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.
It's not my opinion (it's a fact). Southern cone has and avarage of 70% caucasian DNA on it's population. The rest mostly (meztizo). (Nobody is saying the southern cone is 100 % Arian because no country is such , no even Australia or the USA ) Europe remains as the truth white region.
But Sao Paulo at the most would have 45 -50 caucasians because the state also has a big percentage of mulatos, Africans, mixed , Arabs, Indians and even Indigenous . (So nice try but nobody buys that 70% of Sao Paulo state being white ����). South Brazil nor any of the other southern cone regions have an importam afro descendants or pure indigenous population like North and North East Brasil
. The definition of the southern cone according to wikipedia highlightnes the (economical ) aspect of the southern cone but it also point out very clearly the southern cone as a cultural and historical region . Culturally being characterised by the (Mate), and historically all the region and countries that were part of or have been influenced by the (viceroyalty of the Plata river, Argentina, Uruguay , Paraguay (south Brazil and Chile were not officially part of the province but certainly been affected by it ) In fact south Brazil had its own war with the empire of brazil to get its independency, (didn't succee ) but the independency sentiment remains with (o Sul me pais movement created in 1992
South east Brazil is in another level (there's no need to be part of the southern cone ). It's a multiracial melting pop and have the carioca tropical influences rather than the southern cone characteristics. After all Sao Paulo and Rio de janeiro are representatives of the Brazilian culture in the world same as Mexico and the carribean are somehow representatives of the hispanics culture . (Weather we like it or not )
Sao Paulo is a world a part I agree, even inside Brazil I only don’t agree Sao Paulo and Rio being the face of Brazil abroad in the truth it is more like a mix of Rio de Janeiro – Salvador culture. No one abroad knows Brazil culture being sertanejo music (samba – funk), rodeo festivals (carnival) or being a workaholic society oriented.
But most of the state drinking mate or not, economically Sao Paulo is really integrated with south cone countries, specially the industries, and the Bandeirante / caipira culture is not that far from the pampa gaucho. The first pampas settlers in the Brazilian side were caipiras from Sao Paulo, north Parana still today is continuation of Sao Paulo even the people accent. Sao Paulo is the motherland culture of all inland center-South Brazil.
Sao Paulo had its own war against Brazil in 1932 only supported by Argentina with weapons and jet fighters. But about whites in Sao Paulo (who received 50% of foreigner immigration to Brazil) you speaking about ‘’aryans’’ and the levantines (arabs) not being ‘’whites’’ i don’t will waste my time discussing with a nazi teenager.
1) beside the historical remarks you didn't bring anything new to the table . Youre schooling me about why Argentina was what it was and why it is what it is today but at the end of the day Argentina (the largest country on the southern cone ) has its reputation as the Latin country with the highest HDI because the massive european migration
2) I myself am into railways and communers and I was aware of the Argentina railway systems being one of the most extensive in the world . Buenos Aires and New York communers are the 2 most extensive in America continent . (I lived in New York City and visited Buenos Aires and found the 2 cities incredibly similar ), forget Buenos Aires as the Paris of South America . New York is obviously cleaner and more modern but the similarities are there .
3) there's no point of comparison to me between Argentina and it's neighboring countries (like I said Argentina is the alpha country in the southern cone and it's the largest ), having said that , other regions and countries in the same region are doing good themselves Chile , Uruguay , Paraguay and south Brazil .
4) even if you try to find better explanation of why the southern cone is more prosperous , you won't change the fact about the correlation I pointed out
All countries and regions surrounding the (artic and antartica) outside the tropical zone , just above and below the (tropics of cancer and capricorn) are the most prosperous econmonies in their respective regions because they had the largest European migration in the world
*Northern Hemisphere
1) Europe, Russia, Siberia
2) USA , Canada
* Southern Hemisphere
3) Southern Cone (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Parana, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul , Fakland Islands
4) South Africa
5) Australia , New Zealand
Your argument is a rather...brash and unfounded one.
In fact, there was no further explanation into why Argentina is one of the more prosperous but for the fact it received a large amount of European immigration.
You never gave any explanation beyond that.. No economic history, no political history, no background on the social movements that occurred in the country. No explanation of what the country derives it's wealth from today. No forays into current policies on education or social welfare, or any other factors that have a bearing on quality of life.
Your argument is like jumping from A to C without a "B" in the equation..
That's why I am having a hard time taking your argument too seriously. You are merely pointing out the similarity of European demographics between other countries in the southern hemisphere. So what? The reason stops there? They are better off because they are white? Hmmmm...
