| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Backwards development in Latin America?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Backwards development in Latin America?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Dec 2012 at 22:52
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

The point is that historically people have tended to do whatever they could get away with, in the short term anyway, if they saw clear material gains for themselves. The future could come later, and if a people's knowledge of the larger world was limited, consequences were even more of an abstraction, and further from the mind.

 

Unfortunately because many people in todays world follow such a pattern, the results in our overcrowded world spells a rather bleak future.

 

 

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Today we are doing basically the same thing, such as expanding coal and oil use because of short term financial gain, rather than looking down the road a few decades. But we are doing this on a much larger scale because we can do it- in a physical sense. More primitive peoples also exploited the landscape to the extent that they could, and there is clear evidence they would have gone much further with better technology. Indeed, they did. When European goods were introduced through the fur trade, such as guns and iron tools, aboriginals became able to take more of the resources around them, and they did- with enthusiasm.

 

Unfortunately people are prone to be led into corruption in different ways, and when the economical and political systems of indigenous peoples are destroyed or disturbed they too can be tempted to jump on the train of destruction, especially since they have been bereft of their traditional industries.

 

 
Are you sure there is not just a wee bit of bias here, Mr C? In North America, aboriginals were willing and eager partners in the fur trade, and took to the products of the industrial revolution with relish. The original Hudson's Bay Company traders, granted license to a huge chunk of North America in 1670, simply built forts at the mouths of strategic rivers in the Hudsons Bay area, and let the natives come to them. Which they did, in great numbers, eager to trade and to gain the material acquisitions of European society. There was no force, no coercion involved.
 
Native tribes on the great plains used to stampede buffalo over cliffs, sometimes killing far more than could be utilized. Environmental stewardship? No, they were just doing what they could manage to survive. Sustainability could be left up to the gods. Another hunting method used fire- forests were ignited, again stampeding wildlife to their desired destruction. These fires sometimes destroyed vast areas. Ecological awareness? Nope, pure survival, with the long term effects left to the future, or to the wims of the gods.
 
I think it is projection to assume present day values of ancient peoples. Today we understand the environment from a scientific perspective; in the past mythology and superstition was dominant.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 02:20
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

About 14,5 % would be more correct. Total land area according to one source: About 148 million km2.Latin America area:21,069,501 km2.  


Yes. it is just 14,5% considering counting in the surface of the world the Antarctica. It is 21 million of sq. km. IS 2,1 times the size of Europe... even including Russian's European territory! and about 2,5 times the size of the U.S.
Which is quite a lot.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 02:24
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Ah, brother Penguin:  reference this: "I bet only the Nazis and Genghis Khan can compare in cruelty to the behavior of Europeans in the Americas."

Well, the Mongols actually used germ warfare by catapulting the bodies of dead bubonic plague victims over city gates, and the Japanese actually had a germ warfare unit in Manchuria (I believe that aerial delivery of infected fleas failed to produce the results desired). I cannot think of anything comparable that the Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, Dutch, or Swedish (New Jersey) did in the Americas save for one incident in Pontiac's War whereby a British major gifted infected blankets to the Indians. So, you would lose that bet.

Carch: Thanks for the reading list. I will take a look.


Well, Mongolians were savages, and you could expect anything from those brutes. Europeans, on the other hand, were supposed to be civilized people... Confused

Fellow, most of the Indians were killed, murdered, rather than just killed by accident because of some very convenient germs. The only difference between Spaniards and British is that the first only killed the males in mass, while the second killed men, women and children without distinction.






Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 07:34
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Ah, brother Penguin:  reference this: "I bet only the Nazis and Genghis Khan can compare in cruelty to the behavior of Europeans in the Americas."

Well, the Mongols actually used germ warfare by catapulting the bodies of dead bubonic plague victims over city gates, and the Japanese actually had a germ warfare unit in Manchuria (I believe that aerial delivery of infected fleas failed to produce the results desired). I cannot think of anything comparable that the Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, Dutch, or Swedish (New Jersey) did in the Americas save for one incident in Pontiac's War whereby a British major gifted infected blankets to the Indians. So, you would lose that bet.

Carch: Thanks for the reading list. I will take a look.


Well, Mongolians were savages, and you could expect anything from those brutes. Europeans, on the other hand, were supposed to be civilized people... Confused

Fellow, most of the Indians were killed, murdered, rather than just killed by accident because of some very convenient germs. The only difference between Spaniards and British is that the first only killed the males in mass, while the second killed men, women and children without distinction.






