error for these figures runs into the millions, the broad trends they disclose are undisputed.
Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 16 Mar 2007 14:08 Post subject:
About 200-300 more years of this and white EUropeans in Western Europe anyway will be extinct. It will just be an extension of North Africa. The only "whites" will be Slavs...and they will be pushed in by increasing Islamic non-Slavic Russia to the East...the world is gettin interesting...in the end it is not about how smart you are, how much wealth...evolution does not care. It is about who reproduces and who has children that survive to reproduce. Western Europe has created a society that is basically suicidal...quite interesting...
Western Europe has created a society that is basically suicidal.
Interesting question. It has nothing to do with genetics, of course. France, for example, has been successfully conquered by many waves of invaders. But their descendants always start eating frogs and snails and magically turn into Frenchmen. Similarly, for millennia (until the late 19th century), every attempted invasion of Britain has succeeded and created a new mixed population. But they all start drinking tea, eating bland food, and turn into Brits.
So the question comes down to culture (social mores). Is Western respect for the individual and tolerance of diversity a suicidal policy? It is, after all, confronting a culture that sincerely believes killing is the proper punishment for someone who disagrees with it. Will the children of immigrants turn into Brits and Frenchmen? Or will they destroy the society of their hosts, reshaping it in their image?
Natural selection. Survival of the fittest culture. Does tolerance gain converts faster than it can be killed? Interesting question.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 18 Mar 2007 13:11 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
About 200-300 more years of this and white EUropeans in Western Europe anyway will be extinct. It will just be an extension of North Africa. The only "whites" will be Slavs...and they will be pushed in by increasing Islamic non-Slavic Russia to the East...the world is gettin interesting...in the end it is not about how smart you are, how much wealth...evolution does not care. It is about who reproduces and who has children that survive to reproduce. Western Europe has created a society that is basically suicidal...quite interesting...
I wouldn't be too happy about the extinction of Whites in Europe or around the world.
The fact is, the preffered eggs and sperma in artificial insimination are of Nordic looking people. The price of a good egg of those characteristics in the reproduction market is unbelievable high. Then, even if Whites, get "extinguished", artificial reproduction will keep a good number of them living, particularly in the upper classes.
And, in second place, the "white" features, because many of them are recesive, have certain advantage as well that make difficult to erase from the human genetic pool. If White Americans become extinct today, they could be rebirth by chosing the White genes most Black Americans carry
In that sense, every time a white person intermarry, it is making sure its genes survives in the general genoma. Black Americans, Latinos, Arabs and even East Indians carry lots of recesive genes of white people which could be recalled in the future if an hypothetical extinction happens.
The imbalances in reproduction between "races" you see today are not the result of who reproduce more, but of changes in medicine and standard of living. They will change in the future thanks to technology as well. 200 years is too long a time to believe current trends won't change.
Who survives in the future will depends more on genetics and market choices, that in the reproduction rates of today's groups. People will chose the "right" genes for theirs kids in the near future (some do it already), and that will include chosing from all the genes available for manking, including whites). Certain phenotypical genes have always have the prefference of people, for example green eyes. I bet they won't dissapear quite easy.
Guess how should the most beatufil people be, and be certain in the future they will survive and spread easily. And I could bet many will be blond and blue eyed.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sun 18 Mar 2007 13:49 Post subject:
oevega wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
About 200-300 more years of this and white EUropeans in Western Europe anyway will be extinct. It will just be an extension of North Africa. The only "whites" will be Slavs...and they will be pushed in by increasing Islamic non-Slavic Russia to the East...the world is gettin interesting...in the end it is not about how smart you are, how much wealth...evolution does not care. It is about who reproduces and who has children that survive to reproduce. Western Europe has created a society that is basically suicidal...quite interesting...
I wouldn't be too happy about the extinction of Whites in Europe or around the world.
Pinguin
No one is too happy or happy at all. It is what it is.
I'm also not concerned with phenotype or people buying Nordic sperm or eggs to create mixed race children or whatever...typically the people buyin these eggs/sperms are other Caucasion people in other countries...Japanese inferile women are not buying Swedish eggs for instance, but an American woman or a Latin American women (who has money who is usually 'white') will. As far as gene manipulation...that will not be legal in most countries even if it is possible...although i think the technology will not be controlled, because wealthy people will go where they want to get their kids engineered, I think any of that is a long way off. At least 50 years or more...by that time France will be almost half Muslim, that is enough Muslims to cause major cultural shifts and social and economic upheaval...as well as possible civil war. Russia will be in a similar position...etc.
