- Thread starter Exxtol
- Start date
Is the DR more or less classist than the United States?
- Status
Well,Tordok said:I'm having eerily vivid flashbacks of my own experience from your example, HB...... all so typical of the old guard bourgeois in Santiago.
"Cual es tu apellido mijo,.... y el de tú mamá?" Tu estás emparentado con Don Fulano, el dueño de Tal y Tal, C por A.?" "Tu abuelo era muy amigo de mi tío..." yadda, yadda, yadda....:tired:
That crapola does take me back to my own youth when befriended some of my wealthy local classmates or even dared to ask on dates some of the "niñas-bien" of some of those very same old families you mentioned. I guess my special charms :lick: won them over despite my unorthodox beliefs and my alien status*, but going to any private party at a local rich folk's home meant being interviewed by one of the aunts or grandmothers at some point during the event, all the while the young people -my new "friends"- would exaggerate or emebellish my pedigree for me so that I would be acceptable to their matrons. Ridiculous, but "when in Rome.......
- Tordok
* anyone not from Santiago is considered to be "de fuera" among their upper crust.
Santiago is Santiago.
Sometimes they forget that there is more to this country than Santiago and the Cibao, but who cares....
We all know that at the end of the day, it's Santo Domingo that makes the decisions and Santiago has to go along whether they like it or not!
Aah, the Santiago-Santo Domingo rivalry, its really something....
But, Tordok is right on the mark. Last names, whose who, where you are from, etc is very important in upper crust Santiago society especially. There is a reason why they are called Tutompoles.
-NAL
Last edited:
HB,Hillbilly said:Interesting.
This weekend I had an experience that sort of points out what one of the posters referred to: Money don't make class.
As I went out to pick up the morning papers, I found the beautiful box from a bottle of Johnny Walker Green Label....there in the street.
My first thought was "What kind of a person would have the money to spend +/-RD$3500 for a bottle of good whiskey and then lack the brains to know that you shouldn't throw the empty out onto the street?"
I asked this of my corner "bodeguero" aand he answered:"HB, that person doesn't work." Which to me meant that it was some sort of hoodlum class person....sort of what I felt initially.
Class in the DR: Think back....You went to your girl/boy friend's house. You met her grandmother. What was the first thing out of the dear old lady's mouth?
"¿De quién es usted, mi hij@?"
She wanted to know who and where you were from. She wanted to know what "quality" you were from, too.
Part of living here, I suppose.
As an answer: Yes there is. But it can be porous, if the climber has any couth at all. For example, in Santiago, all the old families have disappeared from 'view' ....The Bermúdez, the Cabrals, the Espaillats, the Tavárez...are still there, but they are no longer the spokespersons for the local scene.
All of the new people have come up by dint of intelligence, education and hard work. 40 years ago there was just the Chamber of Commerce and Industry as a platform.
Now there is the Association of Merchants and Industrialists, the Association of Industrialists North Region, The Associaton for the Development of Santiago all of which serve as platforms for opinion and for forging opinions.
None of the above are headed by any of the old families....
HB
This is the european/spanish influence that is still lingering here. I hear than in England (and this is not exclusive to England, btw), people are more interested from where the parents of a person are from than the person him/herself. Even if a person is born in England, people are more interested in knowing where the parents came and if the parents were foreigners, the kid would be considered a foreigner as well, despite being born in England.
Apprently, being English means having English roots all the way.
To respond to the post, I will simply repost what I posted in another thread:
In this region of the world (Caribbean and Brazil), a person (regardless of race, color, or blood lines) can gain access to upper crust society if he/she acquires a good education, some money, some culture or class and the such.
This is not true of other societies in the rest of the hemisphere or the world, where once you are born in a particular class, it does not matter what you do, you will never enter the upper classes. This is true of England, where even the richest of the rich will not be considered upper class if he was not born into one of those few families. Also, in the US, being part of a race is connected with certain stereotypes which are connected to blood lines and previous perceptions. Once you are born into one, you will not come out until death.
