PDA

View Full Version : Life has got better over the last 50 years in many countries, but not in the Americas



Maciamo
10-12-17, 10:41
Pew Research conducted a worldwide survey (http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/12/05/worldwide-people-divided-on-whether-life-today-is-better-than-in-the-past/) asking people whether life is better now than it was 50 years ago. The majority of people life in Asia, Australia, Canada and most of Europe (with notable exceptions such as France, Italy and Greece) believed that life has indeed got better. But surprisingly respondents from the USA, Latin America (except Chile) and most African countries surveyed believe that the quality of life has deteriorated over the two last generations, despite all the technological innovations and increased life expectancy. Why could that be?

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/12/05122228/PG_2017.12.5_Life-Better-or-Worse_00.png


They survey found that younger and more educated people are more likely to say that life is better now. This is especially true in Europe. Conversely, Europeans voting for populist/extremist parties are more likely to take a dim view of the present and be nostalgic about the past. These are typically older and less educated people, including a lot of laid off factory workers.


http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/12/01163245/PG_2017.12.5_Life-Better-or-Worse_06.png


The only places where more educated people were much more negative about present life conditions are Turkey and Nigeria. The reason is that these countries have seen a resurgence of Islam and discrimination, imprisonment and killings of intellectuals. Religious Turks and Muslim Nigerians see life now as much better, while secular Turks and Christian Nigerians have more misgivings.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/12/01162506/PG_2017.12.5_Life-Better-or-Worse_05.png



But all this doesn't explain why most Latin Americans and about half of US citizens are so nostalgic about the past. The situation is understandable for the poorer, less educated half of the US population, which has suffered from globalisation and robotisation far more than their European counterparts. A huge underclass is developing in the USA, as the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer.

But what about Latin America? The economy of most countries has developed dramatically over the last 50 years. What is making them so gloomy?

firetown
10-12-17, 11:19
I believe it has to do a lot with the credit system as a whole. In the US it is so easy to get credit for anything as long as you have a job. And then get heavily into debt. So it feels like you are constantly fighting an uphill battle. Not matter how many luxury items you might possess.

Jovialis
10-12-17, 15:02
I think the economic aspect of it is only part of the dissatisfaction. A lot of it has to do with cultural, and demographic change. In regards to U.S., Italy, Greece, and France. With Italy, and Greece, taking the brunt of massive waves of third-world immigration. Thus, this also explains why people who subscribe to populist parties, are dissatisfied in other countries.

I don't have any insight into why it is this way in Latin America. But perhaps it has to do with political upheaval; as well the violence, and plight caused by drug cartels.

Socially, among american youths there's been a rise in narcissism and decrease of empathy. Which can lead to unhappiness, as well as a lack of compassion and morality. Thus, it would affect the society as a whole. This has been increasing over the past 30 years.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201401/why-is-narcissism-increasing-among-young-americans

Angela
10-12-17, 20:53
I think the economic aspect of it is only part of the dissatisfaction. A lot of it has to do with cultural, and demographic change. In regards to U.S., Italy, Greece, and France. With Italy, and Greece, taking the brunt of massive waves of third-world immigration. Thus, this also explains why people who subscribe to populist parties, are dissatisfied in other countries.

I don't have any insight into why it is this way in Latin America. But perhaps it has to do with political upheaval; as well the violence, and plight caused by drug cartels.

Socially, among american youths there's been a rise in narcissism and decrease of empathy. Which can lead to unhappiness, as well as a lack of compassion and morality. Thus, it would affect the society as a whole. This has been increasing over the past 30 years.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201401/why-is-narcissism-increasing-among-young-americans

Exactly so. It's not only about economics, although that's a big part of it. It's other factors as well. It's part of the reason why Donald Trump is president.

Ygorcs
11-12-17, 08:01
Sheer ignorance -and ignorance in America is at its most awful when it has to do with history or geography - and pessimistic and over the top self-criticism being very much in vogue and almost "trendy" for supposedly "critical thinkers" in the Americas. I know many myself: they think that in order to be a well informed person who cares about justice and the people's wellbeing compels you to necessarily adopt the bleakest discourse and always the most negative data to promote your own, specific "solution for the woes of the country". It's easier to convince people if they think they have everything to lose and that they need an urgent solution to "make our country great again". Populism is extremely, well, popular in the Americas as a whole. I thought the US or Canada were a little more sheltered from it, but after Trump I've really changed my mind.

Ygorcs
11-12-17, 08:06
I don't have any insight into why it is this way in Latin America. But perhaps it has to do with political upheaval; as well the violence, and plight caused by drug cartels.
You're totally right. Crime rates grew so astoundingly that the population feels under constant tension and terror, and inevitably as always they tend to paint the past with rosy colors, forgetting the awful conditions of life and education 50 or 60 years ago in Latin America, because many people think or even say that "we were dirt poor, but we at least had peace".

Maciamo
11-12-17, 10:05
I think the economic aspect of it is only part of the dissatisfaction. A lot of it has to do with cultural, and demographic change. In regards to U.S., Italy, Greece, and France. With Italy, and Greece, taking the brunt of massive waves of third-world immigration. Thus, this also explains why people who subscribe to populist parties, are dissatisfied in other countries.

That is simply not true for Italy and Greece. Pew Research actually published statistics about the number of Muslims by country in Europe (http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/) and projections for future numbers. Greece had very few Muslims before the Syrian refugee crisis and now they make up 5.7% of the population. That's the same as Norway and less than Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France or the UK. Italy has even less Muslims (4.8%). Stats about religion are more reliable than about nationality as many immigrants eventually become naturalised, especially in places like France and the UK.

By the way, the projections on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe are very worrying. Here are the projections in the best case scenario of a zero immigration from Muslim countries for the next 33 years.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/11/22105825/PF_11.29.17_muslims-update-21.png

Here is the medium migration scenario (most likely).

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/11/22105827/PF_11.29.17_muslims-update-22.png

And the high migration scenario (catastrophic, conjures up images about the collapse of the Western civilisation in Europe):

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/11/22105830/PF_11.29.17_muslims-update-23.png

Maciamo
11-12-17, 10:09
Socially, among american youths there's been a rise in narcissism and decrease of empathy. Which can lead to unhappiness, as well as a lack of compassion and morality. Thus, it would affect the society as a whole. This has been increasing over the past 30 years.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201401/why-is-narcissism-increasing-among-young-americans

I think that's a general trend in all developed countries. Yet Canadians, Brits, Australians, Germans, Scandinavians, etc. aren't less happy or don't feel that life was better 50 years ago.

bicicleur
11-12-17, 12:18
in developped countries, there is a growing sense of not having its own faith in hands
there are to many new rules and regulations, often influenced by lobbyists who tell that they are responsable for whatever goes wrong in the world
they feel the leaders don't listen to the people any more, everything happens above their heads
even when the economy improves, possibilities and prospects become more narrow

yes, that's why they try Trump now

Johane Derite
11-12-17, 13:01
That is simply not true for Italy and Greece. Pew Research actually published statistics about the number of Muslims by country in Europe (http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/) and projections for future numbers. Greece had very few Muslims before the Syrian refugee crisis and now they make up 5.7% of the population. That's the same as Norway and less than Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France or the UK. Italy has even less Muslims (4.8%). Stats about religion are more reliable than about nationality as many immigrants eventually become naturalised, especially in places like France and the UK.

By the way, the projections on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe are very worrying. Here are the projections in the best case scenario of a zero immigration from Muslim countries for the next 33 years.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/11/22105825/PF_11.29.17_muslims-update-21.png

Here is the medium migration scenario (most likely).

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/11/22105827/PF_11.29.17_muslims-update-22.png

And the high migration scenario (catastrophic, conjures up images about the collapse of the Western civilisation in Europe):

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/11/22105830/PF_11.29.17_muslims-update-23.png

Before it even becomes a question of ethics there should be a pragmatic response that prefaces it: "can we pull this off if we believe it to be the morally necessary thing to do?."


Even the zero immigration scenario is in my opinion beyond the capabilities of the current states. They wont know how to manage it, and no governmental mechanisms exist as of yet for mass integration. Arrogance and ignorance.

It will cause a lot of misery for all parties involved.