You didn't even suggest that ...the influx of Europeans after the 2nd industrial revoultion brought the technology to efficiently exploit the natural resources of Argentina, or South Africa, or Australia? An exploitation that continues to this day, no?
Or the fact that Argentina and Australia both have small populations in relation to the amount of land they can exploit?
If the reason for wealth is "being European" then why do you have eastern European countries that have not achieved development? Some balkan countries that have the same HDI as Mexico, etc?
Your argument hasn't carried any substance thus far.
As title says, what makes the Southern Cone region the most prosperous part of Latin America? Southern Cone refers to Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Southern Brazil. What makes this region have higher HDI and GDP per capita than the rest of Latin America?
Also, Argentina was the heavyweight in this region but has recently been surpassed by Chile and Uruguay. Aside from some bad government decisions, are there any other reasons for this? Cultural or otherwise? Looking at some rankings, Chile and Uruguay rank very high in lack of corruption, while Argentina is perceived as very corrupt. While the region as a whole has good safety statistics, there are many instances of theft, burglary, swindling and warnings that tourists and other visitors need to be wary about in the region, with Chile and Uruguay not seemingly better than Argentina in these regards. And if Argentina has it so bad recently, are lots of Argentines moving to Uruguay or Chile?
The southern cone is only more prosperous when compare to sub-Saharan Africa of some countries from Centro America, when compare to European countries it sucks. There are many Asian countries doing a lot better than the so call southern cane, all countries in there are third world counties no matter how much you try. Nothing special there.
Your argument is a rather...brash and unfounded one.
In fact, there was no further explanation into why Argentina is one of the more prosperous but for the fact it received a large amount of European immigration.
You never gave any explanation beyond that.. No economic history, no political history, no background on the social movements that occurred in the country. No explanation of what the country derives it's wealth from today. No forays into current policies on education or social welfare, or any other factors that have a bearing on quality of life.
Your argument is like jumping from A to C without a "B" in the equation..
That's why I am having a hard time taking your argument too seriously. You are merely pointing out the similarity of European demographics between other countries in the southern hemisphere. So what? The reason stops there? They are better off because they are white? Hmmmm...
You didn't even suggest that ...the influx of Europeans after the 2nd industrial revoultion brought the technology to efficiently exploit the natural resources of Argentina, or South Africa, or Australia? An exploitation that continues to this day, no?
Or the fact that Argentina and Australia both have small populations in relation to the amount of land they can exploit?
If the reason for wealth is "being European" then why do you have eastern European countries that have not achieved development? Some balkan countries that have the same HDI as Mexico, etc?
Your argument hasn't carried any substance thus far.
1) don't get confused (I'm no economic expert (apparently that's your job)
2) My view is based on a major patter that's actually a fact (look at the world map)😁 (coincidence? Mmmmm)
3) whether if it was because race or not (the climate obviously played an important role for European to migrate massively in specific regions . Maybe it was more appropriate for agriculture, for wine productions , cattle , for quality of life, you tell me ). But I'm pretty sure if you analyze closely those regions with the highest European migration. You will find a common pattern and history among them . Now you will also find big differences (particularly in their political idiologies )
4) great areas of Australia and Argentina are not necessarily Inhabitable
5) Being white doesn't guarantee success (especially in Europe ) since this small contonent/peninsula is overpopulated. (most people ) forget how populous/crowed Europe is for its size (740+ millions inhabitans today) . (many Europeans migrate for that reason , not because the climate or the political turmoils , but because the lack of opportunities and the limited territorial space. Europeans don't migrate for pleasure . (But anyways , they stop migrating for a long time massively so .. in the moment those regions like USA, Argentina , south Africa started going mtiracial and getting less European migration what happened?, Economy collapse! Boom! ). Coincidence? Mmmmmm
6) People make too much noise because overpopulated countries like Mexico having the same HDI as tiny easterm/balkan countries like croatia😅😅. (that's laughable) (so proud because goliat defeated David, finally ?)
7) Eastern Europe is certainly not as (assertive ) for the European standard but they're still at a more prosperous level that most Latin America regions or many regions in the world . (Russia in particular being the largest and most influential eastern nation have an effectable different political and religious beliefs comparing to Western Europe, Yet Russia remains as a world power (militarly and certainly economically ) regions like Central Asia and some former URSS countries rely heavily on Russia .
The southern cone is only more prosperous when compare to sub-Saharan Africa of some countries from Centro America, when compare to European countries it sucks. There are many Asian countries doing a lot better than the so call southern cane, all countries in there are third world counties no matter how much you try. Nothing special there.
