Category Archives: Argentina
Jose: Here this kind of androgyne or quasi androgyne “bad boys” maybe exist in some little circles, like between goths or something like these. Because there is no place for them being seen as “bad boys” if are quite feminine. Real “bad boys” will kick their asses. A punk, skater, hip hopper, etc., can be accepted as bad boys (according to their behavior obviously). But not effeminate men. They will be mocked, and common “quiet” men will not take them as “bad”.
If a quite effeminate men have wild behavior, at some point, they moment will have to change their feminine side or hide it because he will have problems every day if he deals with “bad boys”. He will be mocked and attacked.
For being a thug you have to act like if you were in jail or something like this. Dress is not so important, as long as you don’t dress effeminate (this can carry many problems).
In other Latin American countries probably this goes much deeper. Something dressed like Marylin Manson or David Bowie pretending being bad (even if is bad) can’t walk quiet in the street with that attitude. It have to “accept” the mocking and be taken as a “faggot”. I think in Paraguay or even little cities of my region of Argentina if someone is like this, people will not be quiet even in a normal neighborhood. Normal people will mock someone like this, not only “bad boys”. Not to mention in working-class places or some towns that are quasi-rural and people that live there are entirely from working-class and lower-class.
In big cities it’s different because people are accustomed to see “rare” persons like that.
Effeminate and feminine are not the same thing. Effeminate means acting like a woman. Here in the US, mostly only homosexual men act truly effeminate. This is the sort of “faggoty” behavior seen in ~75% of gay men. But effeminate straight men are quite rare. I would be surprised in 1% of straight men are effeminate.
These guys were not really feminine at all, but they do have a soft side. The guys I knew were pretty bad. They were juvenile delinquents, drug dealers, surfers and they stole things like ten speeds and marijuana plants. They were almost like gang or street kids. But they were masculine enough that no one would ever want to fight them. It’s just that you could see a feminine side going in a lot of them. In the US we have quite a few men who have a very strong masculine side and then they have a pretty strong feminine side going too. As long as they have that good strong masculine side going, no will fight them or even mess with them. I knew some guys like this who were criminals! One guy was a huge drug dealer in San Fransisco. He kept his cocaine in one house, lived in another house, and I forget what the 3rd house was for.
You are confusing effeminate and feminine. Effeminate means acting like a woman. Feminine is just a soft sort of guy. But a lot of White men have hard and soft going at the same time because you can do that in our culture. As long as people can see that masculine side, no one cares about the soft stuff. It sort of becomes invisible. Plus if you have a strong enough masculine side going, most men just leave you alone, don’t challenge you, don’t mock you or make fun of you, and don’t start fights with you.
I live in what is almost a ghetto. It’s a barrio. But no one ever starts one single thing with me here. No one bugs me, starts fights with me, or even insults me. But I have a strong masculine side, and I get into it in this hood, and a lot of people have told me I look scary. One advantage to looking scary is that most people pretty much leave you alone and don’t fuck with you.
This why I doubt Trash’s comments that a White man will get his ass kicked or robbed for sure in this type of neighborhood.
But in US White society, you do not have to be macho or hypermasculine like in Latin American society. Here in the US a soft man can be a bad boy or even a criminal. For instance, I get called bad boy quite a bit. People see me in a store or something, and they start laughing and say, “Hey there, bad boy!” Or I will be talking to a woman and I give her one of my million dollar smiles and she starts laughing and says, “Ohhhh, you’re a bad boy!” And I am a pretty damn soft guy. But somehow I give off a bad boy vibe somehow.
Here in US White society, a bad boy is any sort of rebel who looks like he doesn’t play by the rules and has a sort of devilish air about him. Macho or hypermasculine behavior is not necessary anymore.
I used to wear men’s kimonos! I wore these things called short kimonos. It is actually Japanese men’s wear. You wear it over a shirt and pants. A lot of guys did hate it when I wore that. I would see guys who looked like they wanted to beat me up when they saw me wear that. But nothing ever happened. Plus women loved it when I wore that kimono. They went nuts over that thing, while the guys acted like I was wearing a dress and they wanted to beat me up.