Jovialis
11-12-17, 13:41
That is simply not true for Italy and Greece. Pew Research actually published statistics about the number of Muslims by country in Europe (http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/) and projections for future numbers. Greece had very few Muslims before the Syrian refugee crisis and now they make up 5.7% of the population. That's the same as Norway and less than Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France or the UK. Italy has even less Muslims (4.8%). Stats about religion are more reliable than about nationality as many immigrants eventually become naturalised, especially in places like France and the UK.
By the way, the projections on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe are very worrying. Here are the projections in the best case scenario of a zero immigration from Muslim countries for the next 33 years.
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/11/22105825/PF_11.29.17_muslims-update-21.png
Here is the medium migration scenario (most likely).
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/11/22105827/PF_11.29.17_muslims-update-22.png
And the high migration scenario (catastrophic, conjures up images about the collapse of the Western civilisation in Europe):
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/11/22105830/PF_11.29.17_muslims-update-23.png

However, that doesn't account for the percent of christian refugees that are also entering the country:

https://i.imgur.com/76ovZoi.png
http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/15/migrants/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Eritrea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nigeria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Ghana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Ivory_Coast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Kenya

Also, this is cumulative with other ethnic groups that have been immigrating over the years. Generally people from Greece, and Italy, see this as a cause for dissatisfaction:

https://i.imgur.com/XTthWyG.png
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/16/european-opinions-of-the-refugee-crisis-in-5-charts/

bicicleur
11-12-17, 14:01
However, that doesn't account for the percent of christian refugees that are also entering the country:

https://i.imgur.com/76ovZoi.png

http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/15/migrants/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Eritrea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nigeria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Ghana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Ivory_Coast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo

Also, this is cumulative with other ethnic groups that have been immigrating over the years. Generally people from Greece, and Italy, see this as a cause for dissatisfaction:

https://i.imgur.com/XTthWyG.png

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/16/european-opinions-of-the-refugee-crisis-in-5-charts/

it remains a fact that Italy and Greece are the main entry port of those so-called refugees but very few want to stay there and the large majority travels further north, Christians or Muslims alike

and no, like many others I don't believe this growing 'diversity' makes Europe a better place to live
some authorities (like Junker recently) claim Europe needs immigrants as working force or for special skills, but they offer very few arguments to prove that these 'refugees' are fit to fulfill any of these needs

Jovialis
11-12-17, 15:39
it remains a fact that Italy and Greece are the main entry port of those so-called refugees but very few want to stay there and the large majority travels further north, Christians or Muslims alike
and no, like many others I don't believe this growing 'diversity' makes Europe a better place to live
some authorities (like Junker recently) claim Europe needs immigrants as working force or for special skills, but they offer very few arguments to prove that these 'refugees' are fit to fulfill any of these needs

I agree with you.

Most of them are seeking to go to northern Europe, and are seeking economic benefits there. However, due to policies like the Dublin Regulation, countries like Italy and Greece, get overburdened with asylum seekers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation#Partial_suspension_during_2015_E uropean_migrant_crisis


Sheer ignorance -and ignorance in America is at its most awful when it has to do with history or geography - and pessimistic and over the top self-criticism being very much in vogue and almost "trendy" for supposedly "critical thinkers" in the Americas. I know many myself: they think that in order to be a well informed person who cares about justice and the people's wellbeing compels you to necessarily adopt the bleakest discourse and always the most negative data to promote your own, specific "solution for the woes of the country". It's easier to convince people if they think they have everything to lose and that they need an urgent solution to "make our country great again". Populism is extremely, well, popular in the Americas as a whole. I thought the US or Canada were a little more sheltered from it, but after Trump I've really changed my mind.

I realize this is a thorny subject. However, I don't think any population seeking to regulate immigration, and preserve demographic and cultural norms is ignorant nor is it racist. Nevertheless, it doesn't serve any good when actual racists jump on board the band wagon. I don't think they should flat-out close the boarders, but bring the number of people admitted, to a much lower number. Something that won't dramatically change the country, or provide a political party an endless reservoir to bolster to their constituency.

Angela
11-12-17, 17:26
However, that doesn't account for the percent of christian refugees that are also entering the country:

https://i.imgur.com/76ovZoi.png
http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/15/migrants/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Eritrea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nigeria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Ghana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Ivory_Coast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Kenya

Also, this is cumulative with other ethnic groups that have been immigrating over the years. Generally people from Greece, and Italy, see this as a cause for dissatisfaction:

https://i.imgur.com/XTthWyG.png
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/16/european-opinions-of-the-refugee-crisis-in-5-charts/

As your chart shows, the majority of the immigration to Italy is from Africa, and not just North Africa, so they're not all Muslim. Therefore, the figures about Muslim immigrants in Italy aren't the whole story.

Plus, it costs money to rescue them, set up camps, etc. etc. and if your economy is already stressed the impact will be worse.

People are extremely unhappy about all of this. Nor is the government "relocation" project a good idea. I guess they didn't want to create "ghettos" the way they did in places like Belgium, so they've been scattering them around. They dumped some groups of these immigrants in my own area. For the first time, people in these villages, who never locked their doors, are getting robbed and there are some assaults on the street. No one ever had to worry about this sort of thing, or about children roaming around. Now there are problems in the schools. They don't mess around in the school system there. Children are regularly failed for a whole year or for certain subjects. Now all of a sudden there are "protests" about it. It's a mess, as even the people who were initially fine with the idea now acknowledge.

Maciamo
11-12-17, 18:06
Most of them are seeking to go to northern Europe, and are seeking economic benefits there. However, due to policies like the Dublin Regulation, countries like Italy and Greece, get overburdened with asylum seekers.

Once again, that isn't true. Check this list of refugees by country per 1000 inhabitants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population). Greece has 0.75 refugees per 1000 inhabitants, less than Monaco, Ireland or the USA, which are at the bottom of the list for Western countries. Sweden has 14.66, almost 20 times more than Greece! Norway has 9.14, Switzerland 8.45, Austria 7.13, the Netherlands 4.89, Canada 4.19, France 4.13, Serbia 3.97, Denmark 3.15, Germany 3.1, Belgium 2.77, Russia 2.2, Finland 2.15, the UK 1.82, Italy 1.57, Australia 1.51...

In the western half of Europe, only Spain and Portugal have less refugees per capita than Italy and Greece! The fact that Australia and Canada have more than Greece despite the distance from the refugees' country of origin is proof enough that Greece is almost immune to the issue despite being at the crossroads of Europe and the Middle East. I guess that the sorry state of the Greek economy is one reason why refugees don't settle there.

Yetos
11-12-17, 19:00
I suggest look at this

by EU Parliament

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/welcomingeurope/default_el.htm

that is seeking for Asylum
not the illegal immigrants
neither the crosspassing

it seems Slovakia and Baltic countries are out of question for Asylon
per total population. 145 per 5 400 000 and 990 refuggees
while Deutshland attrack the 50% and more of total asking asylon people

Angela
11-12-17, 19:12
Once again, that isn't true. Check this list of refugees by country per 1000 inhabitants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population). Greece has 0.75 refugees per 1000 inhabitants, less than Monaco, Ireland or the USA, which are at the bottom of the list for Western countries. Sweden has 14.66, almost 20 times more than Greece! Norway has 9.14, Switzerland 8.45, Austria 7.13, the Netherlands 4.89, Canada 4.19, France 4.13, Serbia 3.97, Denmark 3.15, Germany 3.1, Belgium 2.77, Russia 2.2, Finland 2.15, the UK 1.82, Italy 1.57, Australia 1.51...

In the western half of Europe, only Spain and Portugal have less refugees per capita than Italy and Greece! The fact that Australia and Canada have more than Greece despite the distance from the refugees' country of origin is proof enough that Greece is almost immune to the issue despite being at the crossroads of Europe and the Middle East. I guess that the sorry state of the Greek economy is one reason why refugees don't settle there.

