I agree with you. Latin American rulers do not want development so that a significant majority remains weak, ignorant, desperate so it can be exploited for the benefit of the rich minority. This has been going on since colonization.
- Thread starter NALs
- Start date
A Dominican That Hates The Dr!!
- Status
I agree with you. Latin American rulers do not want development so that a significant majority remains weak, ignorant, desperate so it can be exploited for the benefit of the rich minority. This has been going on since colonization.
NALs said:
When you say "the other areas of the world colonized by the Europeans developed into thriving economies" I assume you refer to USA and Canada, Australia, etc, right?? Well, there is an enormous historic difference. For example, the European immigrants that arrived in what is now the USA, killed most of the indians while the Spaniards killed some but intermarried with many of them, creating a large mestizo majority. Also, many indians were left alive so they could be used as labor or slaves. The Portuguese brought the largest number of slaves to a country in this continent, even more than the United States. Intermarriage was also practiced between the Portuguese and blacks creating a large mixed minority. What I'm trying to say here is that those countries where intermarriage with dominated people (indians/black) wasn't significant were able to develop into thriving economies because they consisted of a majority in power and a dominated minority. Development was actively pursued for the majority in power and so most people in the USA, Canada, Australia, etc. have excellent living conditions. On the other hand, Latin Americans have a "dominated majority" that is poor and ignorant and a "minority in power" that is rich and wants to keep the "dominated majority" poor to continue exploiting them and also because it doesn't care about them, originally because of the racial/ethnic difference. The US has a similar situation that is not as bad as in Latin America but it works to prove my point: the black minority. History has the answers for many of the problems that Latin America is facing today. Unfortunately, historians and sociologists never get to be presidents in Latin America while soda business managers do...strange, huh??? Just as strange as having an Irish/Spaniard descendant ruling from Tenochtitlan....Would Americans ever elect a Oaxacan indian with a gardening background as their president?? Of course not! Americans have education and would never put someone who doesn't have anything to do with them in government. We Mexicans are ignorant and easily brainwashed into thinking that an Irish/Spaniard Coca Cola manager is going to do something for the benefit of his "pueblo". Sorry, but I can see only worse things for Mexico down the road if people don't wake up and start electing true leaders of the majority.
Last edited:
Amazing!!!!!
Now, let me stick to the original topic:
Nals, I remember that in one of my first posts, here, I mentioned that I have never seen a race that talks so much crap about their own country than the Dominican race, therefore, your case is not unique.
I know that every single country have a few bad apples, but from personal experience, I have noticed much more Dominicans talking "caca" about the DR than people from other countries. Yes, I know, every country have a few "haters", but, IN MY OPINION, Dominicans do it the most .
My father says that "La Republica Dominicana esta llena de gente que despues que salen del pais, se creen que su mierda no hiede" (the Dominican Republic is full of people that after leaving the country, they think that their schit do not stink).
Btw, is Florida waiting for a new resident when your dad retires?. Or is he one of those "hater" that can not wait to retire to the DR?. I know a few.
This thread "received" 6 posts and about 10 views 2 years ago. Two years later, in a few days, it has "received" 16 posts and over a 1,500 views.NALs said:
Now, let me stick to the original topic:
Nals, I remember that in one of my first posts, here, I mentioned that I have never seen a race that talks so much crap about their own country than the Dominican race, therefore, your case is not unique.
I know that every single country have a few bad apples, but from personal experience, I have noticed much more Dominicans talking "caca" about the DR than people from other countries. Yes, I know, every country have a few "haters", but, IN MY OPINION, Dominicans do it the most .
My father says that "La Republica Dominicana esta llena de gente que despues que salen del pais, se creen que su mierda no hiede" (the Dominican Republic is full of people that after leaving the country, they think that their schit do not stink).
Btw, is Florida waiting for a new resident when your dad retires?. Or is he one of those "hater" that can not wait to retire to the DR?. I know a few.
Last edited:
He he,miguel said:
I think Hipolito's demise over the country had more to do with my father's opinions about the DR at that time. He has been relatively "inactive" regarding the bashing of the country ever since baldy has been out of power. If anything, he is beginning to sound pro-DR, which is a relief.
I had a feeling Hipolito's reign was behind the sudden pessimism that is usually not part of his character. And who can blame him? I was extremely disgusted every time Hippo opened his mouth to the media source, a complete disgrace to the entire country, a bigger dissapointment could not had been any greater.