Here, improve your lot by improving yourself and soon you will notice that blood lines, race, and class are not more important than that.
The exeption comes among the tutumpoles, where ancestry is very important but you will be surprised how open they become when the person is not of "respectable ancestry" but has a good class, education, and wealth belt around his/her waist.
So yes, Classism is alive and well here and often enough, social status (which is connected to class) is more important than anything else.
This also explains why so many people here focus so much on their public image as well.
BTW: Many foreigners (not just DR1 foreigners, but all sorts of foreigners) fail to differentiate racism from classism and often make comments complaining of racial discrimination when in fact, its simply classism in action.
This is why when you date or are about to marry someone, you will almost always get the questions:
What's the surname of your fiance?
If they don't recognize the surname, they will ask about your fiance's profession, who their parents were, what they did, etc.
Usually, if they don't recongnize that either, they will ask from where they are from and this one usually gives them the answers they are looking for.
Where you live in town says everything in terms of class, social status, and the such.
A recent "revelation" to me came recently, where I heard that this attitude even exist among the lower classes, though I don't know if it does for the same reason.
Apparently, when someone marries another person among the lower classes here, usually people commnent "fulano married so and so, the daughter of xyz from La Vega" and depending on the reputation the parents have, people would either approve or disapprove from such union.
This is interesting, because it points to, perhaps, subclasses between the lower class as well. The more I learn about this, the more I will post because its interesting.
All this time I thought only the upper classes practiced this, only to realize that it exist at all levels of Dominican and perhaps, Caribbean societies.
-NAL
Last edited:
Nal0whs said:
Hey Nal,
I think that pretty much all Dominicans pay serious attention to the social provenance of their new acquaintances. It is more noticeable among upper classes in many contexts, but in the specific context of future spouses etc, I think everyone in every culture wants to find out about who's aspiring to form family with their girl/boy.
Keep in mind that historically in virtually all cultures, marriage was until very recently a transaction between families and not much consideration given to any actual romantic interests of the couple.
I've always heard the word as 'Tutumpotes' , but I belive it does derive from "Totem Pole". Totem poles of course are very tall, ceremonial wooden structures with various carved figures, one on top of the next used by some of the Native tribal peoples of the Pacific Northwest (US/Canada). The ones at the entrance of the Royal Ontario museum in Toronto are the most impressive example that I've personally seen. In Dominican lingo, tutumpotes/tutumpoles are members of the old ruling families, because they have always been on top of the 'social totem pole'.
- Tordok
:classic:
I'm aware of this, but its still interesting to learn of the extent lower class Dominicans go through in this respect.Tordok said:
I thought they were less interested towards this type of issue, because of the constant mixing of all sorts among the lower classes. One would think that they all looked at each other as one and the same class, it appears that the lower class is subdivided into other subclasses that may be unknown to those who are not part of the lower classes altogether and perhaps, even to intellectuals who specialize in sociology and Dominican culture.
As for what are the conditions for categorizing one person into one subclass as oppose to another class within the lower class itself, I have no concrete idea.
I would assume that moving within those subclasses is based more on physical attributes than personal improvements, due to the fact that most people in the lower classes don't have much access to quality education or formal credit which leads to increase wealth when one takes good loans, though most lower class people take plenty of bad loans due to their economic circumstances and their unwillingness to take risks.
EXTRA: For those of you reading this and don't know what I mean by good or bad loan, here is the meaning:
Good loan: Money you borrow to leverage your investments. In this case, you take a loan, invest the money in some business or do some form of arbitrage, and then payback the loan with interest while keeping the remaining gain as personal profits. In fact, this is the only way of amassing large sums of money, in one lifetime anyways, while putting little to no capital of your own.