Maciamo, I don't know how the statistics are computed for that list. Most of the migrants coming to Italy are not "refugees" from anything except poverty, at least the ones who are from SSA, so I don't know if they're included in those statistics.

bicicleur
11-12-17, 19:41
Maciamo, I don't know how the statistics are computed. Most of the migrants coming to Italy are not "refugees" from anything except poverty, at least the ones who are from SSA, so I don't know if they're included in those statistics.

those who don't apply for asylum are illegal and are to be detained till they can be sent back to their country of origin
that is something the EU and their memberstates failed to do for so long and this and 'wir schaffen dass' have been the main triggers for the '2015 asylum crisis'
that is what caused the 'refugee camp' in Calais
time to get organised and handle things properly

Ygorcs
12-12-17, 05:34
I realize this is a thorny subject. However, I don't think any population seeking to regulate immigration, and preserve demographic and cultural norms is ignorant nor is it racist. Nevertheless, it doesn't serve any good when actual racists jump on board the band wagon. I don't think they should flat-out close the boarders, but bring the number of people admitted, to a much lower number. Something that won't dramatically change the country, or provide a political party an endless reservoir to bolster to their constituency.

I'm not talking specifically about immigration. I certainly do not think we can blame higher levels of immigration alone for the fact that most US Americans have such a totally ignorant pessimism to think or even claim that the conditions of life (health, education etc.) and the rights of people in 2017 are worse than those 50 or 60 years ago. That requires a profound misunderstanding and a populist sensationalism to make such a distorted view catch on. Also, immigration can't explain the relative pessimism of many other people in the other countries of the Americas, all of whom lack really large immigration since the 1960s.

Angela
12-12-17, 06:07
I'm not talking specifically about immigration. I certainly do not think we can blame higher levels of immigration alone for the fact that most US Americans have such a totally ignorant pessimism to think or even claim that the conditions of life (health, education etc.) and the rights of people in 2017 are worse than those 50 or 60 years ago. That requires a profound misunderstanding and a populist sensationalism to make such a distorted view catch on. Also, immigration can't explain the relative pessimism of many other people in the other countries of the Americas, all of whom lack really large immigration since the 1960s.

Ygorcs,
I can't speak for Latin America, but I know about the U.S. Non college educated white Americans are definitely worse off than they were thirty years ago.

Their factory jobs are gone overseas. A lot of the rest of the manual labor jobs have been taken by immigrants, legal and non-legal. The power of unions has been whittled away. Rust belt cities are indeed "rusting" away, and their old ethnic neighborhoods in the inner cities are now black and Hispanic slums. They have to take jobs paying not much more than minimum wage, so they need to work two or three jobs. The resulting depressions means they smoke more, drink, more. For the first time in I don't know how long the health and longevity of that population is declining. It's affecting women too. Their children don't have much of a future so they are increasingly taking as much drugs as the kids in the ghettos. Crack and heroin are decimating many lower class or working class neighborhoods. This is what globalization, robots, etc. which so many people laud, has done to them. Meanwhile the religious values they used to hold onto are scorned and degraded.

This is all documented. It's what elected Donald Trump. The handwriting on the wall was when working class whites in the upper Midwest joined the working class whites in the south and turned away from the Democratic party.

I've been saying this would happen for years, on this forum too. Once it happened everybody was talking about it. Now? It's ignored again. All the talking heads are saying they can't understand why after all the crap in the papers Trump has still managed to hold onto his "base". It's clear as day; they're just too stupid to see it, because they're living in their upper middle class cocoons.

Yetos
12-12-17, 07:44
@ Angela

I do not think Trump was elected for that
but because of chair mania of Clinton
and her alliance with Sorros
people turn their face away from bankers.
and political carrer profesionals.

Jovialis
12-12-17, 12:43
@ Angela
I do not think Trump was elected for that
but because of chair mania of Clinton
and her alliance with Sorros
people turn their face away from bankers.
and political carrer profesionals.

I think Angela hit the nail on the head. Part of the aversion to big donors and lobbyists also played into concerns with immigration. Because of their position to have open-borders, and more immigration. Elites and globalization were considered facilitators for the increasing social pressures on working-class white Americans that Angela mentioned. Trump winning in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania is tell tale of this.

Take a look at the top voting issues:
https://i.imgur.com/yKlOiCi.png
http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/

Now compare it to the one from 2012. We can see that the people that elected Trump in 2017 were more concerned with competition with immigration, as well as demographic and cultural change. Many were Reagan Democrats and apolitical working-class people who probably didn't vote for Romney, or at all in 2012. But they came out for Trump in 2017.

https://i.imgur.com/90i0zct.png
http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/24/for-voters-its-still-the-economy/

bicicleur
12-12-17, 14:46
Ygorcs,
I can't speak for Latin America, but I know about the U.S. Non college educated white Americans are definitely worse off than they were thirty years ago.
Their factory jobs are gone overseas. A lot of the rest of the manual labor jobs have been taken by immigrants, legal and non-legal. The power of unions has been whittled away. Rust belt cities are indeed "rusting" away, and their old ethnic neighborhoods in the inner cities are now black and Hispanic slums. They have to take jobs paying not much more than minimum wage, so they need to work two or three jobs. The resulting depressions means they smoke more, drink, more. For the first time in I don't know how long the health and longevity of that population is declining. It's affecting women too. Their children don't have much of a future so they are increasingly taking as much drugs as the kids in the ghettos. Crack and heroin are decimating many lower class or working class neighborhoods. This is what globalization, robots, etc. which so many people laud, has done to them. Meanwhile the religious values they used to hold onto are scorned and degraded.
This is all documented. It's what elected Donald Trump. The handwriting on the wall was when working class whites in the upper Midwest joined the working class whites in the south and turned away from the Democratic party.
I've been saying this would happen for years, on this forum too. Once it happened everybody was talking about it. Now? It's ignored again. All the talking heads are saying they can't understand why after all the crap in the papers Trump has still managed to hold onto his "base". It's clear as day; they're just too stupid to see it, because they're living in their upper middle class cocoons.
that is what happened in South Africa when the boers installed apartheid
the Dutch farmers developped the land, but when they found gold and other minerals, it was a diseaster for them
the British came in with the bankers and they financed the mines and took all the resources
many empoverished boers had to work in the mines
but then the mines were looking for even cheaper labour
they brought in the black people who left their tribes hundred of miles further away
these people had nothing, they just worked for some food to survive
but now the allready empovershed boers came in the same situation
but those empoverished boers were the voting majority and it is because of them apartheid was installed

the situation is similar, but at that time the stuation for the boers was much more dramatic than for the uneducated jobless white people in America today and the system they installed was much more drastic

I1a3_Young
12-12-17, 20:14
Angela already hit the nail on the head.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s one person with a high school diploma could support a family. The purchasing power of blue collar workers has dramatically decreased. Now you need two working parents with 4 year degrees to get what used to be available.

That was also a time of American apex. WWII was a defining moment in the development of the American persona. Now we are known for bombing the middle east.

The crime waves of the 80s and Cold War don't bring up memories of happiness but the 90s were a good decade.

The simpler times of the 90s are probably what Americans taking the poll are referencing. Back then politics weren't as absurd as now. The Technology boom was in full swing and let's not forget the housing crisis. Also 9/11 changed things forever like the foreboding and annoying ubiquitous security and runaway government spying.

Trump was a product of the culture, not the cause.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

bicicleur
12-12-17, 20:39
I agree. Trump is not the solution.
But don't blaim Trump.
Blaim the traditional politicians who failed.

Ygorcs
12-12-17, 23:48
Ygorcs,
I can't speak for Latin America, but I know about the U.S. Non college educated white Americans are definitely worse off than they were thirty years ago..
Yes, you're right and made an excellent case for this view. However, I must say I really put aside the troubles of white American middle-class men for a moment, maybe weakening my complete view of this situation, because they were the most influent cohort and a very sizeable part of the US. When I said that, even for the US, but particularly surely for Latin America (some Latin American regions in the 50s weren't much better than Subsaharan Africa), there was definite improvement to make such extreme pessimism of our days unreasonable, I thought more of the "minorities" who now certainly enjoy much more rights and better prospects of life than in 1950: women (white or not), blacks, latinos, East Asians, mixed-race people, unemployed and sub-employed people, and so on. Those enjoy more social programs and better status now, but, as you say, they also may become stuck in a "bearable and comfortable indignity", because they weill be trapped in that state of "managed poverty" because of automation, the extreme and often unnecessarily high requirements of educational qualification, and the gradual squeezing of the middle class.