This attitude was present in all of my family members of all kinds, but my father's opinion simply has more weight on me than anybody else's, with my mother and spouse coming in an equal second, and everybody else afterwards. Now things are better compared to then, and it's beginning to show with the more optimistic attitudes of most people in my family, in part fueled by the optimistic outlook of those who own businesses which span from the DR to US and Puerto Rico.
Despite all of this, there are some acquaintances who seem to be clinged to the negative views, always complaining about the same problems (ie. electricity, corruption, etc) and never suggesting ideas on how to fix those problems. However, every Dominican of any social class or status has at least one person who falls under this category.
Regarding some non-Dominican members on DR1, I feel they make certain comments without truly understanding what implications such comments have on any given Dominican. The Hippo years were some of the most gut renching times any Dominican could have been thrown into, spanning all three types of Dominicans (that is those on the island, those abroad, and those transnational). I feel that most non-Dominicans and a particular select few DR1 members simply does not know what it truly feels like to see your own country, the country that is constantly in the your conscious mind, the country that has shaped who you are to a certain extent melts in front of your eyes and not even the most powerful person at the time could do a damn thing to stop it, because when a place is being runed by idiots, only idiotic things comes out of it!
They simply don't understand this, especially Americans who have only experienced such thing in the Great Depression and most of those are greatly outnumbered by post-depression era generations. They just don't understand what it feels to wake up every morning and read one more news of economic collapse, Mr Baldy making idiotic comments and insulting people on international television, and on top of this we have to go through the jokes and humiliations being placed on us by these foreigners?
They just don't understand is my reasoning for this, because if they would they would be contributing ways of fixing the problem rather than complaining and only a handful of them are actually doing this.
Some may say that this is true among Dominicans, only a handful are offering possible solutions with most simply repeating what is broken and nothing more. But, it's different when your own paisano is negative or says something bad about your country, but its a completely different thing when its a foreigner. A foreigner, regardless how aplatanado he/she might be, simply is not the same as a full fledge Dominican. For this reason it's much more insulting when a foreigner says the same exact negative thing a Dominican might say, but I simply remind myself that those foreigners simply don't know what it feels like to see your country melt away. For them, they can pack up and leave to their homeland if things really get ugly.
The difference with most Dominicans is that they can't just pack up and leave and those that do still worry about their native home to a degree that running away for that problem will solve nothing and not bring peace of any kind.
-NALs
What you say is partially right, but how would you explain the present US president?amigomexicano said:
His family made his fortune in the, ahem, petroleum industry.
In my opinion, the difference between those former colonies that became wealthy colonies (not just US, Australia, and Canada; but also Hong Kong, New Zealand, and to a certain extent even Uruguay and Argentina which were considered rich country until the 1960s crises that hit those nations, but still remain among the most progressive Latin American countries. The difference between those former colonies and the rest of them is that in those colonies, because of genocide of the local population and the growing number of a single homogenous (ethinically speaking) population lead to an much easier implementation of Western institutions that paved the way to prosperity and development.
In countries where there is a tremendous mixture of people, this tends to be much harder to implement. While ethnic diversity is not much of a threat to the prosperity of a country, ideological diversity is and usually different idiologies flow along the lines of ethnic and racial divisions because people like to think of themselves as different from each other. An Indian, African, or Asian descendant in Latin American is more inclined to support non-Western ideologies than would a European descendant Latin American. Why? Historical realities of each ethnic/racial group.
However, in countries where people accept Western institutions as a mean of advancing (by institution I mean full fledge democracy, property rights, etc; I don't mean cultural homogenization or exchanging one culture for another) those countries or regions usually do, as was the case with Hong Kong and later with Japan, South Korea, etc.
Taking this context back to Latin America, the only people that fully believe in Western institutions are those who are decendants of Westerners or partially decedants of Westerners because they are more receptive to such ideas. Iin essence, Europeans in Latin American live as if they are still in Europe, the Indians live as if the Aztec and Mayan empire still exist, and the Africans are much the same.
The problem comes with the definition of development and progress. Today, development and progress is exclusively defined by the European/American way of life and such lifestyle can only be achieved by accepting the institutions those countries have accepted, institutions that are Western in outlook. While many non-Western Latin Americans want to achieve prosperity in the Western definition, many don't want to accept Western institutions as a means of achieving this. This becomes a problem when Western prosperity is a direct response to Western instititutions being put in place.
