Society Life has got better over the last 50 years in many countries, but not in the Americas

@ 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.
 
@ 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:
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.

90i0zct.png

http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/24/for-voters-its-still-the-economy/
 
Last edited:
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
 
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
 
I agree. Trump is not the solution.
But don't blaim Trump.
Blaim the traditional politicians who failed.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
^^
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :)
 
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).
 
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.
 
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%.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 29200 times.

Back
Top