Angela
13-12-17, 00:24
Yes, you're right and made an excellent case for this view. However, I must say I really put aside the troubles of white American middle-class men for a moment, maybe weakening my complete view of this situation, because they were the most influent cohort and a very sizeable part of the US. When I said that, even for the US, but particularly surely for Latin America (some Latin American regions in the 50s weren't much better than Subsaharan Africa), there was definite improvement to make such extreme pessimism of our days unreasonable, I thought more of the "minorities" who now certainly enjoy much more rights and better prospects of life than in 1950: women (white or not), blacks, latinos, East Asians, mixed-race people, unemployed and sub-employed people, and so on. Those enjoy more social programs and better status now, but, as you say, they also may become stuck in a "bearable and comfortable indignity", because they weill be trapped in that state of "managed poverty" because of automation, the extreme and often unnecessarily high requirements of educational qualification, and the gradual squeezing of the middle class.

Well, there's a difference between working class and middle class in the U.S., although the working class income used to equal the middle class white collar income, and Americans like to think all Americans, except perhaps the minorities, are "middle class".

At any rate, people, men and women both, who once made a middle class income, can only approach it now by working two or three jobs, not one. The size of the middle class in the U.S. is shrinking.

The health of women from that group is also suffering, not just men.

The phenomenon is also because of increasing rural poverty.

http://image.cleveland.com/home/cleve-media/width620/img/politics_impact/photo/21505887-standard.png

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/white-working-class-poverty/424341/

Now, obviously, their lives are still better than the lives of a lot of people around the world, but they're not comparing themselves to farm workers in Bangladesh or where ever. They're comparing themselves to their parents and grandparents, and they're doing worse, and they're not happy about it or about the condition of their cities. What's deeply worrying is that imo a democracy is only stable if you have a large middle class.

Maciamo
13-12-17, 10:57
Angela has nicely explained why poorer US citizens are worse off now than a few decades ago. But that does not apply to Latin America, and I am really wondering why Latin Americans believe that life is worse today. Violence is a major concern in many countries like Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, but it's been a problem for a very long time. The highest homicide rates in the world are found among native Amazon tribes of hunter-gatherers, and the Aztecs were known for their cult of violence in pre-Columbian times. The colonisation period was even worse, as Spaniards and Portuguese raped and massacred a big part of the indigenous populations in many places like the Caribbean and coastal Brazil. The 1950's and 60's were marked by repressive dictatorships in most Latin American countries. Most countries are now more democratic, wealthier and healthier. Why is the majority of population in those countries so pessimistic about the present and nostalgic about the past? Am I missing something important?

bicicleur
13-12-17, 13:57
I wonder with whom South Americans identify themselves.
They are not European, they are not indogenous, they are not slaves from the other side of the Ocean.
They are a mixture.
Who are they? Are they South Americans, or is this different for each one or each group personally?

Jovialis
13-12-17, 16:08
^^
From my experience they usually just refer to themselves by their nationality. Broadly, they refer to themselves as Hispanic, or Latino; at least here in the USA. Even if they look more European, Amerindian, or African. Cubans may refer to themselves as white, sometimes. So will some Argentines, Chileans, or Uruguayans, etc. Because they may in fact be Europeans with very little or no Amerindian or African admixture. They were descendants of high caste people in the colonial period, who exist all over Latin America. Some mestizos may identify more strongly with their Amerindian roots.

firetown
13-12-17, 16:30
Many Brazilians consider themselves white, even if they have some Amerindian in them. There was a study out there using what people identify as and what those conducting the studies identified them as. And it was quite different.



I wonder with whom South Americans identify themselves.
They are not European, they are not indogenous, they are not slaves from the other side of the Ocean.
They are a mixture.
Who are they? Are they South Americans, or is this different for each one or each group personally?

Jovialis
13-12-17, 17:08
Many Brazilians consider themselves white, even if they have some Amerindian in them. There was a study out there using what people identify as and what those conducting the studies identified them as. And it was quite different.

There's been a lot of immigration to South America from places like Italy, and Germany. I knew an Argentine guy who's surname was the name of my father's town in Italy. Also, when I was first on Facebook, I found a lot of South Americans who had a variation of my last name.

firetown
13-12-17, 17:40
From my tourism related business in Europe I remember two things:
Lots of Australians with British Passports and lots of Argentinians with Italian ones. :)


There's been a lot of immigration to South America from places like Italy, and Germany. I knew an Argentine guy who's surname was the name of my father's town in Italy. Also, when I was first on Facebook, I found a lot of South Americans who had a variation of my last name.

Angela
13-12-17, 18:47
I wonder with whom South Americans identify themselves.
They are not European, they are not indogenous, they are not slaves from the other side of the Ocean.
They are a mixture.
Who are they? Are they South Americans, or is this different for each one or each group personally?

I've never looked up any literature on it, so this is just anecdotal. The only exception is that I think I read somewhere that Mexicans identify as a mestizo nation, which would be correct genetically, I guess.

Generally, I think they identify as their nationality, whatever their ethnic mix, just like Americans (with the possible exception of some minorities who identify as the minority first). My younger cousins who are a mix of two or three different ethnicities, Italian, Irish/German, English, Polish mostly, but also a few who are half Jewish, half Cuban, identify as American. Even the few who are all genetically Italian identify that way, although they might think Italian-American. They're proud of their ethnic "roots", but they're American.

It works generally the same way in Latin America, although it seems to me that the identification with Europe is stronger in some countries.

Among my Argentinian cousins, even the second and third generation who no longer speak very good Italian seem to identify more with Italy than do similarly placed Americans.

I guess Pope Francis would be a good example. As he's older he's bilingual in Italian although he was born in Argentina. However, he seems to identify as an Argentinian. He's a mad supporter of Argentinian soccer, like my cousins, who support Argentina first in the World Cup, and only if they are out would they support Italy. For younger generations it's even more extreme. Lionel Messi has been asked many times to play for Italy and has always refused. He also doesn't speak Italian. I don't know about Diego Forlan. I don't think "white" Argentinians identify with the native Americans very much, at least not my youngest cousins, who might very well carry an Amerindian mtDna. I think that's because they don't "look it" if you understand what I mean. In a place like Argentina, a lot of "white" Argentinians are only non-European in the single digits, less than Afrikaners, let's say, although there are others who carry more of it.

It's similar with the Cubans I've known, who are "white" Cubans who identify first and foremost as Cuban, and then as Spanish, even if there was some Italian or French or whatever thrown in there. To be honest, the ones I know were rather upset to think that they might have African in them, and they honestly thought that all the Amerindians had been killed and didn't have anything to do with their genetics. They're more color and race conscious than people from Louisiana, and like some of the latter they've been surprised by genetic testing, although I don't see how 5% or so non-European is any big whoops. Some people hadn't realized that a lot of the "history" they were taught wasn't true.

I know a lot of Puerto Ricans, and they all identify as Puerto Rican first, but they know they are also Indian and black as well. Some of them, probably most of them, are proud of it, but there are a few very "white" ones who seem to deny it.

Ygorcs should tell us about Brazil. Also, I'll recant everything above if I'm told I'm wrong. :)

Maciamo
13-12-17, 19:04
I wonder with whom South Americans identify themselves.
They are not European, they are not indogenous, they are not slaves from the other side of the Ocean.
They are a mixture.
Who are they? Are they South Americans, or is this different for each one or each group personally?

This varies a lot between countries. In Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil a big part of the population is of almost purely European descent. In contrast in Bolivia, Peru, Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador, over half of the people are Amerindians with little or no European or African admixture. Places like Colombia, Venezuela and most of coastal Brazil (except the south) are the most ethnically mixed.

In Mexico it depends on the region and social class, with many wealthier people being of European descent. Northwestern states like Sonora and Chihuahua have the highest percentages of whites (40%), while southern ones like Oaxaca, Chiapas and Puebla have the highest ratio of unadmixed Amerindians (over 50%). Many states (Sinaloa,Durango, Guanajuato) are almost fully mestizo. No Mexican state has less than 28% of mestizos and the average is around 60%. (sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Mexico#1921_census)).

firetown
13-12-17, 19:57
I agree. Trump is not the solution.
But don't blaim Trump.
Blaim the traditional politicians who failed.
People seek a sense of protection.
Which was lacking in the US.
People afraid of losing their jobs, homes and all they have worked for "getting lost".
Trump's rhetoric made many feel that he is "on their side" and putting the American people first.