What I'm concerned about is culture.
Currently, the people who champion Western Enlightenment Values are Western Europeans, Americans, Australians, Canadians...that is about it. Sometimes they are hypocritical but still they also have done a lot to liberalize the world.
They lead this, because it is their civilization that originated these ideas. Although nations like Japan have some modified more conservative form of this they do not typically champion these ideals in other nations, mainly because they really do not care what foreigners are doing if it does not effect Japan. Other wealthy nations in Asia, have a high living standard but are still much more hierarchtical and authoritarian in nature.
What I am saying is, if Europe goes, I don't think the new "extention of North Africa" into Western Europe will be as liberal, what they are showing is they will be very conservative Islamists.
Slavic nations in Eastern Europe obviously struggle with authoritarianism, none of them can be considered "liberal"...they never have been, and time will tell what they will turn into, I'm guessing if they are surrounded by hostile Muslims they would revert back to authoritarianism...similar to how Russia is.
So who will champion these values in the world besides America?
Are the Enlightenment Values just a Western tradition or do they have value to all humanity? If they do then what will the world look like when Asians are economically dominate, and Islam is on the march? Honestly, that is not the world I wold want to live in.
I would also ague as the West continues to decline (which I think started in the 1970's) and Asian rises I believe the joys of the Western European phenotype will also decline world wide.
Before 500 years ago I can find many writings from the MIddle East and Asia that talk about how barbaric and ugly blue eyes and blond hair is, even if they liked "light skin".
The only reason those things have become seen as beautiful is due to the power status they convey...because they are associated with white Europeans. When that power is gone, the value of those traits will also decrease significantly.
Last edited by Dragon Horse on Sun 18 Mar 2007 13:53; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 18 Mar 2007 13:52 Post subject:
In my case I am not concerned about European cultural survival at all.
North America, Australia and Latin America are copies of the European culture (independent of the degree of development) and if you add those lands you get more than half Earth's surface.
Now, if we look with care, we find the influence of Europe in Japan, China, India and Africa to be huge as well. There is no way to escape to the influence of Europe right now, nor to theirs values.
In the case of religion, even in France and other European countries become Muslims, they will be quite different from Middle East Islam. I bet they will be even more free thinkers that Turkey is today.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sun 18 Mar 2007 14:00 Post subject:
oevega wrote:
In my case I am not concerned about European cultural survival at all.
North America, Australia and Latin America are copies of the European culture (independent of the degree of development) and if you add those lands you get more than half Earth's surface.
Now, if we look with care, we find the influence of Europe in Japan, China, India and Africa to be huge as well. There is no way to scape to the influence of Europe right now, nor at theirs values.
Omar
If you think European pop culture is what is driving China or is more than surface deep in Japan you are kidding yourself. Confucinism runs both those societies even today. Japanese politics and Japanese culture is nothing like the West, although they have some political oriented values.
Their culture is extremely hierachtycal, what Western people would consider sexist, fairly authoritarian, very group oriented (not for individual freedom at all). It is a different world.
Latin American? You have got to be joking me. I'm sorry, I know you live there, but I think you are being unrealistic. Latin America has been a basket case for centuries. What do they champion, what kind of pull do they have with various nations around the world? Latin America has European culture yes, but it has Iberian culture before the Enlightenment really hit. This is the difference. Latin America is semi-Western as we know it today. It is not Europe, America, or Canada.
Latin America is no model for much of anything. Economically it is inferior to most of Asia...politically it is very corrupt. Socially it is sexist and very colorist/racist in a hierachy...no thanks
If Europe falls, the areas that will be preeminent in power, is East Asia, it won't be Latin America, not even close.
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 {Posts: 261 } Location: Canada
Posted: Sun 18 Mar 2007 14:48 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Western Europe has created a society that is basically suicidal.
So the question comes down to culture (social mores). Is Western respect for the individual and tolerance of diversity a suicidal policy? It is, after all, confronting a culture that sincerely believes killing is the proper punishment for someone who disagrees with it. Will the children of immigrants turn into Brits and Frenchmen? Or will they destroy the society of their hosts, reshaping it in their image?
Natural selection. Survival of the fittest culture. Does tolerance gain converts faster than it can be killed? Interesting question.