Bad loan: Money you borrow to buy things that lose value. In this case, you take a loan, buy something, and then you have to find the money to pay back the principal and the interest to the lender. In the end, you end up with nothing, except a devalued good or service that can only be sold for less than what you paid, sometimes the good or service (particularly a service) can't be resold.
'Tutumpotes' is how I have always heard the word as well, but I must have misspelled the word in english.Tordok said:
Anyways, the fact that the 'tutumpotes' have always been on top of the social totem pole greatly influences their above average preocupation with ancestry, though ancestry is a preocupation shared by all peoples of this country regardless of social position.
-NAL
Last edited:
Ah yes the Totem Pole. It reminds me of the Gilligan's Island episode where Gilligan and the Skipper discovered an ancient Cupecoy Headhunters pole and the figure on top looked just like Gilligan. Then all the castaways were taken hostage by the Cupecoy and Gilligan had to pretend to be the ghost of the ancient leader in order to scare off the headhunters and free the rest of the crew.
Oh yeah. That was a good episode.
Scandall
Oh yeah. That was a good episode.
Scandall
'Tutumpotes' was a term coined by the late Juan Bosch, during his campaign for the short lived presidency of 1963. By 'tutumpotes' he meant the rich, the big land and business owners, as opposed to the poor which he referred to as 'los hijos de machepa'.
Chirimoya said:
chiri, your acuity on display again. The fact is that there is little "class" in the DR. everyone flaunts. the poor just can't do it as frequently and as ostentatiously as the rich. the very richest stay out of the limelight....mainly for self-preservation.
mondongo said:
I agree. I know Dominicans from the mid to lower parts of the socio-economic spectrum who have more class than the so called "upper" class. Having money does not mean you have courtesy and respect for others.
Scandall
While reading through all these posts-----
I was struck by the similarities between this and the "Southern" society I grew up in.
I recall going through the inquisition of "who are your family" on several occasions when calling on young ladies.
The "Old South" is still alive and kicking. It is in this geographical area that "family" holds the key to successful social intercourse within the "elite", whether it be in the world of economics, in political advancement, or in general social acceptance.
I believe that such phenomenon is, perhaps, genetically driven. Throughout history, from the begining of the Human Race (as postulaed by many) the preservation of the "best qualities" of humanity have been vigorously pursued.
It follows that we, as part of the race, would, through selective breeding, constantly seek to improve the race.
Classism is, in my estimation, only one way by which such is accomplished.
Since I'm not an Anthropologist, I might have an opinion skewed by a background of observing human interactions unscientifically.
Classism, Eliteism and such words, to me, merely describe coloquially, the obvious efforts of humanity to bring about a genetically driven goal inherent in all of us.
We may not like it, we may not embrace it, but in the long run, it is part of our collective psyche and we must accept it as fact.
Texas Bill
I was struck by the similarities between this and the "Southern" society I grew up in.
I recall going through the inquisition of "who are your family" on several occasions when calling on young ladies.
The "Old South" is still alive and kicking. It is in this geographical area that "family" holds the key to successful social intercourse within the "elite", whether it be in the world of economics, in political advancement, or in general social acceptance.
I believe that such phenomenon is, perhaps, genetically driven. Throughout history, from the begining of the Human Race (as postulaed by many) the preservation of the "best qualities" of humanity have been vigorously pursued.
It follows that we, as part of the race, would, through selective breeding, constantly seek to improve the race.
Classism is, in my estimation, only one way by which such is accomplished.
Since I'm not an Anthropologist, I might have an opinion skewed by a background of observing human interactions unscientifically.
Classism, Eliteism and such words, to me, merely describe coloquially, the obvious efforts of humanity to bring about a genetically driven goal inherent in all of us.
We may not like it, we may not embrace it, but in the long run, it is part of our collective psyche and we must accept it as fact.