1) It's ridiculous comparing Forrmer European Colonies soils to Europe (the motherland ).
2) in the bigger picture (only eastern Asia precisely Japan and South Korea had a not just economical progress but also on HDI) , South East Asia and even China have an incredible progress but still stuck in many areas to be considered fully developed societies. (Always find it so ignorant ) when people see a country with big GDP and believing the whole country is doing great. South east Asia in particular have an ugly culture of human trafficking (child explotation , child prostution and marketing , not to mention woman ).
3) Southern Cone is not just an economical region that indeed it includes only arg-chi-uru. (it's also cultural and it includes Paraguay and southern Brazil ), beside the language barrier, only in this region you see mostly homogenous population in Latin American (70% strong European admixture ), the rest being mestizos , very low pure indigenous and blacks population. Another uniqueness here is their so beloved MATE . (Which has an Indigenous origin), but the high compsuption of it was actually influenced by the british, since the British empire had a profound interest in the southern cone and still has .
No, as I said, Argentina and Uruguay are White-ish, Chile is not. Argentina and Uruguay received millions of immigrants from Europe; the Italian immigration was especially important and, for one, you can clearly tell it in the Argie/Uruguayan accent, which has an "Italian" tinge for any Spanish speaker from another country. Chile did receive some European migration but was not nearly as big as in these two countries, and Italian immigration wasn't significative there (it was more significative in Venezuela than in Chile, for example).
Chile is a predominantly Mestizo country, as it is Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela or Colombia, it's not more "White" than these countries. Everyone living in Latin America knows that.
Quote:
4) when you say Argentina and Chile are (sooo) different , sounds like North Americans (from USA ) and Australians are (Soo) different as well �� (eye rolls), we all know their all causins with the same background. Yes californians and New Yorkers are sooo different yet they are in the same bag (eyes rolls), Britishs are soo different from Americans and Australians right , so different from other (Europeans) to even want to keep being in the EU knowing they will be screwed up
lol no. USA and Canada are very similar. Chile and Argentina are only somewhat similar but not much. As I said, the accent of both countries is totally different, unlike Canadian accent which is very similar to the Americanian one. Only the Cuyo area in Arg resembles Chile somewhat; the core of Argentina/Uruguay (the Rioplatense region) iis its own thing. Chile has been fairly isolated because of the Andean range and other factors.
Quote:
5) southern cone indeed is the region with the highest European migration in latinamerica
not really, the southern Cone is merely a geographical term. Countries like Venezuela, Costa Rica or Cuba received a large influx of European migrants, even more so than Chile.
Quote:
(In fact the most indigenous zone in southern cone would be North Chile and North West Argentina since they are located in the Andes area)
no, Mapuches (which are, by far, the largest Indigenous community of Chile) are located mainly in the Región Metropolitana (central region), AraucanÃa, Los Lagos, Los RÃos and BÃo BÃo (south or center south).
Quote:
6) your comparison between Chile and Colombia is very unfair for both countries (first because Chile is less populous, second ,chile has achieved a milestone as an emerging serious country faster , only Chile can presume not needing a VISA to enter the USA as a tourist among Latin countries)
no because I was talking about GDP per capita, for which total population is not relevant.
Paraguay isn't growing that fast or much faster than other countries in the region:
Sao Paulo had its own war against Brazil in 1932 only supported by Argentina with weapons and jet fighters. But about whites in Sao Paulo (who received 50% of foreigner immigration to Brazil) you speaking about ‘’aryans’’ and the levantines (arabs) not being ‘’whites’’ i don’t will waste my time discussing with a nazi teenager.
Jet military aircraft only came about in the late 1940s and 1950s. Huh?
No, as I said, Argentina and Uruguay are White-ish, Chile is not. Argentina and Uruguay received millions of immigrants from Europe; the Italian immigration was especially important and, for one, you can clearly tell it in the Argie/Uruguayan accent, which has an "Italian" tinge for any Spanish speaker from another country. Chile did receive some European migration but was not nearly as big as in these two countries, and Italian immigration wasn't significative there (it was more significative in Venezuela than in Chile, for example).