I believe without reservation that "respect for the individual and tolerance of diversity" is the wonderful strength of the Western world. The weakness is where there is failure to respect and failure to tolerate. When that happens people naturally get weak and stupid.
Why see immigrants to the Western world as a unified group of fanatical killers? I don't understand this assumption.
Why see immigrants to the Western world as a unified group of fanatical killers?
I was thinking of Islamic zealots. It is a fundamental tenet of Sharia law that anyone who was once a Muslim but then changes his/her mind (a common event in the acculturation process) is to be killed. This is God's explicit commandment, according to the imams.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 18 Mar 2007 16:13 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
Latin American? You have got to be joking me.
.
No. I am not.
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
I'm sorry,
.
I am not. Why should I?
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
I know you live there, but I think you are being unrealistic. Latin America has been a basket case for centuries. What do they champion, what kind of pull do they have with various nations around the world? Latin America has European culture yes, but it has Iberian culture before the Enlightenment really hit. This is the difference. Latin America is semi-Western as we know it today. It is not Europe, America, or Canada.
.
Semi-Western? Common. We are more backwards and conservative than Europe. We see Europe as a continent of elders. We still got the original values of Western civilization with us.
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
Latin America is no model for much of anything. Economically it is inferior to most of Asia...
.
It is? Then why Koreans and Chineses go take too many risks to land here? Why Vietnameses jumped in the Cape of Horn to the sea to be rescued and ask for assilum if they lived better than us?
Most of Asia is unbelievable poor, still today. Most of Latin America is middle class. Why do you think only the poorest people of Latin America migrate? How many college graduates from Latin America you have living in the U.S.? Most people don't need to migrate.
Thanks God the world haven't discover that as yet.
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
politically it is very corrupt.
.
No more than China and quite a lot less than Africa. Besides, even in the U.S. and Japan corruption soars.
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
Socially it is sexist and
.
Sexist? We don't force our woman to have female circumcision. We don't have a sex imballace because women are considered inferior. You have no idea of what you are talking about. Women in Latin America has always standing that is better than in most of the world. Haven't you hear of Marianismo?
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
very colorist/racist in a hierachy...no thanks
.
Yes, that exist. Is the traditional EUROPEAN way of doing things. Lords, middle classes and servants. That's our European heritage.
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
If Europe falls, the areas that will be preeminent in power, is East Asia, it won't be Latin America, not even close.
Why do we need to be in power? People in power decline. They get crowded with immigrants. Women don't want to reproduce.
We are fine like we are today, a little bit better will be great. Let Chineses -our friends- have the power.
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 {Posts: 261 } Location: Canada
Posted: Sun 18 Mar 2007 17:24 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Patience wrote:
Why see immigrants to the Western world as a unified group of fanatical killers?
I was thinking of Islamic zealots. It is a fundamental tenet of Sharia law that anyone who was once a Muslim but then changes his/her mind (a common event in the acculturation process) is to be killed. This is God's explicit commandment, according to the imams.
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I really don't think Sharia law in its entirety can survive in the long run.
Even a watered down version was already dismissed in Ontario when it was proposed that Sharia law be implemented in the Family Courts.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sun 18 Mar 2007 18:08 Post subject:
Patience wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Western Europe has created a society that is basically suicidal.
So the question comes down to culture (social mores). Is Western respect for the individual and tolerance of diversity a suicidal policy? It is, after all, confronting a culture that sincerely believes killing is the proper punishment for someone who disagrees with it. Will the children of immigrants turn into Brits and Frenchmen? Or will they destroy the society of their hosts, reshaping it in their image?
Natural selection. Survival of the fittest culture. Does tolerance gain converts faster than it can be killed? Interesting question.
I believe without reservation that "respect for the individual and tolerance of diversity" is the wonderful strength of the Western world. The weakness is where there is failure to respect and failure to tolerate. When that happens people naturally get weak and stupid.
Why see immigrants to the Western world as a unified group of fanatical killers? I don't understand this assumption.
Uhm...I don't see immigrants as a unified group of fanatics. I think you are assuming or projecting. This has nothing to do with "killing" anyone. It is more about displacement do to birthrates and what these new immigrants who gain citizenship will vote for.
If you think that if Muslims Arabs or Pakistans who are devout and can vote, and are 50% of Canadas population will just "keep things as they are" you are kidding yourself. Look at any nation on earth where Muslims are a strong minority (like 25% or more) and you will see conflict with them. Look at any country in the world where Muslims are the majority of the population and you will see that they discriminate strongly against the non-Muslim majority.