Texas Bill
Upper Class
The biggest standout in class divisions between the US and DR is that in the US the upper-crust is the upper crust. They don't mingle with common people infact they only come in contact with the middle class when they see their employees. But in DR you find a bunch of middle class and upper middle class peole acting and living as if they where super rich and refined. And then they come to you because they cant make the house payment or they are about to lose the car. Because Although "la do?a" has not worked in years she has a nana, a cleaning lady an, a cocinera and of course Julio the driver.
Also Sammy Sosa is accepted in DR just like Barry Bonds is in the USA. Sure they invite them to the party as an atraction but not much more than that.
I have seen pro baseball players invited to parties in the US that all they wanted was to say "yeah he'll be there" but this usally happens when they are extremly hot and in the news.
The biggest standout in class divisions between the US and DR is that in the US the upper-crust is the upper crust. They don't mingle with common people infact they only come in contact with the middle class when they see their employees. But in DR you find a bunch of middle class and upper middle class peole acting and living as if they where super rich and refined. And then they come to you because they cant make the house payment or they are about to lose the car. Because Although "la do?a" has not worked in years she has a nana, a cleaning lady an, a cocinera and of course Julio the driver.
Also Sammy Sosa is accepted in DR just like Barry Bonds is in the USA. Sure they invite them to the party as an atraction but not much more than that.
I have seen pro baseball players invited to parties in the US that all they wanted was to say "yeah he'll be there" but this usally happens when they are extremly hot and in the news.
What I was referring to was-----
The "ability", or the "propencity" to recognize those capabilities in individuals that you refer to.
"Selective Breeding" is inherent in the human syndrome. Whether it be for "physical" characteristics, or for "psychological" chacteristics. SB is a characteristic of unconscience human behavior. The subjects you bring up are the "effects" of the SB being practiced.
Deny it if you will, but it will still exist at all levels of development.
Texas Bill
The "ability", or the "propencity" to recognize those capabilities in individuals that you refer to.
"Selective Breeding" is inherent in the human syndrome. Whether it be for "physical" characteristics, or for "psychological" chacteristics. SB is a characteristic of unconscience human behavior. The subjects you bring up are the "effects" of the SB being practiced.
Deny it if you will, but it will still exist at all levels of development.
Texas Bill
Last edited:
Selective breeding??
I think the "selective breeding" word usage is a bit too strong in reference to humans. If there were a master race implementing breeding practices that would make a bit more sense, but as I see things "breeding" is far too animalistic. As for the "selective" part of your comments- selection is and always will be an inherrent part of human nature. I don't believe it is fully genetically based, but that there is a great deal of environmental influence as well. As for the original classist question- I think it is a toss up between US and DR on who is worse. I will say that in the DR it is not hidden nearly as much as in the US. Class distinctions exist in both societies, but in the US it is more an "invisible window" between the classes. These are my observations at least...
I think the "selective breeding" word usage is a bit too strong in reference to humans. If there were a master race implementing breeding practices that would make a bit more sense, but as I see things "breeding" is far too animalistic. As for the "selective" part of your comments- selection is and always will be an inherrent part of human nature. I don't believe it is fully genetically based, but that there is a great deal of environmental influence as well. As for the original classist question- I think it is a toss up between US and DR on who is worse. I will say that in the DR it is not hidden nearly as much as in the US. Class distinctions exist in both societies, but in the US it is more an "invisible window" between the classes. These are my observations at least...
Flamingojohn said:
I agree with your summation as to the "invisible window" concept. However, I do think that in the US it is still a conscious element of our society.
My reference to "selective" is based on the unconscious, and therefore genetically driven, aspect of selecting one's mate as opposed to the "selective breedig" programs conducted under various regimes in the past.
To refer to such as 'animalistic" is to deny that we are, essentially, from the animal kingdom. that we have elevated ourselves above the "norms" of animal behavior is also debatable, reference some of the representations of world society today. I refer to the rioting in France, the suicide bombings in the Mid East and like manifestations of our animal-like conduct collectively.
