U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-12-2019, 03:35 PM
 
142 posts, read 26,236 times
Reputation: 28

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by xeric View Post
There is one big problem with the contention of the original post and it is Argentina. That country has a long history of economic and political instability. If you take Argentina out of the equation then the title of the thread makes more sense - but then you wouldn’t have much of a southern cone. Really, a more useful discussion would be why Chile has been so successful in the last 10 years. Perhaps other countries could then follow a similar model.

Automatically lumping Argentina in with every success that Chile has had and using common statistical indicators to argue that Argentina is doing well while qualifying the higher numbers (from the same sources) of other countries such as Panama, Mexico, and various Caribbean nations to argue that they are not accurate is not a particularly convincing argument.

I’m not sure why some posters have such a need to equate success and superiority with white skin and pure European heritage. In any case (as has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread) Chile is a mestizo country.
1) Southern cone is more than just.(Argentina ) . This country is in trouble yes, but I made a comment a few posts ago about the correlation that (still) exist among the southern countries.
(in the past Uruguay/Argentina ) were the cute boys in the neighborhood, things got bad but we now have (Chile) the new kid on the block and (what a kid !!) for the Latin American standard. !!! Chile became in the past 10 years what bigger countries could not . Not Mexico not Colombia , not even Brazil (size doesn't matter). Let's look at the bigger picture .
Let's not forget the southern cone region (also ) includes little Paraguay (that for its history and size was able to make some impressions ) , but most of all southern cone (sphere of influence) includes (the richest areas of brazil , Sao Paulo, Rio de janeiro and the southern region as well ) and these are not (single and simple) regions in Brazil , in fact they are the business hub of Brazil and certainly of Latin america .

(I did say Sao Paulo and Rio de janeiro for me are not culturally part of the southern.cone), but their link to the southern cone is undeniable.

2) as for the(racial ) thing . I said the truth because other people couldnt realized about another (funny) correlation. Countries close to the artic and Antarctica had large European migration and had a long history of prosperity . ( It can change ) but the fact is there ... (Whatever your theory is ) coincidence is what it's not . !.

Last edited by Untasted; 06-12-2019 at 03:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2019, 04:09 PM
 
142 posts, read 26,236 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by joacocanal View Post
Interdasting. BBC just published an article today, on how Blacks have been erased in the historiography of Chile and Argentina, and how their contribution to the Independence and development of these countries has been denied for centuries:
"Aquí no hay negros": cómo se borró de la historia de Argentina y Chile el aporte de los esclavos y los afrodescendientes




no it isn't, it's just the one that covers more countries, but it's not very accurate. As I said, it uses a lot of oudated data and estimations, because there isn't updated stats about many things for several countries of the World

you are now talking about GNI per capita, not HDI. As we said recently, Mexico, Panama and Costa Rica have higher GNI per capita now than Argentina. And Panama, higher GNI per capita than any other country.


I'm not selecting periods of history. I said that, in order to prove some kind of racial or geographical determinism, the hypothesis should be true for most periods of human history, and not just for a century or a few decades. You are just too dumb to understand.

How "all of sudden"? One of my main points all over this thread has been that Chile is a Mestizo majority country, unlike Argentina or Uruguay, which disproves the argument of the Southern Cone being an entity, and an entity of White-majority countries. I haven't said anything negative about Chile's development, which is the only country in the "Southern Cone" that ranks consistently high in almost all kinds of social and development indices, unlike Uruguay and, especially, Argentina. The only negative thing I said about Chile was that it's not that socially progressive or lgbt friendly as you think.

no.

no. For several periods of LatAm history, countries like Venezuela, Mexico and even Brazil were the wealthiest ones in the region.
1) you know what (coco) it's been my pleasure to have a discussion with you (you're very challenging and passionate) but Im done with you beacause you're not able to see the bigger picture and you don't respect history . Mexico, Venezuela and Brazil have been wealthier (on GDP) but in terms of GDP per capita, HDI and GINI are still on development. (but It does bothers me ) that you can't see the correlation that's exists in the southern cone region . (Chile is yet another southern cone country that's making (our) Latin America region look a bit better and you prefer to ignore it). My man if you decide to create a threat about why (Hispanic America should unify I'll be there for you to support you) . But if you wish to do that you have to start from the south .


2) if you want to have an argument about the (Pacific alliance, which I love ) , I'll be happy to support you. This trade bloc is whats everybodys talking about now. (Mexico,Colombia, Peru and Mexico ). In fact I highly support this Bloc since I kind of see it as the first attempt to unify (Hispanic America) without Brazil in the economical spectrum

3) I'm fully aware of the black and Indigenous history in the southern cone because (what ha ha happened was ��) the same thing that happened in the USA , Canada and Australia with the blacks and aboriginals .
(The Europeans " tried " to whiped them out ).