But at that time, I was also a punk rocker with a permanent scowl who wore lots of leather and spikes. A lot of people acted like they were afraid of me, and usually nobody started anything.
Jason Y: OK, one choice is taking up Ron Paul anti-globalism, which would reduce him to Jimmy Carter uselessness, or just lie and actually be a globalist, and a massively militaristic one at that.
Why is it down to globalism versus anti-globalism? Leaving that aside altogether, looking at his Cabinet appointment shows him to be an ultra-rightwing fanatical reactionary. Look at those Cabinet appointments. That’s all you need to know right there. Those are some of the scariest people I have ever seen in my government.
Actually, the truth is that he is an out and out fascist. That’s no exaggeration. It is absolutely correct. People have been calling the Republicans fascists since the election theft of 2000, and I think they were onto something. That is, they were moving more and more in that direction.
The Republicans are now about as evil as a typical brutal and corrupt Latin American ultraright fascist oligarchy. This is exactly what they remind me of. I look at them and I think of the oligarchical Right in Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay. The only thing missing is overt coup attempts and death squads. To be more precise, they remind me of the Right in Venezuela, but comparisons to Chile, Paraguay, Bolivia, Brazil, Honduras, Haiti and Ecuador are not far off base.
The leaders of the Latin American Right pretty much deserved to get killed based on how they act. I do not blame the Left down there for killing those people. They very much deserve it. Look at how they act!
They have an extreme hatred for democracy, and basically their attitude is that they will not tolerate the Left being in power for one day. And when the Left gets in, they will try everything in the book, legal, illegal and in between, to get rid of them. There is nothing too low for them. If they have to tell 10 million lies, they will do it. If they have to steal elections, then they will do it. If they have assassinate leftwingers, they will do it. If they have to destroy the whole economy, they will do it. If they have to riot in the streets, they will do it. If they have to run death squads, then they will do it. If they have to mount coups, military or legislative, than they will do it. The ends justifies the means, and it’s “whatever it takes to get rid of the Left, damn morality.”
Chinedu: And yet hundreds of millions of people, populating entire continents and regions, are the products of white rape.
That was a long time ago though, was it not? Anyway, the newest theory on Black-White mixes in the US is that most came after the Civil War and most were consensual even before the Civil War. Yes there were rapes but they were not common. Heading up until the Civil War, in the 1830’s-1860’s, there were many White men working for money in the fields next to the slaves. There were many unions derived from this close contact. Further, many Black females desired to have sex with the slaveowners in order to become house Negroes, etc. Southern White culture was very conservative and Southern wives did not take well to their husbands taking up Black mistresses. Most White Black unions post Civil War were obviously consensual.
There is no reason to think that things were any different in Mexico, Honduras, Belize, Nicaragua, Panama, anywhere in the Caribbean, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina or even Brazil.
We have no reports of mass rapes of Black women by White men in any of those places.
I am not aware of any mass rape of Black women by White men in Colonial Africa, even in South Africa. The problem in the East was exacerbated by Islamic slavery, and I suppose many of those were rapes, or maybe they were consensual. No one seems to be able to figure this out when it comes to slaves. Probably your best case for mass rape of Black women by White men would be in the Middle East, especially Arabia and then Mesopotamia and the Levant. And I am quite sure this was the case in North Africa as well.
There isn’t any more raping of Black women by White men anywhere on Earth and certainly there is no mass raping.
As far as raping Indian women, this is very hard to figure. I know that here in California, many Whites simply married Indian women and become squawmen who were much derided by their fellow men. These unions were quite consensual. There were some rapes in this area and maybe some enslavement but it was mostly consensual. Before we had Spaniards and missions run by priests in which there was almost zero rape. The Spaniards did not even do much to Indians other than capture them and send them to missions.
As far as the rest of the US, I have no idea, but I have not heard a lot of reports of mass rape of Indian women by White men in the records. The breeding seems to be once again White men taking Indian brides and becoming squawmen. In Canada there was little to no rape or mass rape.
