Cart 0

Why no Disneyland in Latin America or Africa?

Posted by John Reed on

Here is a fun back-and-forth from Facebook:

Danilo Josue reposted one of my posts:

Post from John T. Reed about politico-cultural differences between Anglos and Latin-Americans written in his brash style. However, the great Simon Bolivar beat him to the post 202 years ago.  
No need to get angry but self awareness is the beginning of change.

"The Economist magazine has a Big Mac index for comparing price levels and ascertaining whether a currency is under or over valued. A Disneyland test similarly occurs to me.

You can tell where the nice continents are in the world by where Disney puts its “lands.” There are six: Anaheim, Orlando, Paris, Shanghai, Tokyo, and Hong Kong. Why none in Latin America or Africa? Because those continents suck. There are none in Australia or Antarctica because they don’t have a large enough population.

I have long been intrigued by the existence of two whole continents that stumble incompetently through the centuries. Africa and Latin America are not the same. Africa is endless brutal tribal wars. Latin America never has wars. I think two countries down there now have no militaries. The rest should get rid of them. All they do is suppress their own people.

There is an elephant in the room with regard to Latin America. Tucker Carlson talked about it tonight, but the media and politicians rarely do. The reason we have something like 5 million illegal Latinos in America is Latin America sucks. And why is that? It’s not lack of natural resources or land or bad weather. What is the difference? Latin America is run by Latin Americans; America, by Anglos and various others including some Latinos.

People accuse Trump and others of racism because they want to stop illegal immigration and deport illegals, who are apparently disproportionately Latino. But what strikes me as more racist is people leaving their native land because of who runs it. Trump may want to deport illegals because he is obligated to do so under the Constitution. It’s the law of the land. But I don’t think the Latinos sneaking into the US are looking for colder weather.

Some would say they want jobs. So get a job in Mexico. There aren’t enough there? Whose fault is that? Fix it. What’s different about Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern California from the northern states of Mexico? Nothing but the laws and the people. So change the laws. Just copy ours. They are not copyrighted. And to the people down there: Clean up your act.

Stop complaining about racism on the part of Americans when your very presence in America is a far more profound denunciation of the people Latin America." John T. Reed.

Danilo Josué English Translation of Simon Bolivar's letter:

"Those institutions which are perfectly representative are not adequate to our character, customs, and present light ... As long as our compatriots do not acquire the political talents and virtues of our brothers to the North, those systems entirely popular, far from being favorable to us, will become our ruin I am afraid ... We are dominated by the vices that are contracted under the direction of a nation like Spain, which has only distinguished itself in ruthlessness, ambition, vengeance and envy." Simon Bolivar. (Letter From Jamaica 1815)
Yaser Martínez Palenzuela "But what strikes me as more racist is people leaving their native land because of who runs it"
Now try to follow that logic from the perspective of native americans, does that mean that all current "anglos" are "racists" and should be deported back to England, Ireland, etc?
John T. Reed
Racism is not grounds for deportation. My European ancestors came here legally. Some fled a potato famine. They were joining fellow Brits in America in a still British system of government, not hoping for a “path to citizenship” in, say, the Cherokee Nation (the tribe of one of my ancestors).

The strength of America and other former British colonies—Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.—is the preservation of Anglo laws and customs.

Palenzuela implies my post is inaccurate. But conspicuous by its absence is her alternative explanation as to why the net flow of immigrants is from South of the border to north and not the other way around. What do the immigrants get in the North that is not available in the South.

I was not aware of Bolivar’s comment, but I am aware that he was a South American hero, not just another observer of the scene.

I will offer another explanation that I credit Daniel Hannan for. Latin America is Catholic, a top-down religion. North of the Rio Grande is Protestant, a bottom-up (more democratic) religion. But there must be another factor because although Catholic southern Europe lags behind Protestant northern Europe economically and in other ways, the disparity is greater in the Western Hemisphere.

A difference between southern Europe and south of the Rio Grande is a higher average incidence of Native American DNA than in North America. The Caribbean has a higher incidence of African DNA.

The extreme backwardness of Africa and Latin America compared to North America need to be explained by someone. I am not sure I know.