That Adam supposedly sat beside God and named the other "animals" of the world, in a symbolic elevation of mankind above them is also debatable. After all, we only have the Bible as a source of that alledged event.
And, NO, I'm not an athiest; merely one who views those writings as beautiful "fairy tales" designed to explain the "why's" of the questions that people ask about the inexplicable.
Texas Bill
and...
Selection in a mate comes first through physical attraction- genetically based on survival of the species. However, physical attraction is more environmentally influenced than anything else. What one persons finds attractive does not necessarily mean another person will see as attractive. Some people are attracted to light skin, others dark. Some like a big @ss, others prefer more toned. Some like long straight hair, others prefer short, etc. All of those physical traits that we find attractive come from environmental influence. And when it comes to the actual mating or procreation there are more things that come into play ie. financial ability to provide, feeling safe around your mate, personality, political views, etc. It all starts as pure physical attraction, but what sets humans apart from the animal kingdom is physical attraction is sometimes outweighed by other traits that we find more "attractive". Thus the selective breeding theory gets blown out in humans without some other intervention happening- that is why I said it was too animalistic. And true, some behaviors are seen as animalistic in all societies across the globe- but when you seek the motivation behind the behavior you again humanize the behavior.
Selection in a mate comes first through physical attraction- genetically based on survival of the species. However, physical attraction is more environmentally influenced than anything else. What one persons finds attractive does not necessarily mean another person will see as attractive. Some people are attracted to light skin, others dark. Some like a big @ss, others prefer more toned. Some like long straight hair, others prefer short, etc. All of those physical traits that we find attractive come from environmental influence. And when it comes to the actual mating or procreation there are more things that come into play ie. financial ability to provide, feeling safe around your mate, personality, political views, etc. It all starts as pure physical attraction, but what sets humans apart from the animal kingdom is physical attraction is sometimes outweighed by other traits that we find more "attractive". Thus the selective breeding theory gets blown out in humans without some other intervention happening- that is why I said it was too animalistic. And true, some behaviors are seen as animalistic in all societies across the globe- but when you seek the motivation behind the behavior you again humanize the behavior.
Texas Bill said:
I would simply have to disagree. How would you explain the collectivism inherent in certain cultures? In my opinion elitism is a by-product of capitalism, not genetic evolution. I am certain the classism we typically see in capitalistic societies would have created havoc, and a power vacuum within the tribes of the nomadic peoples we as human beings descend from.
Texas Bill said:
I would simply have to disagree. How would you explain the collectivism inherent in certain cultures? In my opinion elitism is a by-product of capitalism, not genetic evolution. I am certain the classism we typically see in capitalistic societies would have created havoc, and proven detrimental to the tribes of the nomadic peoples, we as human beings descend from.
natural systems and social class???
Texas B & Co,
You guys have entered the "twilight zone" of a hot debate about whether the dice are loaded one way or another. Cool tangent. I applaud that you guys actually found worth exploring the possible scientific explanations for some of these unquestionably universal manifestations of class distinctions
Moving from anthropology to zoology, if I may -which must include humans because it is the study of all animals - we see alpha males in wolf packs and among gorillas in the wild. Other social ranking roles exist among many species, especially among mammals; these things are always a combination of the genetic stock of the individuals involved and their specific interactions with their ecosystem. The selection favors survivors. One thing that everyone reading this email has in common with everyone else is that we all descend from humans that were successful enough to keep the chain of life traveling across generations. People who fail to survive leave no offspring. We share immunities and infections, we also can individually develop intracellular mutations/adaptations that favor the survival of some over others, etc.. That's quite literally: life on Earth.
But it cannot be so simple either. Nature does selective decisions based on availablity of resources conducive to growth and reproductive success, but the whole product is greatly affected by post-natural human interventions like education and health. These things are very obvious in less developed societies, like the DR.
