>Cmon, comparing Mexico and Colombia, or Argentina and Venezuela is like comparing Switzerland with Spain, Greece with Finland and France with Italy. It simply doesn't make any sense!! we do share the same language, but our countries, values, wealth, politics, accents and way of thinking are completely different.
Why are new worlders so fucking stupid? ahhah
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
I can smell you spaniard butthurt
Not really, beyond the main viceroyalties, we have completely different histories. Mayans, Zapotecs, Aztecs, Purepechas, Mixtecs, Toltecs, Olmecs, Totonacs, Otomis, Apaches, Raramuris, Yaquis, Huichols, etc. etc. etc. (over 68 groups) have next to nothing to do with South America, the same way Incas and Amazon Natives, Mapuches, etc. had next to nothing to do with Central and North America or with each other. This alone makes up for different cultures, being mixed means jack shit. Also, different Viceroyalties, which existed for 300 years separately, had completely different socio-economic activities and demographics (some had more slaves, some had more natives, some barely even had people in them). Our independentist movements were also different. Simón Bolivar had NOTHING to do with Mexico the same way Miguel Hidalgo had NOTHING to do with South America. Heck, neither of those affected Guatemala, Cuba or Yucatán (much less the Philippines), each having their own internal conflicts and decisions, if at all (Central America got independence without a single battle, almost the same as Yucatán, while Cuba remained a part of Spain). From then on, each country would go on to form their own history for 200 years, completely apart from each other. Mexico vs Spain, France and America wars, with South Americans having their own wars with each other Triple Alliance War, etc. which had 0 impact in other regions while having profound effects in their respective countries. Then, different waves of migration occurred across Latin America, differentiating cultures even more. Mexico barely had any Italians, for instance. And I could go on and on.
Being mixed and speaking the same language don't make up a country. History does.
cringe
Well, I can ensure you socialists act the same shit everywhere.
Germans migrating to Brazil are the same as Lebanese migrating to Colombia, yes.
No, Latin america will never be a single country and you will never have a qt brown gf, no matter how hard you try.
wtf how did you know i shilled for an united communist latin american country with state mandated qt brown gf
...
What is your history apart from Spaniards turning up and race mixing with the natives? Furthermore, how is that any different to the rest of Latin America?
>Apaches
Yeah about that
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
And the cold war affected Mexico in a dramatically different way than pretty much everywhere else.
Exactly, this has nothing to do with any other country. Yet it was very significant here.
Because this is like your third thread today shilling for Latin american unity
Also, unless you want to say that all Europeans are the same, this also happened, in vastly different proportions from very different countries
China and India probably have each more diversity than the whole region, quit your bullshit.
I've been to Colombia.
My impression is that all of America is way more similar to each other than they are to Europe.
The USA is way more similiar to Colombia than it is to any country in Europe.
It's just the way of life and way of thought that happens there. People here are different.
...and have billions of people and a multitude of regions.
You genetically have more in common with a German and Swedish than a Mexican has in common with a Chilean.
So? We are talking about very big areas with a lot of people in all three cases. Latin America is actually bigger than both combined.