Actions speak louder than words. If North Americans are racist toward Latino Americans, why are you coming here? What are you running away from? What are you getting here that is not available in your native country? And why is it not available there?
Yaser Martínez Palenzuela I didn't mean that they should be deported because they are racist. My point is that by your logic if people leaving their native land are racist that would make all anglo-immigrants including some who signed the constitution racist too.
John T. Reed  Show of hands of how many reading this think Anglo immigrants to America (mine came in the 1600s and the late 1800s) came here to get away from a nation populated by Anglos because it was populated by Anglos.

I think it had more to do with a new frontier, land, lack of mobility between classes, monarchy, religious persecution, none of which apply to Latin Americans sneaking into the US..

Still waiting for the explanation as to why Latin America and Africa are permanent basket cases millions of whose native-born people can’t wait to flee.
Yaser Martínez Palenzuela So you are saying the reasons Anglo immigrants had to flee their land are just and noble while the reasons why latin people flee their land make them sneaky and racist. Now I get it.
John T. Reed Still waiting for you to tell us the noble reasons why Latinos are so eager to leave Latin American countries to go live with Gringoes who hate them for racist reasons. Why are you here instead of me being there?
Yaser Martínez Palenzuela You would have to ask Danilo Josué about that because I don’t live there in the US. I am actually confused about my own situation and was hoping you could help. A couple generations ago my ancestors left Europe to go to America as it was called at the time. Like your ancestors they entered legally because fortunately some europeans before them had already took the land from the natives so there were no traces left of the old native law. A couple years ago I decided to leave my land and come back to Europe, the birthplace of my ancestors. I was wondering how I and my ancestors fare in the "sneaky and racist" department? Are we 2x more racist because we left lands two times?
Danilo Josué I think that taking the heart of the argument from John T. Reed and Simon Bolivar's letter we get the obvious truth that cultures are objectively different and that those differences matter. And that the socio-político-economic-religious culture of the English speaking colonies and the countries that evolved from them are superior to their Spanish counterparts on the aggregate when it comes to provide an environment that is conducive to individual freedom, equality under the law and economic and political participation.

Because of this tacit acknowledgment of cultural superiority when it comes to systems of laws and freedom of opportunity disadvantaged Latin Americans and others flee their own land while disadvantaged Americans do not flee to those Latin America countries.

John Reed, makes what I take to be a tongue in cheek remark interjecting "racism" (an inaccurate term) to describe the rejection of Latin American migrants of their own Latin American political leadership and politico-economic culture. However, the left uses the same equivocation of terms using "racism" to refer to any cultural criticism.

The same I said for Latin American countries goes for African and Native American culture.

Finally, claims that treat native Americans in the XV and XVI centuries and European colonizers as if their situation and legal standing and national organization was the same as Nazi Germany invading France during WWII or Russia invading Crimea two years ago are ludicrous and an oxymoron devoid of historical context.
John T. Reed Wow! Danilo. Very astute and objective.

I give up on getting the lady with too many names to explain as you did why Latin Americans have come into the land of the gringo racists by the millions. She won’t because she can’t without admitting I got it right.

She is real fond of the word sneaky. People who come into the US by walking through the border guard checkpoint and giving the guard the finger are not sneaky. The approximately 6 million illegals did not do that. They either lied on a visa application or hid in the trunk of a car or walked across a remote border when they thought no one was looking.

Sneaked is the verb.

I think the Europeans who colonized America would have been glad to pay the Indians for land. They did in Manhattan. But the Indians were so hopelessly backward—stone age literally—and their way of organizing society—acquisition of territory by conquest, no division of labor, hunter-gatherer the only occupation—was so ridiculous that the Europeans treated it as they would treat a small child’s suggestions on government policy.

The Disney depiction of Indians as better than us on nature and living a different but equal culture is absurd. Want proof? Go find an Indian who lives that “way of life” today. They denounce us but imitate us about 99%—except for the occasional head band to get tenure as a college professor.