In Latin America, people who believe in Western institutions (regardless if the person is Western decendant or not) usually reap the economic benefits of such and those who do not believe in Western institutions lack the economical benefits.
Today you can see leaders in Latin America spanning both sides of the spectrum. There are the Leonel Fernandez's (DR president) who is more inclined into accepting Western institutions as a means of development and then there is Hugo Chavez who is rebelling against such system. In other words, you got the Dominican Republic which historically has been more inclined to accept Western institutions and then you got Haiti which has historically tried to get away from it as much as possible.
You got pre-1950s Cuba which was more inclined to accept Western institutions and post-1950s Cuba which has attempted to get away from it. Pre-1980s China which was anti-Western institutions and post-1980s China which is more receptive to it. Examples of this spans the planet in all directions. In all the examples, prosperity in the modern definition (ie. development of a middle class, increasing standards of living, consumer culture, etc) either eroded or was created with the demise or encouragement of Western institutions in their respective cases.
The problem is that people live according to their race/ethnic group and for this reason they reject ideas and institutions that are not "theirs", when in fact we should all look at each other simply as human beings and accept those instutions that work and reject those that don't in the process of achieving economic well being.
Western institutions are not only for Western peoples, but for all who wants to achieve a western lifestyle pertaining to standards of living, personal wealth, etc. Other forms of institutions exist, but they do not give a Western standards of living. The problem is that most people in the world want a Western style standard of living, but they don't want Western institutions.
This is a recepie for confusion and anger when they want material things that only materialize if a certain set of rules and institutions are accepted, otherwise nothing will come into fruition. You cannot become a Doctor without going through and passing Medical School. No way, no how. A folkhealer you can become without attending medical school, but to become a full fledge doctor medical school is the only way.
-NALs
Last edited:
What's A Dominican "Transnational"???
A Dominican who likes to "Cross-Dress"?????????????
You hate to see your "Beloved" Republica Dominicana in dire straights? Get back down here and actually "DO" something,rather than plagairizing "GOOGLE" searches all day to post on DR1!!!
We "Foreigners" who actually live,work,pay VERY HIGH TAXES,and choose to raise our families here,have more of a right to criticise this plaace than do you Dominicans who live in the USA,Canada,Europe,and other places and only offer "Lip Service" to "bettering" conditions in the DR!!!But I guess that's the "Dominican WAY",RIGHT?
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc!!
A Dominican who likes to "Cross-Dress"?????????????
You hate to see your "Beloved" Republica Dominicana in dire straights? Get back down here and actually "DO" something,rather than plagairizing "GOOGLE" searches all day to post on DR1!!!
We "Foreigners" who actually live,work,pay VERY HIGH TAXES,and choose to raise our families here,have more of a right to criticise this plaace than do you Dominicans who live in the USA,Canada,Europe,and other places and only offer "Lip Service" to "bettering" conditions in the DR!!!But I guess that's the "Dominican WAY",RIGHT?
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc!!
He was elected because he, in my opinion, represents very well the interests of the American people. Most Americans would support their concept of democracy and freedom being imposed on other countries though in my opinion this concept it's totally uncivilized but most Americans will benefit from it.
The United States such as the Roman Empire was once, is the most powerful and rich country in the world because of all the territories seized and all the countries it has exploited either by direct control of their resources or by placing or supporting puppet presidents who let their countries be exploited by the US. Again, the United States wouldn't elect a Oaxacan indian with a gardening background as their president because his policies would probably be quite different to those of president Bush or any other former US president. Americans are not ignorant in that respect. They are well aware all these invasions strengthen the country economically, just think about all the Wal-Marts that can be opened in Iraq, all the oil and probably mines, etc.
This has happened in all Latin American countries with the exception of Cuba since their revolution. Most Latin Americans know about all this exploitation of our resources, first by Spain and Portugal, then by others specially the United States. Many Americans know about it too but they have been taught this is for the benefit of both the US and the exploited country. Or they have been taught it is democracy, freedom and civilization being exported, etc. There are many ways Americans justify these actions but it is exploitation of resources and nothing else.
I know by experience Americans don't like mexican immigrants attending their schools,
getting jobs in the US, living in their cities, sending part of their earnings to
Mexico, etc. This is also exploitation or taking advantage of a country that is not
ours. However, if the United States hadn't exploited other countries this wouldn't be
happening. There is an enormous imbalance in this world due to some countries taking
advantage of others.