If anything, the failure was in those whose actions made the American people feel non-secure. And it does seem that
he keeps more promises than others, as seen in the low jobless rate since in inauguration.

Angela
13-12-17, 20:00
Well, in certain areas people are still disaffected.

The only way to get a Democrat elected in the south, apparently, is if the Republican candidate is a pedophile, and even then it was a squeaker, with the margin of victory being 1%.

bicicleur
13-12-17, 20:04
I've met a few South American (Chile, Argentina, Uruguay) bussiness relations and they all looked and behaved European.
But I was not aware they were also genetically so much European. As Angela states, probably more on the Y-DNA then on the mtDNA side.

I also know a Belgian who spent a few years in Argentina trying to set up a new life over there and he came back dissapointed because of high taxes and a government with little vision and little support for enterpreneurs.

Maybe that is why those South Americans who identify themselves with Europeans are not happy.

firetown
13-12-17, 20:09
Well, in certain areas people are still disaffected.

They only way to get a Democrat elected in the south, apparently, is if the Republican candidate is a pedophile, and even then it was a squeaker, with the margin of victory being 1%.

In some regions life and things change a lot less than in others. I would say in the south, life is more or less what it was and people probably get a lot of their views from what they hear about the rest of the US. But overall speaking, it takes a lot there to get things changed either way, for the better or worse.

Angela
13-12-17, 20:14
I've met a few South American (Chile, Argentina, Uruguay) bussiness relations and they all looked and behaved European.
But I was not aware they were also genetically so much European. As Angela states, probably more on the Y-DNA then on the mtDNA side.

I also know a Belgian who spent a few years in Argentina trying to set up a new life over there and he came back dissapointed because of high taxes and a government with little vision and little support for enterpreneurs.

Maybe that is why those South Americans who identify themselves with Europeans are not happy.

I've seen the 23andme results of a "white" Cuban, and the total Amerindian and SSA is about 3%, while a sibling has even less. The majority of Cubans have a lot more, however.

I've also seen some Argentinian results because for a long time they were my highest sharers on 23andme. That's because a good number of Ligurians went to Argentina. This man's son was 98% European, but along with his father's R1b, he carried an Amerindian mtDna.

Ygorcs
13-12-17, 20:19
At any rate, people, men and women both, who once made a middle class income, can only approach it now by working two or three jobs, not one. The size of the middle class in the U.S. is shrinking..

Wow, Angela, I was aware of the growing problems of the working and middle classes in the US, but not that it was THAT serious. Two or three jobs to make a middle class income? Yesterday I read a BBC report (its Brazilian offshoot, BBC Brazil) called "The American Shame", which demonstrates 6 important social data (e.g. infant mortality, maternal mortality, life expectancy) where the US is not only now behind all the developed countries, but also behind some emerging countries, like Chile and even Mexico and Cuba! It seems like, despite still preserving its head above others (except small countries) in terms of GDP (absolute and per capita), and certainly in terms of luxury and high comforts, the most progressive emerging countries, like Uruguay and Chile, are closing the gap with the US in terms of basic quality of life. It almost feels like the US is, in relative terms, becoming more "Latin American", not more "Scandinavian". :-(

Ygorcs
13-12-17, 20:43
Angela has nicely explained why poorer US citizens are worse off now than a few decades ago. But that does not apply to Latin America, and I am really wondering why Latin Americans believe that life is worse today. Violence is a major concern in many countries like Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, but it's been a problem for a very long time. The highest homicide rates in the world are found among native Amazon tribes of hunter-gatherers, and the Aztecs were known for their cult of violence in pre-Columbian times. The colonisation period was even worse, as Spaniards and Portuguese raped and massacred a big part of the indigenous populations in many places like the Caribbean and coastal Brazil. The 1950's and 60's were marked by repressive dictatorships in most Latin American countries. Most countries are now more democratic, wealthier and healthier. Why is the majority of population in those countries so pessimistic about the present and nostalgic about the past? Am I missing something important?

Very interesting observation. As a Brazilian living in a state that only recently experienced a boom of crime rates - but one which was dramatically rapid and intense - after the 1990s, I'd say that the main explanation is really urban, criminal violence. Violence, as you correctly point out, has always been an ordinary part of Latin American life, but it was mostly concentrated, difuse or sporadic, in times of rebellion, warfare, land disputes and so on. On the whole, it was very much an awful but occasional part of social life. To give you all some perspective of it: the homicide rate when I was born here in my home state (Ceará) was about 10 per 100,000, already a bit high, but not uncontrolled; 29 years later, it's increased to a shocking 45 per 100,000.

Some conservative Brazilians (in my opinion, totally selfishly and absurdly) usually say something of this sort: "in the past, during the dictatorships, there was violence, but only if you 'asked for it' by being a revolutionary, a subversive or a criminal. Now violence can reach you at any time, anywhere, no matter who you are and what you do". That's an absurd statement, because state and elite violence actually took the lives of thousands of people who simply had "inconvenient" thoughts and practices for the business and political elites. But it has a hint of truth there: violence in Brazil, Mexico or, in tragically higher proportions, Honduras and Venezuela are absurdly widespread and unavoidable for the working and lower-middle class. They can be victims of violent crimes even inside their own homes. That's fundamentally different and more threatening than previous, political or rural violence in Latin America.

Ygorcs
13-12-17, 20:53
I wonder with whom South Americans identify themselves.
They are not European, they are not indogenous, they are not slaves from the other side of the Ocean.
They are a mixture.
Who are they? Are they South Americans, or is this different for each one or each group personally?

There is a group identity in many places, especially among little admixed Native Americans and descendants of recent European and Asian immigrants, but this ethnic identity is in general much, much weaker than the national and/or regional identities. In most South American countries, the main identity people have is associated with their city, region and country, with relatively little relevance (except for, well, racist purposes) given to skin color or long-gone origin. That's especially true, of course, of countries where interracial admixture was much more intense, like Brazil and Colombia, and I'm not sure, but I'd bet that ethnic/phenotype identity is a bit stronger in less admixed countries like Peru and Argentina, where, at least in my experience, tend to have a much more striking divergence in the looks of people, because they mixed and "diluted" less than Brazilians or Venezuelans. As a whole, though, South Americans do not identify with the ancient immigrant ancestors, with the natives, and much, much less with an "international" identity like Latin American, Latino or Hispanic. They may define themselves as such abroad, especially in the US, but back home you're not Hispanic nor Latino, you're Argentine, Chilean, Peruvian. If necessary, they can get more specific and say their identity is Porteño (Buenos Aires in Argentina), Gaúcho (Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil), and so on.

Ygorcs
13-12-17, 21:02
Many Brazilians consider themselves white, even if they have some Amerindian in them. There was a study out there using what people identify as and what those conducting the studies identified them as. And it was quite different.

In Brazil, people identify their "race" by phenotype alone. Given the extensive and 500-year-old process of still ongoing admixture, it's very difficult to know the ethnic/racial roots of one's ancestors. As you correctly reminded, some studies comparing the genetics and the self-declared phenotypes of Brazilians showed very surprising results. Some visibly black individuals, with mostly African features, came up as mostly European, and some white people came up with a lot of African and Amerindian ancestry. So, Brazilians make it easier and simply declare that they have such and such skin color, implying that this doesn't necessarily mean their main origins are this or that.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d7/47/0c/d7470c0e31d00f0b22210922657ef3a2.jpg
Actress Ildi Silva: 70% European.

http://i1.r7.com/data/files/2C95/948E/3077/36F5/0130/7BFC/AACC/3BC9/dada450x338.jpg
Gymnast Daiane dos Santos: 41% European and 20% Amerindian.