Olmecs ≠ Teotihuacans ≠ Mayans ≠ Aztecs ≠ Toltecs ≠ Purepechas ≠ Mixtecs ≠ Raramuris ≠ Yaquis ≠ Zapotecs ≠ Tepehuans ≠ Huichols ≠ Seris ≠ Totonacs ≠ Otomi ≠ Apache ≠ Inca ≠ Mapuche ≠ Guarani ≠ Amazon tribes
New Spain ≠ Peru ≠ New Granada ≠ Río de la Plata ≠ Brazil
Cuba ≠ Philippines ≠ Guatemala
Voseo ≠ Tuteo
Deserts ≠ Jungles ≠ Caribbean ≠ Mountains ≠ Glaciers ≠ Plains ≠ Pine forests
Native American ≠ Mestizo ≠ Criollo ≠ Black ≠ Mulatto ≠ Asian
(75% Mestizo + 16% Native + 9% European) ≠ (97% European/Mestizo + 3% Native) ≠ (75% Mulatto + 10% Black + 15% European) ≠ (55% Native + 15% European + 30% Mestizo)
Vaqueros ≠ Charros ≠ Gauchos ≠ Huasos
Mining ≠ Plantations ≠ Cattle herding ≠ Agriculture ≠ Commodities ≠ Industry
Simón Bolivar ≠ Miguel Hidalgo + Morelos + Guerrero ≠ San Martín
First Mexican Empire ≠ Second Mexican Empire ≠ Empire of Brazil
Mexican-American war ≠ Franco-Mexican wars ≠ Reform wars ≠ Mexican Revolution ≠ Triple Alliance war ≠ Central American civil wars ≠ War of the Pacific
Italian immigration ≠ Japanese immigration ≠ Lebanese immigration ≠ German immigration ≠ Chinese immigration
Tango ≠ Bossa Nova ≠ Ranchera ≠ Huapango ≠ Danzón ≠ Reggaetón ≠ Mariachi
Tequila ≠ Fernet ≠ Pisco ≠ Mate ≠ Atole
Mole ≠ Pozole ≠ Tacos ≠ Alfajor ≠ Ceviche ≠ Churrasco
USSR ≠ US ≠ Neutral
based
Stating what everyone knows does not refute my point.
>Stating what everyone knows
Suuuuure
If that was the case you wouldn't be here pretending to be a smart-ass.
There's overlap, obviously, because all were originally colonized by Spain, so there's common things we all share. But Viceroyalties were independent from each other, and developed independently in 300 years, with many isolated places. Each individual Viceroyalty, by its own, is what you can claim that everyone in it are the same. But not really because 200 years is quite some time. Just take a look at how Europe its current countries looked 200-500 years ago.
My point is that IF all of Latin America was a single country it would probably still be less diverse on pretty much every single level than China or India as individual countries. Those two have massive differences between their regions and have been independent from each other at times for even longer periods of time compared to our ex colonies.
I meant their respective regions, not that China or India were once controlling each other.
>t IF all of Latin America was a single country it would probably still be less diverse on pretty much every single level than China or India as individual countries.
Yeah, this could apply to most of Europe too when compared to India or China, what's your point? Not only do they have the most people out of any countries in the world, by fucking far, but they were also settled literal tens of thousands of years before the entire Americas, and both happened to be cradles of civilization, unlike anywhere in Europe, a characteristic they share with Mesoamerica and Norte Chico, other cradles of civilization.
Doesn't change the fact that Latin American countries aren't as similar to each other as you want to believe.
>what's your point?
I already stated it.
>not only do they have the most people out of any countries in the world
What kind of argument is this? Their levels of diversity were the same when they had like a 10th or a 5th of their current populations a couple of centuries ago.
>but they were also settled literal tens of thousands of years before the entire Americas
Those peoples were very different culturally and even genetically. The current cultures and ethnics compositions are fairly recent and not very different from those of the Americas.
>and both happened to be cradles of civilization, unlike anywhere in Europe
Not really, the Danube was pretty advanced before the IE arrived, and my city for examples is ~5000 years old. Europe was not as advanced as others places indeed, but it was better compared to what most people think.
>Doesn't change the fact that Latin American countries aren't as similar to each other as you want to believe.
This still doesn't mean that your reply to the clueless Dane was put into proper perspective.
>and not very different from those of the Americas.
I mean when comparing how recent their ethnogeneses are. The differences can be measured in centuries probably.
>Not really
Yeah, really. Europe isn't a cradle of civilization, pretty much everything you had, from cattle to agriculture, to writing, got adapted from somewhere else. Unlike China, Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, Mesoamerica and Norte Chico. At least as far as we know today. This is not a bad or good thing in itself, but it is the way it is, and that's it.
>Those peoples were very different even genetically
Man, are you really going to make this argument? Europeans, Natives, Blacks and Asians, all of which co-exist in all the countries of the Americas at different proportions, with all the people in all kinds of mixes in the middle, are even more diverse genetically speaking.
>What kind of argument is this?