It is often said that the mass unions of Mexico were the product of rape but no one knows if this was true. There were very few Spaniard males and many Indian women. The Spaniards hardly had to rape with 100-1 or 1000-1 ratios.
I do not know much about the colonization of Central America to comment. However, Costa Rica tried to keep itself delberately White for a long time. Also the Indians were wiped out very early. Obviously there was mass mixing through this whole region, but I know nothing about the details.
I have not heard many reports of rape or mass rape in the Caribbean. Yes there was mass rape in the beginning in the context of a genocide, but Caribbean people now have little Indian blood. Barbadians are 1% Indian. Cubans are probably even less. Jamaicans, Haitians, Dominicans, Dominican Republicans, etc. have almost no Indian blood. Puerto Ricans have a lot of Indian blood, but I do not know how it got there.
Yes Whites conquered Indian nations in South America. Obviously a process of mestizisation occurred there, but I have no details on it. The wars were short and over with quickly. The mestizisation process appears to have been slow and I have no details on how it even worked. In Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, the Guyanas, I have no details at all. In Brazil what little I heard was that it was mostly consensual. An early Brazilian colonist, a Portuguese man, was reported to have twenty quite happy Indian wives. This was said to be pretty normal. In the 1800’s there was a Banquismo campaign, a very racist compaign intended to mass import Whites from Europe to swamp out and breed out Indians but mostly Blacks. Apparently it worked quite well.
In Argentina, the Black-White mating was so unrapey that many Blacks present in Argentina in the late 1800’s seem to have vanihsed into thin air. Argentines are now 3% Black, so you can imagine what really happened to the Blacks. Much the same happened in Uruguay.
In Mexico it was much the same thing. Mexico was pretty Black in 1820. In 100 years, there was little left. Now there’s almost nothing left and Mexicans are 4% Black. They are quite Blacker in other areas such as Veracruz. It doesn’t sound like a lot of rape went on in these “vanishings.”
In Chile the Indians were slowly bred in after the wars in the late 1800’s and now Chileans are maybe 20% Indian. In Argentina, the Indians were also defeated but many remained in the Pampas and the gaucho was typically a mostly White mestizo, the product of unions between Whites and Indians on the Plains.
Peru and Guatemala are still heavily Indian. Bolivia is probably mostly Indian.
There is not much evidence of mass White rape of non-Whites in Asia either. We have no reports of such from the Russian East or Siberia. We have no such reports from Malaysia, Indonesia or India either, and there were few Whites or Dutchmen anyway. Nor do we have reports of such from Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia. Nor do we have mass rape reports from the Philippines, where Spanish colonists were apparently few in number. There are also no reports from the US colonization of the Philippines.
Although it would not surprise me, I would like to see some data that the mass mixing of Aborgines and Whites in Australia was the result of rape. Aborigines are now 50% White on average and their 85 IQ’s reflect that. The 64 IQ reports are from unmixed Aborigines.
I have not heard any reports of mass rapes of Maori women by Whites in New Zealand.
Hawaii was indeed colonized by Whites, but I have not heard any reports of mass rape.
I do not know much about the history of Polynesia.
Central Asia is mass mixed between Mongol type Asians and Whites but there is no evidence that Whites mass raped Asians. In fact, much of the mixing may have been the other way around, as Mongols mass raped the Iranid Whites already present in those places. So in one place on Earth where we do have evidence of mass rape producing White-non-White mixes, it was the Whites who were getting raped and not the other way around!
Possibly the best case for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites may have been with Aryan Whites and Australoid South Indians in India. There was a lot of interbreeding, but there was also a Hell of a lot of rape especially were South Indian women were enslaved and made to serve as temple prostitutes for Aryan men. Even today Australoid Dalit women are commonly raped by more Aryan and higher caste men.
All in all, I do not think there is much remaining evidence for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites. There were a lot of unions in the last 500 years for sure but most were consensual.