Ygorcs
13-12-17, 21:19
This varies a lot between countries. In Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil a big part of the population is of almost purely European descent. In contrast in Bolivia, Peru, Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador, over half of the people are Amerindians with little or no European or African admixture

Some genetic studies and also individually made genetic analysis seem to indicate more and more clearly that this is actually a partial myth. Yes, thevast majority of the DNA of average Southern Brazilians and Argentinians is European, but the notion that they had managed, perhaps due to their later immigration to South America, to remain almost unadmixed, is not corroborated by the DNA results. In fact, the difference in relation to other regions of Brazil is much less pronounced than previously thought. Northern and Northeastern Brazilians show an average 50% to 60% of European DNA, while Southern Brazilians have some 75% to 80% of European DNA. I'm not totally sure about the results for Argentinians, but if I'm not mistaken the genetic study I'd read months ago showed them to be ~75% European, too. That means that, despite the different (and more recent) demographic history, the people of those regions still had a significant (1/5 or 1/4) contribution from Native Americans and Africans (mostly Amerindians, I think).

nordicwarrior
13-12-17, 21:25
I voted for Trump because he wants to dismantle the ACA. The ACA has a mandate that violates our First Ammendment, until this mandate is removed I will continue to be solidly pro-Trump.

My European friends, please do not be confused by our media outlets... Trump is very popular here.

And Angela, I too am glad Roy Moore was defeated in Alabama.

Angela
13-12-17, 21:52
Wow, Angela, I was aware of the growing problems of the working and middle classes in the US, but not that it was THAT serious. Two or three jobs to make a middle class income? Yesterday I read a BBC report (its Brazilian offshoot, BBC Brazil) called "The American Shame", which demonstrates 6 important social data (e.g. infant mortality, maternal mortality, life expectancy) where the US is not only now behind all the developed countries, but also behind some emerging countries, like Chile and even Mexico and Cuba! It seems like, despite still preserving its head above others (except small countries) in terms of GDP (absolute and per capita), and certainly in terms of luxury and high comforts, the most progressive emerging countries, like Uruguay and Chile, are closing the gap with the US in terms of basic quality of life. It almost feels like the US is, in relative terms, becoming more "Latin American", not more "Scandinavian". :-(

That's what worries me, and should worry American political and media elites. Our statistics were always behind that of countries like Sweden, let's say, but that's because more than 20% of our population is black and Hispanic (Puerto Rican and other Caribbean Islanders, Mexicans etc.) and they have such high rates of alcohol and drug addiction, nicotine use, unemployment, and on and on, and until very recently most of Europe did not have these issues. A crack addicted pregnant woman is not going to have a healthy baby. So many young people dying is going to affect longevity rates. It's extremely different for college educated whites.

That's why I'm always so suspicious of statistics that look at things from a country wide perspective. It's like data that shows how well off some European countries are compared to the U.S. It's a distortion of the reality, imo. We, as in the upper middle or even middle class, throw away more than people from similar classes in the rest of the world consume. It drives me crazy. Just think about electricity costs, which we were discussing on another thread. Even most working class Americans of the older generation, people who are unhappy because they are comparing themselves to their parents and grandparents and worried about the lives of their children in the future, have central heating, leave the lights on all the time, and have electric washers and dryers, often dishwashers, air-conditioning at least through a room unit, a car, even if it's older, and cheap gas, and on and on. That's one of the biggest gripes from American ex-pats in Europe. They can't believe that so many people don't have central air, or dryers and dishwashers. Of course, most of them aren't working class.

I guess what I'm saying is that even our slums, much less our working class communities, aren't favelas.

The Watts riots, which took place in an inner city, black neighborhood in Los Angeles were a traumatic event. This is what the neighborhood looked like before the riots:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2321715.1439309905!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/remembering-watts.jpg


This used to be the South Bronx. It was heavily Italian and Jewish.
https://images0.estately.net/15_2981007_0_1508960131_636x435.jpg


This is what happened to it in the 1970s, with crack and heroin, and gangs, and torched cars and buildings. They have to keep rebuilding it.
http://all-that-is-interesting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/the-bronx.jpg

I think the comparison is more with the ghettos in places like England and Belgium etc., not with Brazil.


In my opinion, disaffection isn't usually based on what people objectively don't have, but on what they can see that other people do have.


What is happening is that this kind of unemployment, or under employment, and despair and substance abuse, is moving up the ladder into the white working class. I don't think a democracy can sustain itself if these kinds of problems reach 50% of the population. The problem is that social life in America is stratified by class, which means by education and income level. The elite media doesn't interact with an ex automotive factory worker from Michigan or Pennsylvania, or an ex miner in Kentucky or Tennessee, or Puerto Ricans living in the South Bronx for that matter. They feel sorry for the latter, but not for the former, and think that more benefits will help the latter when it won't. The number of people in slums who use their food stamps and welfare checks for drugs is staggering.

My neighbors don't interact with these people either btw. Maybe my perspective is different because when my family moved to the U.S. they went to a "rust belt" factory town which fell on hard times. I know these people. Also, for some years my profession brought me into contact with the underbelly of American society, to the detriment of my mental health, probably.

Angela
13-12-17, 22:07
I voted for Trump because he wants to dismantle the ACA. The ACA has a mandate that violates our First Ammendment, until this mandate is removed I will continue to be solidly pro-Trump.

My European friends, please do not be confused by our media outlets... Trump is very popular here.

And Angela, I too am glad Roy Moore was defeated in Alabama.

I know, right? If you believed the accusations, and they seem pretty legit, there just was no choice for a lot of people. It was either vote for the radical abortionist (even late term partial birth ones) or stay home. I think probably a lot of white Alabamans just stayed home.

As for the ACA, speaking of abortions, I think it is one, a horrible mess of a law, but I don't see it going anywhere, no matter what Trump or even what someone like Paul Ryan wants.

nordicwarrior
13-12-17, 22:21
Maciamo after considering your question further, I've come to a conclusion and it probably won't go over well with many of forum contributors. The reason for the lack of economic prosperity in much of the Americas (and really even into parts of Europe) is a growing distance from The Church.

A specific example would be Mexico. Would you rather have an organized religion calling the shots in your neighborhood, or a merciless drug cartel? I think much of the population is starting to wake up to the fact that without a religious reference point, political systems simply fail.

Trump's success is built on this factor... he pulled more African American voters and Latin voters than Mitt Romney or most any other Republican/Conservative politician.

I think the U.S. and the Americas in general will start heading toward The Church simply because it's the only sensible way.

nordicwarrior
13-12-17, 22:31
I disagree Angela. The mandate will have to be removed. One way or another. A person can't force another person to financially contribute to human sacrifice.

bicicleur
13-12-17, 22:46
I voted for Trump because he wants to dismantle the ACA. The ACA has a mandate that violates our First Ammendment, until this mandate is removed I will continue to be solidly pro-Trump.

My European friends, please do not be confused by our media outlets... Trump is very popular here.

And Angela, I too am glad Roy Moore was defeated in Alabama.

what is ACA?

here it is an IT company, but I guess in America, it is something else..

nordicwarrior
13-12-17, 22:55
"Affordable Healthcare Act". The irony is that is not affordable (enormous deductibles, complicated, etc.) and that it has not much to do with healthcare, but with health "insurance".

Northener
14-12-17, 11:16
Well, there's a difference between working class and middle class in the U.S., although the working class income used to equal the middle class white collar income, and Americans like to think all Americans, except perhaps the minorities, are "middle class".

At any rate, people, men and women both, who once made a middle class income, can only approach it now by working two or three jobs, not one. The size of the middle class in the U.S. is shrinking.

The health of women from that group is also suffering, not just men.

The phenomenon is also because of increasing rural poverty.

http://image.cleveland.com/home/cleve-media/width620/img/politics_impact/photo/21505887-standard.png

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/white-working-class-poverty/424341/

Now, obviously, their lives are still better than the lives of a lot of people around the world, but they're not comparing themselves to farm workers in Bangladesh or where ever. They're comparing themselves to their parents and grandparents, and they're doing worse, and they're not happy about it or about the condition of their cities. What's deeply worrying is that imo a democracy is only stable if you have a large middle class.

In the Netherlands the notion is widespread that people opinions about their personal life is pretty prosperous, but the opinion about the "common" or society as a whole is negative.

In the US there is in stead of in the golden years after WW2 no notion about the "common good". May be the idea is still alive. But it looks like if everything is measured by privat succes. A mingling of neoliberalism and meritocracy.