 
Mr P, you are stepping outside yourself again. British authorities actually lived in harmony with aboriginal societies (in Canada) for three centuries. The fur trade was beneficial to both, and both prospered. In fact, the British crown backed aboriginal societies against their own colonists, a major factor in the American revolution. In other parts of British North America, the end of intertribal warfare only came with British intervention. In other words, many lives were saved by British colonialism. Compared to the intertribal mayhem that occurred before this, it was a step up.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 08:14
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

... Well, the Mongols actually used germ warfare by catapulting the bodies of dead bubonic plague victims over city gates, and the Japanese actually had a germ warfare unit in Manchuria (I believe that aerial delivery of infected fleas failed to produce the results desired). I cannot think of anything comparable that the Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, Dutch, or Swedish (New Jersey) did in the Americas save for one incident in Pontiac's War whereby a British major gifted infected blankets to the Indians. So, you would lose that bet.
 
Cruelty can be defined in many ways and ordinary poisoning is also rather cruel which happened now and then in the New World, it was among other used by the English against the Powhatans in 1622.

 

The use of dogs against the natives was a commonplace cruelty that one can read about in the book Dogs of the conquest by John Grier Varner and Jeannette Johnson Varner

There they have collected a lot of cases of the use of dogs as weapons of destruction, extracted from the Spanish chroniclers themselves.

If one want to go back to the old sources the archetypical chronicle about Spanish cruelty against American natives is Bartolomé de las Casas A short Account of the Destruction of the Indies. There one can get ones fill of tales of cruelty and massacres.

By the way, the Swedish did actually have a relatively peaceful contact with the neighbouring tribes (mostly Lenapes and Susquehannokks) during the days of the colony New Swden. It was not only because the Swedish were more benevolent than other Europeans but because they knew that they were at a disadvantage when it came to military strenght against the natives. Also they were in many cases dependant of the native peoples for trade, food and other necessities.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 08:30

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

[Are you sure there is not just a wee bit of bias here, Mr C? In North America, aboriginals were willing and eager partners in the fur trade, and took to the products of the industrial revolution with relish. The original Hudson's Bay Company traders, granted license to a huge chunk of North America in 1670, simply built forts at the mouths of strategic rivers in the Hudsons Bay area, and let the natives come to them. Which they did, in great numbers, eager to trade and to gain the material acquisitions of European society. There was no force, no coercion involved.

 

You do not always need to use force to get people on a train of destruction, you just have to dissolve their original social and economic networks and structure to be able to lure them into the dominant economic system. The breaking down of original structures have in many cases, on many places on Earth led to indigenous peoples being sucked into economic exploitation of different kind, from slave trade in Africa to fur trade in North America.

 

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

[Native tribes on the great plains used to stampede buffalo over cliffs, sometimes killing far more than could be utilized. Environmental stewardship? No, they were just doing what they could manage to survive. Sustainability could be left up to the gods. Another hunting method used fire- forests were ignited, again stampeding wildlife to their desired destruction. These fires sometimes destroyed vast areas. Ecological awareness? Nope, pure survival, with the long term effects left to the future, or to the wims of the gods.

 

I think it is projection to assume present day values of ancient peoples. Today we understand the environment from a scientific perspective; in the past mythology and superstition was dominant.

 

Actually you can find both more short sighted strategies but also more far sighted strategies of sustainability among native peoples. As an example one can take the sustainable fishing among the natives of Hawaii, who used their marine resources in a more environmentally friendly way than most fisheries of todays world.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120323094004.htm

 

And in Latin America you have cases like the one I told about above about the land of the bears. You can also see the sustainable ways of farming in the Amazon with ingenous methods of enrichening soils instead of depleting them as in the modern landuse in that area.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 09:16
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

 
Mr P, you are stepping outside yourself again. British authorities actually lived in harmony with aboriginal societies (in Canada) for three centuries. The fur trade was beneficial to both, and both prospered. In fact, the British crown backed aboriginal societies against their own colonists, a major factor in the American revolution. In other parts of British North America, the end of intertribal warfare only came with British intervention. In other words, many lives were saved by British colonialism. Compared to the intertribal mayhem that occurred before this, it was a step up.
 
Intertribal warfare were in fact worsened by the tensions created by European colonialism. The tribes were dragged into the conflicts between the French and the British, between the British and the colonies (in the US) and later in the conflict between the US and British Canada.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2012 at 00:44
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

And in Latin America you have cases like the one I told about above about the land of the bears. You can also see the sustainable ways of farming in the Amazon with ingenous methods of enrichening soils instead of depleting them as in the modern landuse in that area.



Carcha. Please, stop fooling yourself, taking about a region you have no idea.