RL: Defects in what way?
Race Realist: In a study of 100,000 mixed-race adolescent school children, those who identified themselves as such had higher health and behavior instances than those of one race. The effect was still observed even when SES and other factors were controlled for. A problem with an obvious genetic component.
Yet another study done on white-Asian mixes notes that they have a two times higher rate to be diagnosed with psychological problems such as anxiety, depression and substance abuse.
It was found, in agreement that black-white mixes engaged in more risky behavior than did mono-racial children. They also observe that mixed-race adolescents are stark outliers in comparison to whites and blacks, which still holds true despite being raised in similar environments to mono-racial children.
Black and white couples also conceive children at around half the success of white male/female couples. And the aforementioned bone marrow/blood transfusion problems.
That’s all 100% sociological. We do not have a lot of mixed race people in this country, so the kids have some psychological stuff. But if you look at places were mixed race people are everywhere or even the norm, you see no such behavioral problems, and I’ve never heard of any health problems.
Whites and Asians are mixed to Hell in Central Asia all the way to Mongolia and Siberia. Any problems? Nope. Whites and Australoids are mixed to Hell in India. Any problems? Of course not. Asians and Australoids are mixed in Japan (20% Australoid). Any problems? Of course not. Asians and Australoids are also mixed in Philippines, Indonesia, coastal Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia? Any problems? Of course not. Whites, Australoids and Asians are mixing heavily now in Singapore and have been for some time in Malaysia in general. Any problems? Of course not. The entire Southeast Asian stock was created by recent mass-mixing of Australoids and Asians? Any issues? Of course not.
Whites and Indians are mixed to Hell all over Latin America. Any problems or issues? Well, of course not. Whites and Blacks are mixed all over the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa? Any problems? Well, of course not. White, Indians and Blacks are mixed in Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Brazil. And even in Argentina. Any problems? Well, of course not.
Where are all these horrible health and behavioral problems you guys keep yelling about? They don’t exist.
Black and white couples also conceive children at around half the success of white male/female couples. And the aforementioned bone marrow/blood transfusion problems.
Has this stopped people from making babies in the US, the Caribbean, Latin America, North Africa and nations of South Africa and Namibia?
Is it really that hard to get a blood transfusion? Give me some evidence that there is a huge problem with getting a blood transfusion in Latin America or anywhere on Earth for that matter due to race.
In a study of 100,000 mixed-race adolescent school children, those who identified themselves as such had higher health and behavior instances than those of one race. The effect was still observed even when SES and other factors were controlled for. A problem with an obvious genetic component.
There is no genetic component there, obvious or otherwise. There’s a sociological and cultural component that’s 100% of the problem and a genetic component that’s 0% of the problem.
Have any physicians ever noted how the racemixing that produced these kids caused any particular health problem? What particular health problem was caused by say mixing of Blacks and Whites? What particular health problem was caused by mixing of Asians and Whites?
It’s curious because it is said that many Paraguayan women seek Argentine men because Paraguayan men are too masculine and male chauvinist (I don’t know if there is an English word for “machista“).
At least this happens with Paraguayan women that live in Argentina, especially in big cities. They have the image of middle-class/upper-class Argentine men as more “sensitive”. Working-class and underclass Argentine men are not so different from Paraguayan men, but they are still less masculine except maybe in northeast of the country where I live where Argentine lower class men are very similar to Paraguayan men. Paraguayan women know this, and that’s why they prefer men from other regions, especially from Buenos Aires.
I am wondering if machista is an Argentine slang word? In Mexico anyway, the word is macho, machismo or machisimo, and it is used more as an adjective. Macho means “macho,” machismo means the same thing, and machisimo means a highly exaggerated machismo typical of Mexican men. I don’t think it is used as a noun much, but you can do that. Once I greeted my Spanish teacher (from Mexico) with, Que tal, macho? and he really liked that. I suppose a good translation would be “What’s up, stud?” It’s acceptable to call a Mexican man macho. It means something like “dude” but with more masculine implications. It’s not used much by Spanish second language speakers because it is very slangy.