A few weeks ago I saw in documentary that the poor in the US (in the Appalaches) got medical aid by voluntary medical professionals garthered in a tent. Scenes I only know from underdeveloped countries. The abuse of drugs/ incl. medicins is gone partly sky high. Poor country....

firetown
14-12-17, 11:38
In Brazil, people identify their "race" by phenotype alone. Given the extensive and 500-year-old process of still ongoing admixture, it's very difficult to know the ethnic/racial roots of one's ancestors. As you correctly reminded, some studies comparing the genetics and the self-declared phenotypes of Brazilians showed very surprising results. Some visibly black individuals, with mostly African features, came up as mostly European, and some white people came up with a lot of African and Amerindian ancestry. So, Brazilians make it easier and simply declare that they have such and such skin color, implying that this doesn't necessarily mean their main origins are this or that.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d7/47/0c/d7470c0e31d00f0b22210922657ef3a2.jpg
Actress Ildi Silva: 70% European.

http://i1.r7.com/data/files/2C95/948E/3077/36F5/0130/7BFC/AACC/3BC9/dada450x338.jpg
Gymnast Daiane dos Santos: 41% European and 20% Amerindian.

This is a good approach. At least keep it simple. European, Amerindian, African and Asian as groups if people feel the need to label themselves or others. I couldn't imagine Brazilians actually calling themselves Hispanic or Latino.

On a sidenote: There is one study out there on Brazil having 19.5% rh negative people amongst them:

http://www.rhesusnegative.net/themission/bloodtypefrequencies/brazil/

Is there a high Basque population in Brazil? Or any other reason why this might be the case?
(http://www.rhesusnegative.net/themission/bloodtypefrequencies/brazil/)

bicicleur
14-12-17, 14:10
"Affordable Healthcare Act". The irony is that is not affordable (enormous deductibles, complicated, etc.) and that it has not much to do with healthcare, but with health "insurance".

IMO America needs some kind of public health care
but Obama made ACA his prestige project, and he was not very hounust forgetting to mention the costs involved
even Trump cannot make ACA undone unless he can come up with a better alternative
it needs serious fixing but it cannot be abolished

Salento
14-12-17, 14:53
Health Care in the US is Not a fundamental Human Right.
It’s a For Profit business.
There isn’t Universal Health Care, but the Government does offers Medicare fo people 65 and older, some younger people with Disabilities, and most Kidney Dialysis.

https://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change-plans/decide-how-to-get-medicare/whats-medicare/what-is-medicare.html

Medicaid provides health coverage to millions of Americans, including eligible low-income adults, children, pregnant women, elderly adults and people with disabilities. Medicaid is administered by states, according to federal requirements. The program is funded jointly by states and the federal government.

https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/index.html

nordicwarrior
14-12-17, 16:50
Bicicleur, I agree that we need some system for all Americans to access better healthcare. However, the ACA's mandate forcing everyone to contribute to abortion violates the Freedom of Religion clause in our founding document.

So the simple answer is to eliminate the mandate penalty. Another answer would be to have those that are pro-abortion set up funding pools where they could send money to pay for these procedures. I think that would make supporters of this choice really think about what they are doing. Reflection in this matter is probably helpful anyway.

I personally would like all woman, all females to have top notch access to reproductive healthcare (cancer screenings, pregnancy consultation, even reasonable fertility treatments). However, I do not and will not fund any abortions.

I have not paid and will not pay the mandate penalty.

Maciamo
14-12-17, 22:31
I've met a few South American (Chile, Argentina, Uruguay) bussiness relations and they all looked and behaved European.
But I was not aware they were also genetically so much European. As Angela states, probably more on the Y-DNA then on the mtDNA side.

I also know a Belgian who spent a few years in Argentina trying to set up a new life over there and he came back dissapointed because of high taxes and a government with little vision and little support for enterpreneurs.

Maybe that is why those South Americans who identify themselves with Europeans are not happy.

Chile, Argentina and Uruguay are overwhelmingly European and not just on the paternal side, because there was a lot of recent immigration from countries like Italy and Germany (notably after WWII), but also France, Spain and others.

firetown
15-12-17, 16:49
In other parts of South America there are also many Basque communities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_diaspora

Minty
15-12-17, 18:40
Pew Research conducted a worldwide survey (http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/12/05/worldwide-people-divided-on-whether-life-today-is-better-than-in-the-past/) asking people whether life is better now than it was 50 years ago. The majority of people life in Asia, Australia, Canada and most of Europe (with notable exceptions such as France, Italy and Greece) believed that life has indeed got better. But surprisingly respondents from the USA, Latin America (except Chile) and most African countries surveyed believe that the quality of life has deteriorated over the two last generations, despite all the technological innovations and increased life expectancy. Why could that be?
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/12/05122228/PG_2017.12.5_Life-Better-or-Worse_00.png
They survey found that younger and more educated people are more likely to say that life is better now. This is especially true in Europe. Conversely, Europeans voting for populist/extremist parties are more likely to take a dim view of the present and be nostalgic about the past. These are typically older and less educated people, including a lot of laid off factory workers.
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/12/01163245/PG_2017.12.5_Life-Better-or-Worse_06.png
The only places where more educated people were much more negative about present life conditions are Turkey and Nigeria. The reason is that these countries have seen a resurgence of Islam and discrimination, imprisonment and killings of intellectuals. Religious Turks and Muslim Nigerians see life now as much better, while secular Turks and Christian Nigerians have more misgivings.
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/12/01162506/PG_2017.12.5_Life-Better-or-Worse_05.png
But all this doesn't explain why most Latin Americans and about half of US citizens are so nostalgic about the past. The situation is understandable for the poorer, less educated half of the US population, which has suffered from globalisation and robotisation far more than their European counterparts. A huge underclass is developing in the USA, as the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer.
But what about Latin America? The economy of most countries has developed dramatically over the last 50 years. What is making them so gloomy?

The level of inequality in countries: in general, the countries with the most equal distribution of wealth are happier than those with a lot of inequality.

Financial satisfaction differs from culture to culture. So, this seemed to be determined not by the amount of money a person had, but instead by their expectations of what that money should mean.

With the exaception of the US, Africa and Latin America have the highest homicide rates in the world.

The 50 Most Dangerous Cities
View information as a: List Chart
Rank City Country Homicide Rate (Per 100,000)
1 Caracas Venezuela 130.35
2 Acapulco Mexico 113.24
3 San Pedro Sula Honduras 112.09
4 Distrito Central Honduras 112.09
5 Victoria Mexico 84.67
6 Maturin Venezuela 82.84
7 San Salvador El Salvador 83.39
8 Ciudad Guayana Venezuela 82.84
9 Valencia Venezuela 72.02
10 Natal Brazil 69.56
11 Belem Brazil 67.41
12 Aracaju Brazil 62.76
13 Cape Town South Africa 60.77
14 St. Louis United States 60.37
15 Feira de Santana Brazil 60.10
16 Barquisimeto Venezuela 59.38
17 Cumana Venezuela 59.31
18 Campos dos Goytacazes Brazil 56.45
19 Salvador Brazil 54.71
20 Cali Colombia 54.00
21 Tijuana Mexico 53.06
22 Guatemala Guatemala 52.73
23 Culiacan Mexico 51.81
24 Maceio Brazil 47.89
25 Baltimore United States 51.14
26 Mazatlan Mexico 48.75
27 Recife Brazil 47.89
28 Joao Pessoa Brazil 47.57
29 Bracelona Venezuela 46.86
30 Palmira Colombia 46.30
31 Kingston Jamaica 45.43
32 Sao Luis Brazil 45.41
33 New Orleans United States 45.17
34 Fortaleza Brazil 44.98
35 Detroit United States 44.60
36 Juarez Mexico 43.63
37 Terresina Brazil 42.84
38 Cuiaba Brazil 42.61
39 Chihuahua Brazil 42.61
40 Obregon Mexico 42.02
41 Aparecida de Goiania Brazil 39.48
42 Nelson Mandela Bay South Africa 39.19
43 Armenia Colombia 38.54
44 Macapa Brazil 38.45
45 Manaus Brazil 38.25
46 Vitoria Brazil 37.54
47 Cucuta Colombia 37.00
48 Curitiba Brazil 34.92
49 Durban South Africa 34.43
Taken from here : https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world.html

Wheal
15-12-17, 19:24
An interesting posting on the crime rates. I live about 25 miles north of St. Louis, but in Illinois, and travel to STL frequently alone. I have never felt afraid, so I guess that it includes the entire St. Louis City and St. Louis County, which is quite a large area. I also was a substitute teacher in north county which had a much higher crime rate than the city.