Chile is a predominantly Mestizo country, as it is Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela or Colombia, it's not more "White" than these countries. Everyone living in Latin America knows that.
lol no. USA and Canada are very similar. Chile and Argentina are only somewhat similar but not much. As I said, the accent of both countries is totally different, unlike Canadian accent which is very similar to the Americanian one. Only the Cuyo area in Arg resembles Chile somewhat; the core of Argentina/Uruguay (the Rioplatense region) iis its own thing. Chile has been fairly isolated because of the Andean range and other factors.
not really, the southern Cone is merely a geographical term. Countries like Venezuela, Costa Rica or Cuba received a large influx of European migrants, even more so than Chile.
no, Mapuches (which are, by far, the largest Indigenous community of Chile) are located mainly in the Región Metropolitana (central region), AraucanÃa, Los Lagos, Los RÃos and BÃo BÃo (south or center south).
no because I was talking about GDP per capita, for which total population is not relevant.
Paraguay isn't growing that fast or much faster than other countries in the region:
1) can we agreed that at the end of the day the term (southern cone ) has never had any (official status or validation from any organization ) so it ends it up being nothing but a huge fantasy and aspiration
2) the closest (official) status related to the southern cone today is the (MERCOSUR) which is the largest trade bloc in the southern hemisphere and one of the 4 largest in the world along with (EUROPEAN UNION, NAFTA and ASEAN). And it (officially includes only Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay), far from being perfect like most trade blocs but at least have some similarities with what a real (unification ) is , and that's basically the (economical and the broad political ideology unification). Citizens of the MERCOSUR enjoy advantages in terms of inmigration, equal Job opportunities and as far as I remember a unique vehicle registration plate . (Bolivia, Chile and other south American nations are associates but not fully part of the bloc) .
3) we also agree that the southern most south America (in particular, Argentina received a massive European migration BACK IN THE DAY ) but let's not forget America as a continent had massive migration in just every country , But today like most American nations Argentina is just another multiracial country . (Have you ever been to other parts of Argentina besides Buenos Aires ?)
4) Chile and Argentina have a lot more in common like all Hispanic American countries have something in common . (Let's ask someone from Europe how different we look each other for them, chances are they all be laughing at us and will reply (you all Americans and multiracials, you're nothing special nor you are real Europeans ��). Europeans see us as delisusionals for pretending to be pure whites (including North Americans )
5) Rio platense accent is just an accent (it's still Spanish mind you ), just because you pronounce the letters (y) and the dobliu (LL) as (Sho) doesn't mean is (unique)
6) the term southern cone (says it all ) . It's the triangle shape land mass below the tropic of capricorn part of South America . (And it includes all the countries and regions that are found mostly inside the triangle, Argentina, Chile , Uruguay, Paraguay and South Brazil
7) unfair comparison between (southern cone countries and other Latino countries in terms of population), Venezuela , Cuba and even Costa Rica or Colombia are way more populous ( per square mile ) and they all have significant white population but also huuggeee number or natives, meztizos and blacks . Since when you see a country with mostly indigenous /meztizo population (according to you) like Chile be considered the most developed nation in Latin America where citizens don't need a visa to enter the USA ? ���� (Laughable)
Sao Paulo is a world a part I agree, even inside Brazil I only don’t agree Sao Paulo and Rio being the face of Brazil abroad in the truth it is more like a mix of Rio de Janeiro – Salvador culture. No one abroad knows Brazil culture being sertanejo music (samba – funk), rodeo festivals (carnival) or being a workaholic society oriented.
But most of the state drinking mate or not, economically Sao Paulo is really integrated with south cone countries, specially the industries, and the Bandeirante / caipira culture is not that far from the pampa gaucho. The first pampas settlers in the Brazilian side were caipiras from Sao Paulo, north Parana still today is continuation of Sao Paulo even the people accent. Sao Paulo is the motherland culture of all inland center-South Brazil.
Sao Paulo had its own war against Brazil in 1932 only supported by Argentina with weapons and jet fighters. But about whites in Sao Paulo (who received 50% of foreigner immigration to Brazil) you speaking about ‘’aryans’’ and the levantines (arabs) not being ‘’whites’’ i don’t will waste my time discussing with a nazi teenager.
I never said (Arabs ) are not whites , there are 7 major races and subraces in the world including the classics , caucasoids, negroids , mongoloids and australoids .
1) White/Europeans (caucasoid) found in bigger percentages in temperate zones such as in Europe, Siberia, North America, (southern cone ) , australasia and south Africa
2) Arabs (caucasoid) found mostly in middle East, north Africa and regions with big European settlements
3) East asians (mongoloid) found mostly in China, Korea's and Japan
4) south East asians (mongoloid) found mostly in Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand , Malaysia, vietnan
5) native americans/ aboriginals of the americas (mongoloid) fund mostly in North Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Ecuador and Peru
6) Indian (mostly australoids ) found in India and Bangladesh
7) Africans (negroid) found in Africa , Brazil and USA
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.
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.