The more people they have in the context of a much bigger time-span creates much more opportunities for developing new ways of doing things (different cultures).
>I already stated it.
I'm sorry, but your point is just dumb, or I simply don't get why you are telling this to me. I never claimed Latin America was more diverse than China or India, so why are you even pointing this out? Like, for what purpose? Furthermore, why are you comparing Latin America as a region with China and India but not other regions, like Europe, vs China and India? Why make the exception and have different standarts out of the blue? Tell me ONE country more diverse than them.
>tell me ONE country more diverse than them.
But if we are talking genetics alone: USA, not even close.
>Yeah, really. Europe isn't a cradle of civilization
That's not what I said. I meant that most of Europe was more advanced than what people imagine.
>pretty much everything you had, from cattle to agriculture, to writing, got adapted from somewhere else
The Vinca writing system, Linear A and Cretan hieroglyphs were created independently in Europe. Some crops were also domesticated in Europe like saffron and cabbages. Of course the Fertile Crescent and other areas were more developed, my point is that ancient Europe deserves more credit than what it receives.
>Man, are you really going to make this argument?
Yes, because you were talking about the people that first settled those areas. Those people were very different genetically to the current inhabitants. The change was much more gradual than in the case of the Americas, but both areas experienced significant changes between the first human settlements and nowadays.
>The more people they have in the context of a much bigger time-span creates much more opportunities for developing new ways of doing things (different cultures).
The bigger time-spans you are talking about correspond to cultures and peoples that don't exist anymore. You have to look only at the current ones.
>I never claimed Latin America was more diverse than China or India, so why are you even pointing this out? Like, for what purpose? Furthermore, why are you comparing Latin America as a region with China and India but not other regions, like Europe, vs China and India? Why make the exception and have different standarts out of the blue? Tell me ONE country more diverse than them.
Having many things in common CAN make up a country, as India and China prove. Europe is not a country, but as a region it can also be an example of this. If it were politically united I would have also listed it, so no exception there. Maybe a good example would also be Russia since there are some parallelisms. I'll be back later to reply.
>Not only do they have the most people
Just to be clear you understand that this doesn't have an impact on cultural or ethnic diversity.
Africa used to have much less people then Europe or Asia or the Middle East due to a myriad of different reasons but the level of diversity between tribes was always there, albeit not as noticeable.
I need a picture of an Argentinian caricature. Please give.
>That's not what I said. I meant that most of Europe was more advanced than what people imagine.
Which has nothing to do with what I said.
en.wikipedia.org
>were created independently in Europe
Big if true, would make an interesting read if you could provide a source, not to fact check but because it might be interesting. Also, I'm not pretending to be an expert by any means, by the way, but I figure that there has to be a reason why Europe isn't considered a cradle, and as far as I know, the only completely independent writing systems are these, part of the reason Europe isn't a cradle of civilization.
en.wikipedia.org
Then again, the information is updating itself all the time, and what we currently know is not absolute. I might just be outdated.
>Some crops were also domesticated in Europe
Yeah, of course, but the point is that you didn't develop the process independently. You learned to domesticate things after agriculture was introduced to you by someone else, the knowledge didn't come out of nowhere.
en.wikipedia.org
Again, as far as we know.
>Yes, because you were talking about the people that first settled those areas
I was talking about everything, including present day. Specially present day. But talking about Mayans or Mixtecs or Zapotecs or whatever, that still live _today_ btw, was to give context.
>to cultures and peoples that don't exist anymore
Cultures evolve and change into different things, it's difficult that they just disappear without a trace. Although it can happen.
>Having many things in common CAN make up a country
Yeah, but not necessarily. And again, you could say this about the Viceroyalties at best, and that would be a stretch. Also, having things in common also doesn't mean you are exactly the same, which is my entire point. The differences in history, in particular, are not small.
I feel like you brought China and India out of nowhere and as a result, our conversation drifted more than what I should have.
Yeah, I'm willing to admit that was a dumb little random thing I wrote.
Anyway, if you actually reply, I probably won't see it until much, much, much later, probably when the thread is already archived.