I am curious why Chicago isn't included on the list. I also travel to Chicago frequently (5 hour drive north), and hear gunshots all night long when I stay with my son or my brother (which are in two different areas). So I am much more afraid to travel there alone and Chicago isn't listed. Must be the differences in how crime is reported.

Here is an op view of American cities.

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlj45jggj/1-detroit/#5743183a69d9

Wheal
15-12-17, 19:34
This is a screen shot of the highest number of crimes per city in the U.S. with population numbers

9532

Angela
15-12-17, 19:36
An interesting posting on the crime rates. I live about 25 miles north of St. Louis, but in Illinois, and travel to STL frequently alone. I have never felt afraid, so I guess that it includes the entire St. Louis City and St. Louis County, which is quite a large area. I also was a substitute teacher in north county which had a much higher crime rate than the city.

I am curious why Chicago isn't included on the list. I also travel to Chicago frequently (5 hour drive north), and hear gunshots all night long when I stay with my son or my brother (which are in two different areas). So I am much more afraid to travel there alone and Chicago isn't listed. Must be the differences in how crime is reported.

Here is an op view of American cities.

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlj45jggj/1-detroit/#5743183a69d9

One may just be homicides, one the broader category of violent crimes, which would also include serious assaults, rapes, etc.

You'd think Chicago would be way up there on both.

Venezuela has become such a mess.

I had so many arguments with a Cuban friend about Chavez. You'd think a Cuban of all people would know better.

Ygorcs
15-12-17, 20:03
Chile, Argentina and Uruguay are overwhelmingly European and not just on the paternal side, because there was a lot of recent immigration from countries like Italy and Germany (notably after WWII), but also France, Spain and others.

I don't agree entirely with this statement about Chile. I've been to Chile for several days, and what I noticed was a heavily seggregated society (not formally so, of course): in the downtown and poorer neighborhoods, as many as 70% of the faces I saw had clearly Amerindian features (mixed or, in some cases, virtually unmixed); but in the richest neighborhoods, like the amazing Las Condes and Providencia (in Santiago), the white Caucasian faces were as much as 70% or 80%. Relatives and friends of mine have noticed the same pattern there.

In general, my impression was that the vast majority of the Chilean population is mestizo with a lot of Amerindian admixture. Only in rich neighborhoods and some pockets of colonial towns especially in the cold South of Chile will you see a clear majority of whites as you see in Buenos Aires. But strangely in most polls (the government data only distinguish "indigenous" from "non-indigenous" - a bit suspect if you ask me) between 50% and 60% of Chileans claim they are white.

So, why the contradiction? A hint may be in the fact that one genetic study on Chilean populations revealed that 38% identified as white, but those who self-identified as white were in average only 54% European. That's even less than the average Brazilian citizen (apart from the north/Amazon, all regions have 55% to 75% of European DNA), and most Brazilians aren't exactly unadmixed whites. All in all, my impression is that, unlike Brazil or Mexico, Chileans aren't still totally comfortable with their mestizo history and identity.

firetown
15-12-17, 20:24
That is also why blood type frequencies in Chile show extremely different results:

The A and Rh(-) frequencies of the highest SES in Chile are significantly higher than those found in Europeans.
while:

The frequency of the standard Rh factor percentage is very high (98.6 per cent)
among Mapuche populations
http://www.rhesusnegative.net/themission/bloodtypefrequencies/chile/

Angela
15-12-17, 21:20
I don't agree entirely with this statement about Chile. I've been to Chile for several days, and what I noticed was a heavily seggregated society (not formally so, of course): in the downtown and poorer neighborhoods, as many as 70% of the faces I saw had clearly Amerindian features (mixed or, in some cases, virtually unmixed); but in the richest neighborhoods, like the amazing Las Condes and Providencia (in Santiago), the white Caucasian faces were as much as 70% or 80%. Relatives and friends of mine have noticed the same pattern there.

In general, my impression was that the vast majority of the Chilean population is mestizo with a lot of Amerindian admixture. Only in rich neighborhoods and some pockets of colonial towns especially in the cold South of Chile will you see a clear majority of whites as you see in Buenos Aires. But strangely in most polls (the government data only distinguish "indigenous" from "non-indigenous" - a bit suspect if you ask me) between 50% and 60% of Chileans claim they are white.

So, why the contradiction? A hint may be in the fact that one genetic study on Chilean populations revealed that 38% identified as white, but those who self-identified as white were in average only 54% European. That's even less than the average Brazilian citizen (apart from the north/Amazon, all regions have 55% to 75% of European DNA), and most Brazilians aren't exactly unadmixed whites. All in all, my impression is that, unlike Brazil or Mexico, Chileans aren't still totally comfortable with their mestizo history and identity.

Most Mexicans may acknowledge that they're a mestizo people, but their society still looks very color stratified to me. I've only been there three times, though, so my perception may be off.

Maciamo
23-12-17, 09:39
I don't agree entirely with this statement about Chile. I've been to Chile for several days, and what I noticed was a heavily seggregated society (not formally so, of course): in the downtown and poorer neighborhoods, as many as 70% of the faces I saw had clearly Amerindian features (mixed or, in some cases, virtually unmixed); but in the richest neighborhoods, like the amazing Las Condes and Providencia (in Santiago), the white Caucasian faces were as much as 70% or 80%. Relatives and friends of mine have noticed the same pattern there.

In general, my impression was that the vast majority of the Chilean population is mestizo with a lot of Amerindian admixture. Only in rich neighborhoods and some pockets of colonial towns especially in the cold South of Chile will you see a clear majority of whites as you see in Buenos Aires. But strangely in most polls (the government data only distinguish "indigenous" from "non-indigenous" - a bit suspect if you ask me) between 50% and 60% of Chileans claim they are white.

So, why the contradiction? A hint may be in the fact that one genetic study on Chilean populations revealed that 38% identified as white, but those who self-identified as white were in average only 54% European. That's even less than the average Brazilian citizen (apart from the north/Amazon, all regions have 55% to 75% of European DNA), and most Brazilians aren't exactly unadmixed whites. All in all, my impression is that, unlike Brazil or Mexico, Chileans aren't still totally comfortable with their mestizo history and identity.

Thanks for clarifying this. I haven't been to Chile, so I have to rely on statistics and the few Chilean people I have met (who were mostly unadmixed Europeans).

Maciamo
28-12-17, 20:51
I think I have found some clues as to what makes Latin Americans so gloomy.

According to those OECD stats on pro- and anti-social behaviour (https://www.oecd.org/berlin/47570337.pdf), the Latin American countries surveyed (Mexico, Chile and Brazil) displayed the highest scores of anti-social behaviour in the list after South Africa. Their pro-social score was lower than average.

The highest scorers for pro-social behaviour were all English-speaking countries, with the USA on top. There is a correlation between pro-social behaviour and GDP per capita, although in South European countries, Korea and Japan scored more poorly than they should, while Anglophone countries consistently score high on pro-social behaviour regardless of GDP per capita (New Zealand is almost as high as the USA). So cultural factors play a role too.

Depression rates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_depression) are much high on the American continent as a whole, except in Mexico.The USA has the world's highest age-standardised disability-adjusted life year (DALY) depression rate! Brazil is the 2nd highest outside of South Asia. So good weather and a fun-loving lifestyle does not necessarily lower depression - although Greece and Spain have the lowest depression rates in the world after Japan.

The extremely high murder rates in Latin America (and the USA) have already been mentioned as a probably cause for seeing life negatively. What is more worrying is that so many Latin American countries also have crazy high youth murder rates (http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Murders-committed-by-youths-per-million), with Colombia on top of the list with 327 murders committed by youths per million, 11x more than in the USA and about 100x to 300x more than in Europe!! (except Albania and former USSR countries) Even the safest Latin American countries (Chile and Uruguay) have a youth murder rate 3x to 10x higher than in Europe. Jamaica is the only exception in the Americas, with one of the very lowest youth murder rates on earth, but it is English-speaking and has a noticeable different culture.