My wife is an immigrant from Japan. I have never heard of Japanese fanatics...not since WWII.
The problem is not native people respecting difference, it is immigrants respecting difference.
As we can see very easily by going to jihadwatch.com many Muslim immigrants have no concept of pluralism. None. They didn't have it in their home country and they don't want it in the West either. They ask that we respect them all day long but we have absolutely no right to question or speak about their cultural habits and beliefs.
That type of behavior is not condusive to the type of societies we have in the West, and to condone and coddle that behavior for the purpose of "go along and get along" is suicidal.
The truth is this...all cultures may be equal in the abstract, but not all cultures are equal in their ability to produce the type of societies we have in the West.
This being said we should not shun immigrants, but if we like our socities, our cultures, and we want to see them continue we should be more intelligent about what type of immigrants we let in.
For example. I would rather take a Lebanese or Iraqi Christian than a Muslim Arab. Sorry. Arab Christians do integrate and usually, at least in America, do quite well in society. I would take them all day long over any Muslim.
I would rather import 2 million Chinese, than 2 million Syrians.
Why? Commonsense. All over the world where Chinese immigrate in large numbers their crime rate is lower than the average o the natives, they go to college in high numbers, they open businesses...basically the become productive members of society. They also tend to adopt Christianity, but even if they are Buddhist I have never heard of any buddhist radicals who want to fundamentally change our way of life in the West or threaten Buddhist Jihad on anyone who dares to question Buddhism.
To me Chinese immigrants (on average) are a net positive for America, Canada, whereever.
I would not say the same about Arab Muslims. We can see in every country they are in in Europe they have high crime rates, they don't have high education rates, they have a much higher potential to become religious radicals. Even if only 2% become radical to the point of violence there are at least 15%+ who feel sympathy. Many of them live on welfare as well...all at much higher rates than the local population. We know they have high rates of cousin marriage, do not particuarlly like to integrate on average, and have fundamentally different moral and cultural beliefs that they not only like to practice but also want everyone else to as well (because Islam is a missionary religion).
Now I don't know about you, but there is not ONE, not ONE Muslim majority country I want to emmigrate to. So, no I don't believe their culturals are condusive to producing what I see around me.
There are no liberal Muslim countries that I can think of that are remotely as economically and socially productive as the West or Japan.
If you take away the oil from most of them, they produce nothing. no new technologies, not even many manufactured goods. NOTHING. Not much art either. It is also interesting that the further you get away from the arab and Persian centers of Islam the more liberal and productive the societies are.
Look at Malaysia. Who drives things there? Not Malays. It is the Indians and the Chinese. What about Indonesia...that country has been an unstable basketcase since the Dutch left, and the majority of the economy, even today, is ran by Chinese.
Turkey...the only stable democracy in the Middle East (besides Israel) but that is only at the threat of the Turkish military guns. Take the military out of politics, Turkey will radicalized, that is what Autaturk knew and that is why he set up the government the way he did, he forces secularization on them. Give them free will, as in Germany...they have a high rate of radicalization.
What other Muslim nation is worth a damn? I can't think of one...Albania maybe?
It makes no sense to me to import large amounts of people who have a bad track record of integrating into Western society.
This attitude that it is "all good all the time" will get you killed. I'm sure the Roman's thought that up until Germanic tribes turned on them and took over.
We still do not learn. Everyone is not our friend and everyone does not want the society we have.
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 {Posts: 235 } Location: Atlanta
Posted: Sun 18 Mar 2007 19:31 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Western Europe has created a society that is basically suicidal.
Interesting question. It has nothing to do with genetics, of course. France, for example, has been successfully conquered by many waves of invaders. But their descendants always start eating frogs and snails and magically turn into Frenchmen. Similarly, for millennia (until the late 19th century), every attempted invasion of Britain has succeeded and created a new mixed population. But they all start drinking tea, eating bland food, and turn into Brits.
So the question comes down to culture (social mores). Is Western respect for the individual and tolerance of diversity a suicidal policy? It is, after all, confronting a culture that sincerely believes killing is the proper punishment for someone who disagrees with it. Will the children of immigrants turn into Brits and Frenchmen? Or will they destroy the society of their hosts, reshaping it in their image?
Natural selection. Survival of the fittest culture. Does tolerance gain converts faster than it can be killed? Interesting question.
Er, Frank, the fact that Britain's national dish these days is vindaloo (and that Greco-Turkish food is also popular) might suggest that the assimilation process is two-way.