All rich European countries are also receiving large numbers of immigrants because of
the poverty and inequality the rich countries have left behind. I do not know of any
Mexican that has come to the US because of "Democracy", "freedom", "The American way of
life", etc. Most Mexicans have come because either they were very poor or they just
wanted to have more than they had in Mexico. We're talking about two reasons: poverty
and social exclusion.
Now, if Mexico hadn't had most of its resources stolen by the Spaniards, its criollo
politicians and the United States, and if its government had the policy of governing for
the majority, Mexicans would have excellent living conditions and few Mexicans would
want to go to the United States.
The United States can still help other countries achieve an stable economy but it's not
doing it. In Fact, it does exactly the opposite and that will have a negative impact in
the US in the long term. Instead of peace, the United States seeks war, instead of
helping, it exploits, instead of respecting, it imposes its ideas and policies. This is
not good for other countries and is not good for the US either.
It's nice you mention Hugo Chavez since I think he's doing exactly the opposite of the
United States and he's gaining popularity with his innovative ideas of social and
economic complementation. I think this is something the United States never thought
about and his are quite visionary concepts in my opinion.
Most people that speak against him don't really know much about his ideologies and
policies but those who have taken the time to find out more about what he's doing will
be surprised with all he's achieving in Venezuela and abroad. It's no surprise he's
gaining friends very fast in South America. There is a lot of propaganda against
socialism in the United States but the fact is socialism is very strong in South America
specially in the lower classes which are the majority. This wave has not reached Mexico
yet because Mexico is probably one of the most Americanized countries in Latin America
and its also where the poor live better (probably because many receive money from
Mexicans in the US).
Socialism is a seed that only grows in the field of extreme poverty and extreme social
exclusion. As Mexico continues to get poorer and people begin to feel excluded,
socialism will start gaining supporters. SO, I think the US should start helping other
countries achieve a stable economy or it faces high probabilities of having all these
socialist Latin American countries as its neighbors. And I don't think the US wants
that. IT was Cuba 47 years ago. In the last decade, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina,
Chile, Uruguay, and Bolivia all embraced socialism as what they consider the only
solution left to the problems in their countries.
Now, what you mentioned in all your previous posts seemed acceptable to me to a
certain extent until you wrote in your last post:
All that looks like something written by someone who has never lived in Latin America
and who hasn't a clue on the subject. In Mexico, I would say 99% of the Aztec ideas,
culture, religion, science, legal systems, etc. was replaced by the Spanish way of doing
things. Even many of the Aztec people were killed while most intermarried with the
Spaniards. So, regarding "Aztec institutions and legacy", only the pyramids
remained...hehehe...Just look at the language of Mexico, it has very few words from
Nahuatl while a larger number of words were taken from American English. There is no
significant influence from the Aztecs or any other tribe in modern
Mexico's "institutions". Spain which
was less advanced in most ways defeated the Aztec empire because the Europeans were more
advanced militarily (weapons) and because they convinced other tribes to join them
against the Aztecs. A similar thing happened to the Incas. The Old Mayas were already
gone when the Spanish came so we couldn't copy anything from them. This was the
problem. We copied or were forced to copy everything from the Spaniards, their love of
money, their double morals, their drinking habits, etc. They also imposed upon us their
religion and their form of government. By the way, democracy wasn't imposed to us by
the Spaniards (They lived under a monarchy at the time). Democracy is a beautiful
evolving concept and it's not exclusive to any country but belongs to the people of
any country who take the decision of being able to elect their own rulers their own
way and by the majority.
Saying that Democracy is American, western or European is like saying socialism is
"Russian" or "Chinese". I have never heard a Cuban saying that they have Russian
institutions or Chinese institutions. Mexico has its own form of democracy and it
doesn't have to do anything with the Aztecs or Zapotecas..hehehe....Democracy in Mexico
was started by the criollos and the mestizos. It has been evolving for decades. As
opposed to its economy, Mexico's democracy has improved since its first implementation.