The first time I heard the word machista was when I had an Argentine gf. She told me that she was disappointed that I was not machista. It’s true, I am not machista. It was clear that she wanted a machista man. I am wondering if all Argentine women like that? Do they all demand a machista man? The relationship still worked ok.
I am convinced that Hispanic women or at least the less assimilated ones pretty much demand a machista for a man. I live in a town full of Mexicans, and that seems to be the only type of man that they will go for. I can’t get anywhere at all with these women. I think maybe they think I am gay. I cannot imagine what it is like for a Mexican or “East LA” culture Chicano who is not machisimo or a machista. I don’t see how they ever get a date, much less get laid at all, and I surely can’t see how they get married. If they women all demand machistas, a guy who is not a machista is SOL, right?
As they assimilate, Hispanic women seem to become less demanding for a machisimo man, and they start getting more like White women, who are not so demanding of a hypermasculine man. But it seems like the more they stay attached to Mexican culture (here even third generation Chicanos are still deeply into Mexican culture because there are few pressures to assimilate), the more they demand a machista man.
And around here, if they do assimilate, they often assimilate to “East LA” type Chicano culture, which in my opinion is a completely crap culture. This is the culture of gangs, tattoos, drugs, rap music and even crime, often petty crime. This same culture used to be “lowrider” culture in the 1970’s, which I could actually tolerate, but lowrider culture seems to have been replaced by gang culture, and that’s definitely a downgrade.
Not all Chicano culture is this crap gang-type culture, but far too much of it is. Chicano women deep into this gang culture still want a macho guy. Not as much as the Mexican women do, but still more than a White woman.
I had a date recently with a Chicana. She was a lousy person, but she also made it clear that I was not acceptable for her because I was not a “tough guy,” and she only liked tough guys. She was part of this lousy gang type culture, and she was also sort of a petty criminal.
I had an Argentine girlfriend for a while. While she was disappointed that I was not a machista, she really liked the fact that I was an intellectual. She said I was “un hombre de letres,” or “a man of letters.” It is a really cool phrase to describe a writer, but it is seldom used anymore. It seemed that Argentine women liked intellectuals. I also knew a Peruvian woman and she was really jazzed that I was an intellectual too. She really respected an intellectual man, but then she was also a university student.
Whereas Mexicans seem to delight in ignorance and contempt of education, on the other hand, South Americans seem to really respect an intellectual man. I am guessing it is due to more Spanish influence down in Latin America.
I have always felt that South America had much more influence of Spain in their culture. A respect for intellectual men would be a byproduct of Spanish influence since intellectual men are highly respected in Spain.
I knew a woman from Colombia, and she and her associates had strong influence from Spain. She was a member of the upper class, and she spent about half her time in Spain! She had a very Castillian accent, but it was also very sexy and sounded sort of French or Catalan. But a lot of Colombian women have crazy sexy accents. I think it is a rather sensual culture.
She and her family and friends were extremely polite almost to the point of being a parody of politeness. Colombians seem like the nicest, most hyper-polite people on Earth. What I don’t get is how the nicest people on Earth spend so much of their time slaughtering each other.
They were all very much into intellectual culture and arty circles. Her brother was a well known artist, and she was his agent. She hated the FARC and other Colombian guerrillas, but she also implied that there were guerrilla sympathizers in the art circles in which she ran.
I also met a Peruvian upper class woman who also told me that she spent a lot of her time in Spain. It’s almost as if Spain is a 2nd home to a lot of these upper class South Americans.
On the contrary, I do not think the influence of Spain is great in Mexican culture today, but perhaps I am wrong. They seem to have washed a lot of that away in preference for some sort of genuine homegrown Mexican culture.
The heavy Caucasian-non-Caucasian mixing zone is from North Africa across Arabia, and then in a belt from the Urals in the north down through the Stans to Afghanistan, Pakistan and North India in the south and all the way to Siberia and even East Turkestan in China to the east.