Latin American? You have got to be joking me. I'm sorry, I know you live there, but I think you are being unrealistic. Latin America has been a basket case for centuries. What do they champion, what kind of pull do they have with various nations around the world? Latin America has European culture yes, but it has Iberian culture before the Enlightenment really hit. This is the difference. Latin America is semi-Western as we know it today. It is not Europe, America, or Canada.
Latin America is no model for much of anything. Economically it is inferior to most of Asia...politically it is very corrupt. Socially it is sexist and very colorist/racist in a hierachy...no thanks
And you have lived where in Latin America to make such generic claims of all of Latin America with such stupidity?
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sun 18 Mar 2007 21:37 Post subject:
Salsassin wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Latin American? You have got to be joking me. I'm sorry, I know you live there, but I think you are being unrealistic. Latin America has been a basket case for centuries. What do they champion, what kind of pull do they have with various nations around the world? Latin America has European culture yes, but it has Iberian culture before the Enlightenment really hit. This is the difference. Latin America is semi-Western as we know it today. It is not Europe, America, or Canada.
Latin America is no model for much of anything. Economically it is inferior to most of Asia...politically it is very corrupt. Socially it is sexist and very colorist/racist in a hierachy...no thanks
And you have lived where in Latin America to make such generic claims of all of Latin America with such stupidity?
It is what it is. I meant no offense...
Latin America has had independence (most of the nations) since the mid 1800's. In that time they have been prone to unstabile governments lead by revolutionary trends, radical populism, and facism.
There have been many many economic collaspes in the region and bailouts. When you look at the natural resources Latin America has (as compared to what Asia does not have) there is no reason for Latin America to be poor or economically unstable. I quick look at Transparency International will show you corruption is a big issue even today.
It is quite obvious, although there is no "Klan" in Latin America on average minorities (none Mestizo or whites) live quite bad and to my knowledge there has never been "dark" folks in high governmental positions on a regular basis in most major Latin American countries or in the board rooms of most major companies...it is a ligh Mestizo and white affair for the most part.
If you look at the countries on the Asian Rim they have had superior economic growth and relatively stable governments over the last 50 years. They produce far more technological innovations and contribute much more to international popular culture (although Latin America has some music, dances, and movies)...I think this pales in comparison to anime, video games, dvd players, etc. Militarily they have little ability to project their power beyond their region or even within their region. This is changing in a few states (siting the Peace Keeping effort in Haiti) however it is nothing on par to what Japan, China, and even poor India are capable of).
As far as international clout and power. Latin America does not have it, other than Brazil, which has a little sway in the World Trade Organization they pale in comparison to powers in Asia.
My point is this...on an international scene...Latin America (taken as a whole) is a little above world average. This is true, definately not the worst place on earth...not close, however they are not excelling at much either and there is no nation in the region on the verge of "world power" status. They have been claiming that of Brazil for over 100 years, it has not happened yet, and likely will not due to internal dynamics.
Latin America is "Western" in a sence but it is not what we think of when we think of AMerica, Canada, Australia, and the EU. I believe its evolution split with Europe in the 15-16th century. It almost seems like the Enlightenment never happened, but they have absorbed many major European "negative" trends...such as early 20th century facism, populism, socialism, etc.
We can argue about this all day, but I would say this. If America and the EU dissapeared tomarrow, self destructed.
Latin America would not be the region to fill in the international power gap. Not even close. I can tell you who would. Russia, China, Japan, possibly a united Korea, India, and Australia would all fight for control. My bets are on Japan, Russia, and China to be the great powers. Possibly India (another basket case crippled by racial/ethnic/religious issues)
My point is not to demonize Latin America, and I'm not interested in an argument to try to measure how good or bad it is in the aggregate.
My points are simple:
1) No nation in Latin America is close to "world power status".
2) Most of Latin America is not on the level of Europe or North America (minus Mexico) economically, militarily, or socially.
3) Because of this, if Western Europe collasped Latin America would not be in a position to fill in that void.
4) The nations that would fill in this void have very different cultural norms and the ideologies they would or would not promote would be fundamentally different from that of Europe. I believe that would be bad for the world.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 18 Mar 2007 22:54 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
It is what it is. I meant no offense...
Latin America has had independence (most of the nations) since the mid 1800's. In that time they have been prone to unstabile governments lead by revolutionary trends, radical populism, and facism.