The whole nature and nurture paradigm very much applies as we try to understand some of the underpinnings of the social stratification phenomena recognizable in virtually all human groups. So in spite of biological factors being important, the mental life of the current human collective is still heavily influenced by pre-scientific concepts of the human condition. IMO, social environment possibly weighs more than DNA issues in outcomes of how people are categorized around the globe. We all have relative advantages and disadvantages in the natural selection system, but these traits are not always automatically replicated in the social class systems.
Everyone alive today share the bulk of their genetics to a time of converged ancestry as we go back in time. Everyone. All of us living in this age of rapid technological advances, can actually study the aggregate of human experience and find reasonable points of convergence among all cultures. So we just need to bring culture up to speed with nature. We should share more culturally, because we already share a lot biologically.
IMO, much of what we perceive to be "natural" causes of class differences are actually inserted cultural artificacts (of recent vintage in evolutionary terms) that help perpetuate the status quo via "divide and conquer' strategies by those in privileged positions. In a smaller size, we can see that the speediest sperm and the most fertile of eggs are the ones that get to define each us; while several thousand other potential versions of us, are deleted from the collective program. At least that's how nature taught us how to do it. Nowadays with cloning and in vitro fertilization all of these natural 'laws' are being defied and redefined by humans, but that's another story. :glasses:
Social classes are an extension of nature but only in the sense that humans are busy natural creatures and anything that we do is by default, natural.
:classic:
- Tordok
Texas B & Co,
You guys have entered the "twilight zone" of a hot debate about whether the dice are loaded one way or another. Cool tangent. I applaud that you guys actually found worth exploring the possible scientific explanations for some of these unquestionably universal manifestations of class distinctions
Moving from anthropology to zoology, if I may -which must include humans because it is the study of all animals - we see alpha males in wolf packs and among gorillas in the wild. Other social ranking roles exist among many species, especially among mammals; these things are always a combination of the genetic stock of the individuals involved and their specific interactions with their ecosystem. The selection favors survivors. One thing that everyone reading this email has in common with everyone else is that we all descend from humans that were successful enough to keep the chain of life traveling across generations. People who fail to survive leave no offspring. We share immunities and infections, we also can individually develop intracellular mutations/adaptations that favor the survival of some over others, etc.. That's quite literally: life on Earth.
But it cannot be so simple either. Nature does selective decisions based on availablity of resources conducive to growth and reproductive success, but the whole product is greatly affected by post-natural human interventions like education and health. These things are very obvious in less developed societies, like the DR.
The whole nature and nurture paradigm very much applies as we try to understand some of the underpinnings of the social stratification phenomena recognizable in virtually all human groups. So in spite of biological factors being important, the mental life of the current human collective is still heavily influenced by pre-scientific concepts of the human condition. IMO, social environment possibly weighs more than DNA issues in outcomes of how people are categorized around the globe. We all have relative advantages and disadvantages in the natural selection system, but these traits are not always automatically replicated in the social class systems.
Everyone alive today share the bulk of their genetics to a time of converged ancestry as we go back in time. Everyone. All of us living in this age of rapid technological advances, can actually study the aggregate of human experience and find reasonable points of convergence among all cultures. So we just need to bring culture up to speed with nature. We should share more culturally, because we already share a lot biologically.
IMO, much of what we perceive to be "natural" causes of class differences are actually inserted cultural artificacts (of recent vintage in evolutionary terms) that help perpetuate the status quo via "divide and conquer' strategies by those in privileged positions. In a smaller size, we can see that the speediest sperm and the most fertile of eggs are the ones that get to define each us; while several thousand other potential versions of us, are deleted from the collective program. At least that's how nature taught us how to do it. Nowadays with cloning and in vitro fertilization all of these natural 'laws' are being defied and redefined by humans, but that's another story. :glasses:
Social classes are an extension of nature but only in the sense that humans are busy natural creatures and anything that we do is by default, natural.
:classic:
- Tordok
- Status