The Stone Age ended in the Eastern Hemisphere between 8700 and 2000 BC. When the Europeans arrived in America in 1492, they had finished with the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age and recorded history, Classical Antiquity, Post-Classical antiquity, and the Middle Ages. They were just entering the Renaissance and Age of Discovery. The Stone Age did not end in the Western Hemisphere until the whites appeared on the horizon in intercontinental sailing ships armed with cannons and blunderbuses.

The Indians acquired their land by conquest like some sort of street gangs without streets. When the Europeans offered money, they got blank stares in return. So they switched to the Indian’s way of acquiring land: conquest.

All the whining by three-names lady about conquest is because the darling of the liberals underdog Native Americans started losing. They were just fine with conquest as long as they were the conquerors. Then, when the Europeans came along and defeated the Indians easily with superior weapons, organization, and unwitting germ warfare, the Indians and their liberal benefactors have whined about the immorality of acquisition of land by conquest.

Before the Europeans got here, Indians got their land and other things by stealing, murder, and kidnapping. Europeans figured the land in America was not owned by anyone as far as they could tell. Nothing but a bunch of nomadic aborigines murdering each other then murdering the whites. So they staked their claim on unmarked land then defended it as the Indians did not or did not effectively.

Whites are accused of using germ warfare against the Indians, like giving them germ-infested blankets.

Uh, the whites did not know there was such a thing as a microscopic pathogen until the 1880s. They arrived in the New World in 1492 and started having trouble with the Indians almost immediately. True, the Indians died in great numbers from the white men’s germs, but that was when the white men were too ignorant to know of the existence of germs.

The problem was the Indians immune systems sucked. Why? They did not get out much. The whites had been world travelers or at least Eastern Hemisphere travelers for millennia. The immune systems of the whites were quite robust because of being exposed to all the pathogens in the Eastern Hemisphere. We had sailing ships and navigation by stars and shooting the sun with sextants (starting in the early 1700s). The Indians had canoes. Their immune systems probably had never been exposed to any pathogens more that 100 miles from their birthplaces.
Danilo Josué Actually, the reason for the immune deficiency is geography. The Americas run from north to south (just like Africa) and Eurasia runs from East to West. Crops and animals run in the same climate from east to west but not north to south. The pathogens brought by the conquistadors were in the farm and domestic animals. The horse, the dog, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc. These animals are the source for the chicken pox, flu and many other pandemics. The majority of the conquistadors were immune to the majority of these plagues (being the descendants of the survivors of Europeans plagues for Millenia including the bubonic plague) while the Indians were not. It has not much to do with not traveling far but being completely isolated for 10,000 years from, other than the Andean Llama, what we know as farm and domesticated animals.
John T. Reed They isolated themselves from the animals. Because they were not the brightest bulbs on the human tree. Why did the Indians not discover Europe first? Why did they not go back to Russia at Christmas and Thanksgiving and notice the farm animals and bring them back to the Americas?

They were less bright, less inquisitive. How come the Europeans figured out to domesticate all sorts of animals but the Indians did not? Less bright. The use of animals was not given to the Eastern hemisphere nor denied the Western hemisphere. Both groups had equal chance to figure out domestication. One did. The other did not. No isolation involved.

Speaking of domestic animals, I love how Indians are so much associated with horses and horsemanship. They never laid eyes on a horse until the White men brought them to America. Then the Indians rode bareback in spite of seeing the white men attacking them or being attacked by them using saddles and stirrups to fight from horseback. Wikipedia says, “The stirrup, which gives greater stability to a rider, has been described as one of the most significant inventions in the history of warfare, prior to gunpowder.” The Indians did not even adopt the stirrup when it was being used against them.
Danilo Josué Another example that culture is not tied to race is the English speaking Caribbean islands, who are mostly populated by black, are more stable in their socio-politico-economic- development than their Spanish and French counterparts in the Caribbean.

I think this goes all the way back to the enlightenment and Southern Europe's heavy cultural inheritance of the Roman Empire. But that is another conversation.
John T. Reed I must have confused him with Miranda Veracruz de la Hoya Cardinal. He talks like a girl.
Juan Teodoro Ricardo Reedo

Share this post

← Older Post Newer Post →

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published.