There was a lot of fraudulent situations in the past but that changed dramatically since
Zedillo. There is little corruption possible at the moment due to the extreme care in
which the process of elections is carried out. I like the way in which people's votes
directly determine who wins an election. The US uses an Electoral College so it isn't
as democratic from my Mexican point of view and many people in the USA don't even
understand how it works but it's your form of democracy and we foreigners must
respect it. I also like the way all Mexican parties have their space in the media,
regardless of their political ideas. In other words, you can easily see there's lots of
parties out there, different ideologies
while a visitor to the US may think there is only two parties and not very different
from each other. Anyway, Mexico's democracy is inspired on this modern concept that started in
Europe but we have shaped it our way and it doesn't have anything to do with the Aztecs
or the Toltecas...Other Latin Americans have their own forms of democracy. Cuba, for
example, has a very interesting democracy in local elections that if it were to be used
in national elections, it could be the most perfect type of democracy that ever existed.
Unfortunately, they only apply it in local elections and they never have had a national
democratic election since Castro became president. By the way, You say:
You are basically talking about capitalism vs. Socialism and NOT Western vs.
indian/black/native/whatever . Hugo Chavez ideas are also western ideas if
democracy is also western, as you believe. His political
thinking comes from a mixture of Marxism and Castro ideas. Marx was born in Germany and
Castro is a Cuban of pure Spanish descent. I don't think socialism should be associated
with any country but it certainly isn't an older idea than capitalism. Socialism is
much more modern than capitalism and as far as I know Chavez is not influenced by the
ancient Indians or Africans though he's aware of the historical exploitation Latin
America has undergone since colonization.
Also, in Latin America, the poorer and more ignorant a person is, the easier it is for him/her
to accept "western institutions as a means of development". This is what has obviously
happened in Mexico and most Latin American countries that let themselves be governed by
foreigners or descendants of foreigners. However, NOW people are not as ignorant as
they used to be and they now have a better chance of electing true leaders of the
majority and who really have an interest in governing for them. Most of Latin America
is going in that direction now though it used to go in the direction Spain, Portugal and
the US wanted.
"Western insitutions" failed in Latin America because they were designed for the benefit
of the ruling minority and not for the benefit of the dominated majority. It took
centuries for this situation to create the chaos of violence, kidnappings, poverty,
social exclusion, robberies, drug dealing, corruption, emigration to the US, guerrilla,
maras, and all other "monsters" created by a system that only works for a
FEW. It's as simple as that and I'm not the only one who thinks like that, there are
hundreds of thousands out there and many more finding out the truth each day. The world
urgently needs to start fighting poverty and exclusion so that all these problems
disappear. This situation will eventually affect the US and the other rich countries.
Last edited:
Why Don't Mexicans "Bar-B-Que"?
The beans fall thriugh the grill!!!!!!!!!!!
Since this thread is NOW Not About the DR anymore! Lets talk about the counrty with the laziest population in the World,The "Mexicans!
Guy goes into a police station in "LA" to get a permit to carry a firearm. The Sargent behind the desk asks him what kind of "firearm" he plans to buy? "A 44 Magnum!" the guy says
The Sargent asks what he plans to "shoot" with such a powerful handgun?
"Cans!" he replies.
Just what kind of "Cans" are you going to shoot that you need such a Huge Weapon"? asks the Sargent.
"Why "Mexi-CANS" he replies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I say put a bounty on Mexicans crossing the border! Say 50 cents each!
And $2.00 on any Mexicans you find "North of The Border!!
Why not give them "Free Passage" to Venezuela!!????
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
The beans fall thriugh the grill!!!!!!!!!!!
Since this thread is NOW Not About the DR anymore! Lets talk about the counrty with the laziest population in the World,The "Mexicans!
Guy goes into a police station in "LA" to get a permit to carry a firearm. The Sargent behind the desk asks him what kind of "firearm" he plans to buy? "A 44 Magnum!" the guy says
The Sargent asks what he plans to "shoot" with such a powerful handgun?
"Cans!" he replies.
Just what kind of "Cans" are you going to shoot that you need such a Huge Weapon"? asks the Sargent.
"Why "Mexi-CANS" he replies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I say put a bounty on Mexicans crossing the border! Say 50 cents each!
And $2.00 on any Mexicans you find "North of The Border!!
Why not give them "Free Passage" to Venezuela!!????
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
Criss, don't give me a hard time here. I'm trying to get this thread 're-positioned' (i.e., give it to another moderator to deal with 
)
But, on that note, I'll just close it as it really is not about the DR.
)But, on that note, I'll just close it as it really is not about the DR.
Last edited:
- Status