Countries are poor or rich, almost always depending on their government.
“People ALWAYS get the government they deserve, and want.”
“No government, no ruler can remain in power without the consent of its people.”
This has always been true.
IF you dont want to change anything, then you already got what you want.
The island of Haiti is a perfect example. The east side of the island/Dominican Republic is very different from the west side of the same island the country of Haiti. Same kind of people, same climate, same resources, same rainfall.
Well there is the reality that the people of Haiti are largely illiterate. Illiterate people tend to be ignorant about the options to change their condition.
Reciting silly platitudes that are simply inventions to make one feel better have nothing to do with reality.
The island of Hispaniola, is not an example of what you claim it is.
The nation of Dominican Republic has a history that is much different than Haiti. While the Dominican Republic has suffered periodic upheavals and foreign intervention, the nation of Haiti has been regularly and ruthlessly suppressed by outsiders from its inception. This is not to say that every problem in Haiti comes from the outside, but not only has Haiti been oppressed from the outside, but even its internal problems have been exacerbated and those Haitians who have caused problems have been routinely supported by outsiders.
Claiming that all Haiti’s problems are the result of Haitian ignorance or stupidity makes as much sense as claiming that all of Hungary’s problems in 1957 were the result of ignorance or stupidity of Hungarians.
Personally, I don’t think it’s fair to hold the citizens of a poor country *entirely *accountable for their condition. Especially a country like Haiti, where there has been a large amount of outside interference in their governance.
Yes, I’ve no doubt, if they were all white folk, they’d be running the country as some sort of techno-utopia, with hydroponic gardens replacing their scorched earth and gleaming earthquake-resistant condos in place of shantytowns. :rolleyes:
orcenio, your BBQ Pit-ish response to Chief Pedant would be reprehensible even if your views made perfect scientific sense. But it just so happens that they don’t. You state this:
This statement is half vague banality and half falsity. The vague and banal part is that you are lumping a bunch of things together (history, culture, etc) as though these have some sort of obvious effect that an intellectual might deny. Their effects are all different, but nobody would deny that these factors can affect a society in various ways. Critical questions are how do these factors influence each other?, how do these factors affect a society? and how are the influences of these different factors different from each other?. Nobody need address the issue of whether any of the factors you listed affect societies in any way at all.
The false part is that many of the factors you mentioned are hard to explain in quantifiable terms. You act as though there is some sort of straightforward, empirical/quantitative way of showing that these factors are the only ones in play. There is not.
You also accuse Chief Pedant of distorting science. I don’t know the details of Chief Pedant’s beliefs on this issue, but there are well-published social scientists who would give partial or total endorsement to his claims. Studies have shown that the average levels of intelligence between different groups can be different. The connections between intelligence and economic productivity are both intuitively and scientifically clear. The concept of a race is, despite an unfortunate myth, valid: different groups of people have lived in different parts of the world for some time and mated with each other far more than they ever did with external groups.
The point is not that there is a scientific consensus that Chief Pedant is right. The point is that his view is not scientifically absurd. Respected and prominent psychologists such as Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt have stated that differences such as this may exist and may be quite significant.
Such social scientists also note that anybody who tries to defend such a position, or even perform research which might lend credence to such a position, are stigmatized and ostracized. They face fierce backlash and are treated as hateful bigots because their ideas are considered dangerous. If you don’t know what I mean, just look in the mirror.
The people and culture of the Dominican Republic are very different from Haiti. If you look at a topographical map, you could see that the available and arable land in the Dominican Republic is far greater (particularly since the Dominican Republic covers roughly 2/3 of Hispaniola while Haiti is only the remaining 1/3). So, they aren’t the same kind of people with the same kind of resources.
Assuming there are such studies that have demonstrated these things, wouldn’t these things more accurately point to the effect that culture, and not race, has on the value placed on certain types of education, how work is viewed, etc.?
Cry me a river and go take your offence to someone who cares.
Deny, marginalized, mocked, etc. Yes, that is exactly what is going on. You are being intellectually dishonest when you answer economic/historical/political/socio-cultural questions (like the current/previous economic situation of a state) with “voodoo-genes.” It shoots to absurdity when you then (in turn) deny, marginalize, mock etc, all other real, **observed **economic/historical/political/socio-cultural answers.
When you bring up your “voodoo-gene theory” as the root cause to the given economic/historical/political/socio-cultural answers you are directly denying/marginalizing/usurping those real serious answers.
I would love an honest discussion about any geological/environmental/economic/historical/political/socio-cultural question of any poverty stricken state/country/region. Just be honest and don’t hijack it with your “race realist, voodoo-gene theories.”
Geological/environmental/economic/historical/political/socio-cultural (Am I friggin missing something here?) factors are the only authentic, real, proven reasons that regions/states/nations/cities rise and fall throughout history. Usurping these authentic, real, proven reasons in favour for “bullshit, race realist, voodoo-gene theories” is stupid, racist, ignorant, dishonest, tripe.
Perhaps you can link to those studies; IDing which groups, and how they came to show this. But before you do, how about you read this little project by the APA.
Perhaps you would like to link to those studies too.
Wow. And that is race? Maybe you can tell me how Ethiopians mate with Nigerians, but not Saudis? If race = population (a group that mates with each other) then that must be true…?
The scientific consensus is firmly against both of you.
You know it’s not scientifically absurd that the acceleration of Earth’s gravity happens to be 9.8m/s2, or that there is a natural satellite of the Earth in the shape of a small tea cup that is floating out there, between us and the moon. Now, one of those facts have the validity of proof the other doesn’t.