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2012 at 00:47
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

 
Mr P, you are stepping outside yourself again. British authorities actually lived in harmony with aboriginal societies (in Canada) for three centuries. The fur trade was beneficial to both, and both prospered. In fact, the British crown backed aboriginal societies against their own colonists, a major factor in the American revolution. In other parts of British North America, the end of intertribal warfare only came with British intervention. In other words, many lives were saved by British colonialism. Compared to the intertribal mayhem that occurred before this, it was a step up.


I can accept British were a lot more humans than Americans in theirs relation with North American natives. However, the British record in the Caribbean is quite sad.

The same can be said of the French in Quebec, and with the French in Haiti. Or the way Spaniards treated natives in mainland Latin America compared to the genocide they commited in the Caribbean.

In short, theirs attitude wasn't uniform.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2012 at 00:48
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
Intertribal warfare were in fact worsened by the tensions created by European colonialism. The tribes were dragged into the conflicts between the French and the British, between the British and the colonies (in the US) and later in the conflict between the US and British Canada.


You are getting confused, Carcha, with the Indian wars.


Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Dec 2012 at 09:17
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Carcha. Please, stop fooling yourself, taking about a region you have no idea.
 
It seems that even if you live in South America you do not know so much about it. I get my information from people who have worked in the areas I talking about and whitnessed the things I mentioned. Taking the Land of the Bears as an example the negative development there were whitnessed by Swedish etnographers working in the field. You have not been in that area and you have never done any anthropological fieldwork.
Also with regards to the Amazon I suppose you have not made any studies in the Amazon, anthropological, archeological, or ecological. And I doubt that you ever went on any scientific seminars or conferences regarding that area and its history or ecology.


Edited by Carcharodon - 10 Dec 2012 at 09:20
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Dec 2012 at 09:19
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

You are getting confused, Carcha, with the Indian wars.
 
No confusion here, I just go by the sources. It seems that it is you who have no real clue about the history of colonial and native wars in North America.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4394
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 10:15
pinguin:
For my education, what exactly comprises Latin America?
 
Is it all of those countries once dominated by Spain and Portugal, that is, everything south of Texas?
"Tá mé bródúil as mo oidhreacht na hÉireann".
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 16:17
Latin America is a french definition of the region, that comprises all countries of the Americas that speak a latin derivated languages, including Spanish, Portuguese and French. It was defined in the middle of the 19th century when the French wanted to capture Spanish speaking countries in theirs colonial network, particularly Mexico, and used the term "Latin" to include its former colony of Haiti on the pack. That term has the problem that theoretically Louisiana and Quebec may are part of Latin America as well.

Now, in ethnic and historical terms, the countries that speak Spanish are usually grouped in Hispanic America, but we also use the term Iberian America to include Brazil (a closely related country in historical, blood and cultural terms).

Now, the countries of the Caribbean that are English, Dutch or French speaking and who are mainly African in ancestry are usually not considered part of Latin America. However, when we want to say "everybody South of the Border" we speak of "Latin America & the Caribbean"

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 16:55
Toyomotor, Penguino is right. To the Anglophone world, everything south of the Rio Grande is Latin America, excepting the small English, French, and Dutch speaking islands, and the mainland counterparts (Belize, Guyana, French Guiana, Suriname, and the Malvinas/Falklands.

The term Latin, however, does have different meanings, depending upon the contest and region. Brazil does not consider itself Latin American, and their history does differ markedly from the Spanish speaking countries. First, Brazil's population outnumbers the rest of South-America combined, making Portuguese the majority South-American language. Second they did not have to wage a long war against the mother-country for their independence. During the Napoleonic wars, the Portuguese royal family fled to Brazil, and when they returned to Portugal they left Brazil with a royal family of its own, along with associated "Royals" as in Britain. On a minor note, they held on to slavery longer than anyone else in the Americas, abolishing it in 1888.   
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 21:57
Well, Brazil considers themselves as part of Iberian America. The term "Latin America" is sort of confusing, indeed. And no country in the region recognizes as "Latino" or "Hispanic", but as an independent country with an identity of its own. To call a Peruvian a Colombian or a Chilean as an Argentinean is considered an offense. Even more, a country such large as Brazil don't consider themselves a monolithic unity, and it is hard that a gaucho or a German descendant of the South get identified with the African rituals of Bahia, for instance. The region is a very complex mosaic of cultures and ancestries. And although Brazil outnumber "Hispanics" in South America, in Latin America as a whole represent a third of the Latin American populations. Mexico alone has circa 110 million people, for instance.


Edited by pinguin - 06 Apr 2014 at 21:59
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.