Do you have any idea why? Do you have the statistics of demography and poverty at the beginning of the independent period? Do you know how many times the population grew from 1810?
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
There have been many many economic collaspes in the region and bailouts. When you look at the natural resources Latin America has (as compared to what Asia does not have) there is no reason for Latin America to be poor or economically unstable. I quick look at Transparency International will show you corruption is a big issue even today.
Is Latin America poor?
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
It is quite obvious, although there is no "Klan" in Latin America on average minorities (none Mestizo or whites) live quite bad and to my knowledge there has never been "dark" folks in high governmental positions on a regular basis in most major Latin American countries or in the board rooms of most major companies...it is a ligh Mestizo and white affair for the most part.
Do you know the impact of the Nazi movements in South America? I guess you don't.
Do you have a clear idea of the demographics? Particularly of non-Caribbean countries? Do you know how Latin American people looks? I am not just meaning the Latin immigrants in the U.S. but Latin Americans in general.
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
If you look at the countries on the Asian Rim they have had superior economic growth and relatively stable governments over the last 50 years.
Do you have any idea how much Latin America has grow in the last decades? Do you have a feeling of the educational or health statistics?
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
They produce far more technological innovations and contribute much more to international popular culture (although Latin America has some music, dances, and movies)...I think this pales in comparison to anime, video games, dvd players, etc. Militarily they have little ability to project their power beyond their region or even within their region. This is changing in a few states (siting the Peace Keeping effort in Haiti) however it is nothing on par to what Japan, China, and even poor India are capable of).
Do you know Brazil also makes rockets and produce middle size airplanes compiting with bombardier? Do you know subway wagons of the Latin American subways are made in Brazil and Mexico?
Do you know Latin America doesn't have atomic bombs because a treaty with the United States? If we needed we could have it. That's pretty simply basic science, after all.
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
As far as international clout and power. Latin America does not have it, other than Brazil, which has a little sway in the World Trade Organization they pale in comparison to powers in Asia.
If so, why the U.S. get so upset with Chavez that has to visit us?
Why the U.S. get nervous when we deal directly with China?
Do you have any idea of how many U.S. business are controlled by Latinos at remote control? How is the influence in Miami and how many TV networks are controlled in the U.S.?
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
My point is this...on an international scene...Latin America (taken as a whole) is a little above world average. This is true, definately not the worst place on earth...not close, however they are not excelling at much either and there is no nation in the region on the verge of "world power" status. They have been claiming that of Brazil for over 100 years, it has not happened yet, and likely will not due to internal dynamics.
Have you any idea of the size of Brazil manufacturing base? Do you know what method Brazilian scientist invented and the plants they developed to recicle tetra-pack?
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
Latin America is "Western" in a sence but it is not what we think of when we think of AMerica, Canada, Australia, and the EU. I believe its evolution split with Europe in the 15-16th century. It almost seems like the Enlightenment never happened, but they have absorbed many major European "negative" trends...such as early 20th century facism, populism, socialism, etc.
I believe you are driven by prejudice, that's all. Too much John Wayne's movies. And an image of Latin America that comes from Speedy Gonzalez
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
Latin America would not be the region to fill in the international power gap. Not even close. I can tell you who would. Russia, China, Japan, possibly a united Korea, India, and Australia would all fight for control. My bets are on Japan, Russia, and China to be the great powers. Possibly India (another basket case crippled by racial/ethnic/religious issues)
[/b]
Why would we fight for what? We could ally. We have space on here to put hundred of millions of Chineses if necesary.
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
1) No nation in Latin America is close to "world power status".
2) Most of Latin America is not on the level of Europe or North America (minus Mexico) economically, militarily, or socially.
Power, Power!
Who need power having a crazy neighbour so close to us.
We need money, and that's comming. The investment in education and health are paying out now.
We better act in the shadows. That's the way we have always do.
Latin America has had independence (most of the nations) since the mid 1800's. In that time they have been prone to unstabile governments lead by revolutionary trends, radical populism, and facism.
And many of those clashes have been caused by support by exterior forces such as the US. Your claim was it was a basket case and that it's culture was before "Enlightenment" hit. So yes, I take offense to your commentary.
Quote:
There have been many many economic collaspes in the region and bailouts. When you look at the natural resources Latin America has (as compared to what Asia does not have) there is no reason for Latin America to be poor or economically unstable. I quick look at Transparency International will show you corruption is a big issue even today.