Last edited by Untasted; 06-12-2019 at 04:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Fort Collins, USA
1,470 posts, read 2,366,576 times
Reputation: 1806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Untasted View Post
In today's world traveling , visiting or even (living ) in all 200 or some (independent) countries if you wish is not a (big deal )... Flights tickets are cheap enough depending on the season , . That's not an excuse . !. Somebody needs to open his/her mind
The fact that I don’t use the number of countries I may have visited to try to win arguments on the internet (although I’m not directing that criticism at you) doesn’t mean that I haven’t travelled extensively. After-all nobody really knows anything about any of the posters here so you can’t verify these sorts of claims.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Fort Collins, USA
1,470 posts, read 2,366,576 times
Reputation: 1806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Untasted View Post
1) Southern cone is more than just.(Argentina ) . This country is in trouble yes, but I made a comment a few posts ago about the correlation that (still) exist among the southern countries.
(in the past Uruguay/Argentina ) were the cute boys in the neighborhood, things got bad but we now have (Chile) the new kid on the block and (what a kid !!) for the Latin American standard. !!! Chile became in the past 10 years what bigger countries could not . Not Mexico not Colombia , not even Brazil (size doesn't matter). Let's look at the bigger picture .
Argentina hasn’t been on top economically since the 1930s. What were the other southern cone countries doing then? For a correlation to exist you’d have to have this region dominate economically consistently with every country that you’ve mentioned included. Instead the pattern in Latin America has been for various countries throughout the entire region to fluctuate in terms of which had the strongest and weakest economies. I don’t see a correlation and if you remove Argentina you don’t even have a geographic region.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untasted View Post
Let's not forget the southern cone region (also ) includes little Paraguay (that for its history and size was able to make some impressions ) , but most of all southern cone (sphere of influence) includes (the richest areas of brazil , Sao Paulo, Rio de janeiro and the southern region as well ) and these are not (single and simple) regions in Brazil , in fact they are the business hub of Brazil and certainly of Latin America .
Paraguay has had a terribly impoverished history (mostly due to fighting a disastrous war with 2 of it’s southern cone neighbors and Brazil). I’ve never heard it described as a success story although I certainly hope it will achieve economic prosperity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untasted View Post
(I did say Sao Paulo and Rio de janeiro for me are not culturally part of the southern.cone), but their link to the southern cone is undeniable.

2) as for the(racial ) thing . I said the truth because other people couldnt realized about another (funny) correlation. Countries close to the artic and Antarctica had large European migration and had a long history of prosperity . ( It can change ) but the fact is there ... (Whatever your theory is ) coincidence is what it's not . !.
Since I don’t agree that Argentina is a better run country or has a better economy then other Latin American nations, its high level of European DNA is a moot point (as is its latitudinal extent). But I will note that most Argentines (and Chileans as well) live in the subtropics and not the temperate zones of their countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 08:44 PM
 
120 posts, read 52,516 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Untasted View Post
1) you know I'm fully aware of the black and Indigenous history in the southern cone because (what ha ha happened was ��) the same thing that happened in the USA , Canada and Australia with the blacks and aboriginals .
(The Europeans " tried " to wiped them out ).
You must be smoking some good stuff. How could you ever compare to what happened in the US territories to what happened in Spanish territories?. If you only knew Latin American basic history you would not be writing such garbage.

Let me explain to you the way Colonial Latin America was developed. The process was gradual and took many centuries. You must know that the presence of the Spanish here has been for over 5 1/4 centuries that is over 525 years, as opposed to a little over 150 years of Anglo protestant America (in the Southwest specifically).

The Spanish mingled, blended, intermarried, and created a bi-cultural mega LA culture. The population of what is today California, Texas and in between flourished and the number of mestizos, Indians. and Criollos grew exponentially.

When the American government took over those areas in the mid 1850's, the Indians were wiped out and the mestizos were driven away by governmental policy. When John Charles Frémont became the first governor of California at that time, he complained to Washington about the "nauseous" relationship the Spanish Crown had with the Indians, he asked how could the Spanish grant land titles to the Indians and how could they mix with those savages? The response from Washington basically was: we have a solution for that nonsense, "A good Indian is a dead Indian". "Let's get with the hunting boys." It was said and done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 04:38 PM
 
142 posts, read 26,236 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeric View Post
Argentina hasn’t been on top economically since the 1930s. What were the other southern cone countries doing then? For a correlation to exist you’d have to have this region dominate economically consistently with every country that you’ve mentioned included. Instead the pattern in Latin America has been for various countries throughout the entire region to fluctuate in terms of which had the strongest and weakest economies. I don’t see a correlation and if you remove Argentina you don’t even have a geographic region.



Paraguay has had a terribly impoverished history (mostly due to fighting a disastrous war with 2 of it’s southern cone neighbors and Brazil). I’ve never heard it described as a success story although I certainly hope it will achieve economic prosperity.