One can say that there is a White/non-White mixing zone of recent origin in the Americas mostly from Mexico south in Mesoamerica down to Latin America all the way down to Chile, Uruguay and Argentina in the south, with more admixture to the north and much less at the south. Mesoamerica is quite thoroughly admixed or mestized as is Colombia, Venezuela, Peru and Paraguay. In Colombia, the Whites are also quite admixed with Black.
There is a White/Black mixing zone in the Caribbean and the Guyanas down to Brazil. In the Caribbean, White genes have been pretty much washed out by Black ancestry, and the Caribbean is quite a Black place. The same has occurred in Belize and to a lesser extent in Panama, both of which are seriously mulattized. Even Dominican “Whites” would probably not qualify as White to most people as they seem to have too much Black in them to be considered White. There are definitely White Puerto Ricans though and there are many White Cubans. The Guyanas are so mulattized that there are not many Whites left, similar to the Dominican Republic.
In North America, there has not been a lot of White/non-White mixing. The heavily mixed people are mostly recent immigrants from Mesoamerica, mostly from Mexico. Otherwise, Whites in the US, Canada and even Alaska have not mixed much with Indians, Inuits or Blacks.
Hawaii can be considered a White/non-White mixing zone of extremely recent origin as by this time most of the population is seriously admixed. The admixture is generally White/Asian mixes of all different sorts.
The Whites in New Zealand, Australia and even Europe are not much admixed other than recent immigrants in Europe, though there is some Asian/White admixture in the Sami. Nevertheless, I regard the Sami as Whites. Black-White mixing in Southern Europe is very negligible, despite the rantings and false science of Nordicists. Iranians are White. Turks are a bit admixed, but still they are overwhelmingly White.
There has been quite a bit of White/Black mixing in South Africa and Namibia, more than you might ever expect. The Namibian Whites in particular are quite admixed. Quite a few are so admixed that one wonders if they could be properly called White anymore as they tend to be in the “border zone” of Whiteness.
A. B. Prosper writes:
This is an old post but do remember Hispanic also includes White Hispanics.
If you factor it by race say using the old Casta system for simplicity I suspect you’d end up with different result,
White Hispanics (Criollo and Peninsulars, German and other stock lines) with White IQ, Mestizos with lower, Negritos (Blacks) lower and Indios with probably lower than that, though I’m not sure about the latter.
Some Indian admixture if in a Flynn Effected environment doesn’t seem to matter. My guess and I don’t know is that it reduces the likelihood of very high IQ, but this is unlikely in any case.
Argentina is the Whitest Hispanic country and it has an IQ of 93. That’s not broken down racially of course. Argentina is 21% Amerindian when you look at the entire nation’s genome. Chile is about the same IQ-wise, and the estimates for Indian blood may be even higher. At any rate, a fair amount of Indian blood does not appear to be fatal to IQ or even behaviorally for that matter.
Argentina and Chile function more or less like European countries except for the typical “Latin American sickness” which has always enveloped them. But even a lot of Europe was nearly feudal with wild inequality and polarized and radicalized politics split into fascists versus communists and socialists and a lot of political violence even up until 70 years ago. Latin American style coups followed by Latin American style dictatorships occurred in Greece only 50 years ago. Latin American style fascist dictatorships ruled Portugal and Spain until only 40 years ago. Europe’s no paradise.
The very heavily Indian countries in Latin America do tend to have lower IQ’s, often IQ ~83-85. Mexico is a mestizo country, and it is somewhere in between Argentina/Chile and the more Indian nations at 90.
A racial IQ study in Latin America would be a nice study though.It might be a bit hard to do as things are so mixed down there that it might be hard to sort out valid groups to test.
I am thinking maybe in Mexico:
Whites: IQ 96 Mestizos: IQ 90 Indians: IQ 84
What is interesting is that those figures stick in my mind for those races in Mexico, and my mind keeps telling me that I have seen those figures somewhere. But offhand, I can’t dig up the study and it may not even exist. My mind may just be playing tricks on me, or maybe it was someone’s guesstimate.