Not much different than South Asia. Furthermore, many of those collapses were instigated by Bog Brother up north. The exponential debt that many countries have was because Big Brother invested in dictatorships that never invested in the country. Then when they jetted, usually leaving back to the US where the US money got reinvested in the US economy, the US then placed the bill on the country that never asked for the loans and never received any or marginal benefits from them.
Sure many revolutions were unsuccessful and worsened the situation, but both the leftovers of colonialism in the form of oligarchic societies and the US help of keeping these oligarchies propped, is as much a cause of the situation than any claim of lack of enlightenment or corruption.
Quote:
It is quite obvious, although there is no "Klan" in Latin America on average minorities (none Mestizo or whites) live quite bad and to my knowledge there has never been "dark" folks in high governmental positions on a regular basis in most major Latin American countries or in the board rooms of most major companies...it is a ligh Mestizo and white affair for the most part.
Again incorrect. In fact many impoverished European descendants exist. But they are of the low classes and as such are seen on the level with the indigenous populations. Furthermore, migrant populations that brought their own wealth or were able to create a niche, do exist in upper echelons in a much higher degree than in the US. Namely Middle Eastern, Japanese, Chinese and Koreans, among others. Including any Afro-American that chooses to settle there. The same goes for mixed people.
Quote:
If you look at the countries on the Asian Rim they have had superior economic growth and relatively stable governments over the last 50 years.
Some do, some don't. And Chile is doing quite well in South America now.
Quote:
They produce far more technological innovations and contribute much more to international popular culture
Yes Japan, Taiwan, Korea, do. Feel free to show me the great innovations per capita that most of the other countries produce.
Quote:
(although Latin America has some music, dances, and movies)...I think this pales in comparison to anime, video games, dvd players, etc.
Don't make me laugh. Cartoons? And many of those same Asian countries are obsessed with latin America and constantly try to imitate our fads.
Quote:
Militarily they have little ability to project their power beyond their region or even within their region. This is changing in a few states (siting the Peace Keeping effort in Haiti) however it is nothing on par to what Japan, China, and even poor India are capable of).
And of course the fact that China has no rival in size on it's frontiers, Japan is an island, India is also pretty much secluded with a population that dwarfs the continent of Africa, have nothing to do with that. You amuse me.
Quote:
As far as international clout and power. Latin America does not have it, other than Brazil, which has a little sway in the World Trade Organization they pale in comparison to powers in Asia.
You mean the three you mentioned earlier? Same story.
Quote:
My point is this...on an international scene...Latin America (taken as a whole) is a little above world average. This is true, definately not the worst place on earth...not close, however they are not excelling at much either and there is no nation in the region on the verge of "world power" status. They have been claiming that of Brazil for over 100 years, it has not happened yet, and likely will not due to internal dynamics.
Sorry, but I don't judge countries' competence on their "Global Power" Status. On the whole, culturally, people live better lives in Latin America. And if foreign debt were lifted and certain governments weren't propped, who knows where Latin America would be.
Yes there is corruption in many levels, but not much different than many countries in Asia.
Quote:
Latin America is "Western" in a sence but it is not what we think of when we think of AMerica, Canada, Australia, and the EU. I believe its evolution split with Europe in the 15-16th century. It almost seems like the Enlightenment never happened, but they have absorbed many major European "negative" trends...such as early 20th century facism, populism, socialism, etc.
What you call Western, I call Nordic. And while you claim many of those trends were not picked up, I mention one simple fact. In most those countries the native element was virtually wiped out or existed in lower levels, and mass expansion occurred. In Latin America, on the contrary, a large impoverished and illiterate native population occurred which still has to be overcome such that decentralization and what not can occur.
Quote:
We can argue about this all day, but I would say this. If America and the EU dissapeared tomarrow, self destructed.
Latin America would not be the region to fill in the international power gap. Not even close. I can tell you who would. Russia, China, Japan, possibly a united Korea, India, and Australia would all fight for control. My bets are on Japan, Russia, and China to be the great powers. Possibly India (another basket case crippled by racial/ethnic/religious issues)
Yes, they probably wouldn't. Of course if those countries did disappear, so would foreign debt. Capacity for expansion into lands up north and what not, would mean more opportunities, etc. So who knows what would happen in a century or so. But again, like I said, i could care less about Global rankings.
Quote:
My point is not to demonize Latin America, and I'm not interested in an argument to try to measure how good or bad it is in the aggregate.