Since I don’t agree that Argentina is a better run country or has a better economy then other Latin American nations, its high level of European DNA is a moot point (as is its latitudinal extent). But I will note that most Argentines (and Chileans as well) live in the subtropics and not the temperate zones of their countries.
1) (quote) For a correlation to exist you’d have to have this region dominate economically consistently with every country that you’ve mentioned included.

... The type of correlation in the southern cone is not like the European Union , because I also said very clearly that (the southern cone has never had an official status as a formal unique region. (Each country in the region is independent and has a very different view) . But the type of correlation or maybe I should say (pattern) I see in the S.C. is a ( cyclical) correlation ,meaning ( today is your turn , tomorrow is mine but at least we keep in the same region). Thats what mean by (cyclical ). Argentina was the richest country in Latin America and is now in crisis for the longest time yes, but how come a country in the same region (Chile) , (was able to achieve dsuch a tremendous success when we supposedly have (richer nations like Mexico , Peru or Colombia ?)... I think you're exsagerate when saying Argentina hasnt been on top since the 1930s, (sounds like you're comparing Argentina to the USA , Canada or Australia ), the real question should be , in what position were the other Latin countries during the years prior to the 1930s?? , no other country in Latin America certainly did better than Argentina .

2) you're kind of stuck in time when mentioning Paraguay . The two wars you mentioned happened in the 1800s and 1930s . Paraguay ended dictatorship 30 years ago . (In the meantime there you have Venezuela in 2019 still trying to figure it out ). Paraguay has been one the fastest growing economies in the world regarless of its size In the past 10 years . (Remember Chile was a very poor and country and now is the shinning star of Latin America , the (cyclical correlation) i mentioned before could hit Paraguay next time if Chile start to go in decline . After all Argentina was first , follower by Uruguay , then Chile and perhaps Paraguay next, followed by southern Brazil (if it ever gets its independency)

3) yes Buenos Aires , Santiago and Montevideo lie in latitude 34 south, but so do Sydney and Melbourne in Australia , Auckland in new Zealand and Cape Town and Durban In South Africa (more or less ) . Temperate climate zone begin at latitude 23 above or below the tropics of cancer and capricorn but it's more consistent starting at latitude 34.
Most Australians and south Africans too live in subtropical/temperate zones . In fact the coldest region in the southern hemisphere is the (Patagonia)! in Argentina/Chile ) but the region is very remote so no wonder why they're not very populated

3).I must ask this. (Whats your background?)

Last edited by Untasted; 06-13-2019 at 05:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 11:59 PM
 
Location: Fort Collins, USA
1,470 posts, read 2,366,576 times
Reputation: 1806
My reason for referencing history is to illustrate that conditions in countries are always changing. Venezuela was a democracy and the richest country in South America for a long time while Chile was stuck in economic stagnation and dictatorship. Now their fortunes have reversed. This has nothing to do with high percentage of European blood or a subtropical climate - if it did then Argentina and Uruguay would alway have been the richest countries (and before that the richest Spanish colonies).

I brought up subtropical vs temperate because of the differences between Northern Europe and the Mediterranean. There are northern Europeans who believe that their climate is more conducive to development (both of a strong economy and of a robust personal work ethic) than the Mediterranean and that places with a lot of northern European immigration do better than places with a lot of Iberian, Italian, or Greek immigration. I don’t agree with this but you are making a similar argument about the southern cone vs tropical Latin America.

FYI my background is in geography.

Last edited by xeric; 06-14-2019 at 12:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2019, 04:57 AM
 
448 posts, read 562,132 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeric View Post
Chile was stuck in economic stagnation and dictatorship.
Pinochet inherited a 4000% hyper inflation from the commie allende. I just looked this up. In this case, I',m siding 100% with pinochet as he brought down the inflation and opened up the country to foreign investment. You can check Chile's growth over 35 years. The commies also screwed Argentina over, luckily, Macron was elected, so I have faith in them.

And next time you generalize all whites as genocidal maniacs, I will report you to moderation for racism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2019, 06:58 AM
 
Location: Pereira, Colombia
972 posts, read 1,962,673 times
Reputation: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPilot View Post
Pinochet inherited a 4000% hyper inflation from the commie allende. I just looked this up. In this case, I',m siding 100% with pinochet as he brought down the inflation and opened up the country to foreign investment. You can check Chile's growth over 35 years. The commies also screwed Argentina over, luckily, Macron was elected, so I have faith in them.

And next time you generalize all whites as genocidal maniacs, I will report you to moderation for racism.
Did France colonize Buenos Aires?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2019, 08:54 AM
 
Location: London, UK
2,870 posts, read 1,544,263 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by aab7855 View Post
Did France colonize Buenos Aires?
I lol'd at this too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top