Wonderful. Did they bring evidence, or stand by any concrete statement? Or did they just make theoretical claims, possibilities? In friggin “what if” land? Not is, not even probabilities, just friggin “weasel worded” what ifs…? but I have no friggin clue what they **really **said just your own interpretation (which I don’t trust), give me a cite and summarize your argument.
Go cry to somebody who cares. “bleks iz teh dum” = race theory; you want me to play “make-believe”? I’ll tell you what will shut my mouth.
Your friggin genetic proof
You make (racist) genetic claims, you bring genetic proof. You don’t bark about conspiracies, nor do you whine/cry about how you’re mistreated for spouting “race realist” shit.
It’s my belief that such proof is not far away (less than a decade, anyway) as we unwrap the genome.
We do find that in animal husbandry, where there is no societal overlay, qualities such as intelligence and behavioural patterns are simply assumed–and assumed quite successfully so–to be genetic. If we want to have less aggressive foxes or more intelligent dogs, we try to adjust for the genes which control those elements. Why would human patterns somehow follow differently?
In any case, the first patterns we might find as we unwrap the genome are those which clarify what sorts of genes are disproportionately represented among groups, and the second wave will be the elaboration of which of those genes correlate with particular phenotypic results. The final elaboration will be controlling those genes and reproducing the predicted results so that we have some sort of “proof” that our genetic hypothesis for a particular gene set function is correct (or not).
I stand ready to be corrected if my position is wrong that genes are the principal driver for outcomes. I caution those who take the opposite stand that science has a way of sticking our least-desired truths in our face regardless of what it is we wish were true.
There is no promise that mother nature has been fair. There obviously are human groups which differ genetically at a group average level. The Mbuti and the Kalenjin are not likely to be as successful in the NBA as blacks of more typical West African descent, for example.
“If you can believe that individuals of recent African ancestry are not genetically advantaged over those of European and Asian ancestry in certain athletic endeavors,” says biological anthropologist Vincent Sarich, also of Berkeley, “then you could probably be led to believe just about anything.”
You suggested that I “cry you a river”. Here’s your river:
Civility matters. Your foaming-in-the-mouth responses do not contribute to this discussion. Rational discourse requires that people hold themselves to standards not just of rational thought, but of reasonable conversation. You don’t seem to get this.
orcenio has been told to back off.
He responded by announcing his intention to withdraw from the thread.
Is there some reason that you feel a need to continue this conflict on the personal level?
At times it can be useful to speak of “the People” as shorthand, as metaphor. But you must understand it doesn’t actually exist. There is no collective will.
The people on the west side of the island(Haiti), burned down their forests, polluted their land, and destroyed their farmland.
They “could” have opened up the west side Haiti, to tourism and vacationers and cruise ships like the Dominican Republic did, but Haiti didnt want to.
IF you want to help somebody,then help the Dominican Republic because helping the Dominican Republic will make a real difference on its people and to the people visiting the Dominican Republic. Helping Haiti is a total waste, and in vain, because 5, 10, 50 years from now Haiti will STILL be an overpopulated polluted burned out poor corrupt dump.
Originally Posted by Susanann View Post
Countries are poor or rich, almost always depending on their government.
“People ALWAYS get the government they deserve, and want.”
“No government, no ruler can remain in power without the consent of its people.”
This has always been true.
IF you dont want to change anything, then you already got what you want.
They are not platitudes, they are truisms.
The people ALWAYS get the government they deserve, one way or another.
The only meaningful difference between the Dominican Republic and Haiti is the government the people choose to have.
It was, and is, a choice made by the Haitians themselves.
Illiteracy and ignorance are 2 different things, but it doesnt matter anyways.
Regardless, one does not need a college degree in order to overthrow an oppressor (foreign or domestic) , nor does one need to have a college degree in order to have a revolution.
World history is full of examples of peoples who changed their government, who changed their rulers…and they were not all smart, and they were not all literate.
To be a truism, something ought to be true. The posted platitudes are false in any number of ways.
Actually, you are pretty much 100% wrong on this point.
The U.S. spent a fair amount of time occupying both counties, (sometimes at the same time).
While in the D.R., the U.S. built roads, schools, and other infrastructure, oversaw elections, and provided an environment in which the population got used to the idea of an orderly transition of government as opposed to transition through coup.
While in Haiti, the U.S. killed people.
When the U.S. supported the dictator Trujillo in D.R., it pushed Trujillo to make investments in the nation and permitted Trujillo to wage war on Haitians.
When the U.S. supported the dictator Duvalier (and son), it allowed them to use all foreign aid to be directed to the enrichment of the Duvaliers without any of it being invested in the nation.
So, the two countries differ enormously by the amount of investment made in them and money extracted from them, as well as the forms of government they have had. In addition, D.R. has had a stable situation for over 45 years while Haiti has had oppression and civil war throughout that period.
The comparative quality of life of the inahbitants of the two cointries is currently pretty much directly related to the governments that were imposed on the people for much of the twentieth century.
(The U.S. is not the only bad guy: lots of foreign investors and countries had a role in raping and robbing Haiti, but the government in both ountries were propped up by the U.S. at a time when the U.S. directly controlled who would be the government for a period of more than 50 years.)
Or what, tough gal?
No. You go read them very carefully: I did not say that anyone was ignorant or stupid; I said that blaming people with accusations of ignorance and stupidity were wrong. The general accusations of ignorance or stupidity had been alluded by other posters in different contexts. I dd not accuse you of making that claim, (so I will thank you to refrain from making that false claim against me), I simply noted that the general charge of stupidity or ignorance was incorrect in the same way that it would be incorrect of other countries at other times.
And if they were Japanese, they could try to militarily rule half the world, have thier nation burned to the ground, be nuked! twice! and still be ahead of most folks on the planet.