My points are simple:
1) No nation in Latin America is close to "world power status".
2) Most of Latin America is not on the level of Europe or North America (minus Mexico) economically, militarily, [b]or socially.
3) Because of this, if Western Europe collasped Latin America would not be in a position to fill in that void.
4) The nations that would fill in this void have very different cultural norms and the ideologies they would or would not promote would be fundamentally different from that of Europe. I believe that would be bad for the world.
Really that simple.
[/b]
And your Asiophile biases show. Like I said, Latin America hasn't had the population size or homogeneity that some of the Asian countries with power have had. Culturally, Latin America is just as good if not better than many Asian countries.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sun 18 Mar 2007 23:22 Post subject:
Salsassin and Ovega:
Actually considering Spain and Portugal had dictatorships in my life time and there has not been much innovation to come out of those countries in centuries...well maybe Latin America is European...Iberian specifically.
The truth is Western European culture has been driven in a large way by the UK, France, Germany, and Italy. France and Italy are not Nordic. You can also add in some contributions from Scandanavia and the Neatherlands but obviously less so.
The enlightenment started in Italy and spread to Germany rather quick and then on to France, UK, etc. I would say that these areas are the heart of modern Europe...it is definately not Spain or Portugal, has not been since...what the Spanish controlled the Netherlands??
I would say that Portugal and Spain (Greece as well) were brought into modern European culture by the other EU nations...they did not found it.
Anyway as I said...I'm not as interested as why as I am interested what is currently and what will likely be.
Why Latin America is the way it is, if it is due to America, due to whatever...to be honest I don't care because Latin America really does not interest me in the least. I will just say that I will assume you are both right in your historical analysis but that means little to how I"m evaluating the future.
Global Power status is important because it shows military power, economic power, and power to promote your cultural globally (due to your economic clout).
As I said...if Western Europe collaspes...Latin America is not going to fill in the void, which means that the countries that will, are fundamentally different culturally. They will promote totally different things than Western Europe.
This concerns me. I think that the core of the EU promotes values and culture worth perserving, far more valuable and condusive to the furtherance of humanity than Russia or Islamic civiliazation.
As far as East Asia...I would say that they concern me as well. Even if China turned democratic, I believe best case will be like Taiwan, worse will be like Singapore (highly authoritarian). What I do know is that, like Japan, most Asian countries are quite insular, pragmatic, and they don't care much about foreigners. I think if they were "leading things" they really could care less about genocides, civil wars, human rights, etc that do not interfer with their ability to trade. That to me is problematic. So Asia is not perfect. I would also say that although Japan is a democracy, has low corruption, has rule of law, etc They are not "liberal" in the Western sence. Despite the Westernized window dressing they are heavily Confucianist in outlook. I would rather see them promoting that then Muslims promoting Islam, but I don't believe either is necessarily the direction the world should be heading in.
So yes I worry about the future of Western Civilization. I choose to live here, when I could easily live in Japan, because Western Civilization is inherently liberal and able to reform itself. It is not a cultural deadend and it is the most free civilization as far as the opprotunity of the individual to be and do what they want.
I think it is worth perserving. It is not utopia but looking around the world I don't see a better alternative. This is why what is going on in Europe concerns me.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 18 Mar 2007 23:41 Post subject: Failure
Any schollar of Latin America and Spain will agree with you in your comments. Since the 17th century and up to the last decades of the 20th century, the Iberian world suffered a long decadence.
That does not mean it didn't produce anything at all. Things like the discovery of the neuron, the remote control and the "zeppelin" were developed by Iberians, and you can see artists like Ghaudi and Picasso known worldwide. But anyone would agree production was not at the same level than in Northern Europe or the United States.
But decadence is not ethernal. India and China suffered half a milennia of decadence as well and they wake up. Latin America is also waking up these days, not as fast as Asia, but there is nothing writen in the genes that stop us for doing better.
Let me put myself as an example. When I was born I lived in a very poor mud brick house in a poor neighbourhood of a third world country. Today, although I am not rich, enjoy all the benefit of "western" civilization, including high education and the possibility my children are professionals. That's progress. And most of our population has gone through the same silent transformation in the last 30 years.
Latin America in the 30s was poor as Subsaharan Africa is poor today. Now we are rich like many parts of Europe. That's is an impressive development.
Today, the only objective of our peoples is to compite in the global markets with strenght. We are just beginning. You'll see the results decades from now, but they will come.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
