Juanson World

Christian,

You wrote: [The NYTimes blames Latin America for] "issues that are often the fault of multinational investors and the international banks."

While I completely agree with you that multinational investors and international banks have played a big role in Latin America's underdevelopment, I also think that a lot of the fault lies with the Latin American borrowers.

Just as a lender should not lend to someone whose creditworthiness is doubtful, one (or a government) should not take loans he will not be able to pay back.

(Of course there are other issues at play, and I am not suggesting that the aforementioned reasons alone explain Latin American underdevelopment.)

But I stand by my point that the Latin American borrowers are as guilty as the New York lenders.
 

Vikrum,

Just to clarify, when I said international banks I was referring to the World Bank/IDB/IMF. The NYTimes seems to give these organizations the benefit of the doubt and places all the blame on the regional public sector. I think they are all to blame in the mess.
 

Christian,

On a completely different note: recently Vicente Fox got into some hot water. He publicly stated:

"There is no doubt that Mexican men and women, full of dignity, drive and a capacity for work, are doing the jobs that not even blacks want to do there, in the United States."

When I lived in Latin America, I found a lot of both anti-African and anti-non white racism. I found this racism all over Latin America: from Mexico to Costa Rica to Brazil to Argentina. I have also found that Latin Americans generally lack the "political correctness" that Americans have.

Considering the value of white skin in Mexico and the fact that political correctness is basically non-existent, I'm not surprised at what Fox said.

I'm curious what you think.
 

Vikrum,

I have been following the Vicente Fox episode since last week. First of all, I think its fairly obvious that he shouldn't have said what he said. But hopefully this can be a Larry Summers moment and we can all make lemons from lemonade. (After Larry Summers commented that perhaps women might be biologically different than man and this may explain their underrepresentation in math and science, Harvard pledged $50 million to fund women and science.)

So I think that while meeting with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is great for publicity's sake, why is Fox wasting his time with these meetings when he has a country to govern? He should have apologized immediately and moved forward. Isn't poverty and inequality of millions of Mexicans more important than a misguided comment that does not even apply to your own country?

Sure, having Vicente Fox as an ally against racism in the US is great, but let's get on with it.

As for more racism in Latin America, I certainly agree with you, but I would say that racism exists at the same levels in North America, but that it is not publically accetable to make racist comments. Thus, people are just as racist but cannot express this publically.
 

Sorry, I meant lemonade from lemons.
 

As usual, those people (the ones who write articles about Latin America), do not have the complete picture of what is going on in Latin America.

Their overall view is in line with what many others are saying is going on in Lat Am. But, they are really oblivious about the realities of the region.

To take just one example from what you say the article in the NY Times says. You say the Times suggests is to increase taxation, and by extention, target the revenue to the poor.

In many countries in Lat Am, the tax base is small and the majority of the people cannot do without evading their responsibilites. Otherwise they could not pay their dues. If you increase taxes, you are increasing prices (in some cases) and that is a direct burden on the tax base. The people live with so little a day that if you take that much away, it becomes a question of existance and not of disposable income.
 

Miguel - well said, I agree completely. My boyfriend works for the World Bank and I happen to agree with you Christian that they are to blame. However, this blaming the World Bank/DB/IMF not something new. Finally, it is true, all are to blame - it's time to quit shifting the blame and start taking responsibility. No matter what, I think raising taxes is the wrong thing to do. Furthermore, how will blaming the World Bank/DB/IMF solve the issue of extreme inequality? I do agree Christian that these countries need to start focusing their energies on fixing corruption and tax evasion.

Regarding Fox, I think what he said was problematic and as you pointed out Vikrum, part of a larger cultural phenomenon of being a little less politically correct. While I agree with what you are saying Christian, unfortunately Mexico is where it is geographically and politically and when Fox makes statements that have to do with the U.S., he is going to have to play American politics. That’s just the way it is. Working with Sec. Rice on this as well as others in this administration to lessen the damage of his words and keep his message simple will be helpful, however probably not what will satisfy the likes of Sharpton and Jackson. Exactly what sort of lemonade do you think is going to come from this?
 

Miguel,

You wrote:

"In many countries in Lat Am, the tax base is small and the majority of the people cannot do without evading their responsibilites. Otherwise they could not pay their dues. If you increase taxes, you are increasing prices (in some cases) and that is a direct burden on the tax base. The people live with so little a day that if you take that much away, it becomes a question of existance and not of disposable income."

Yeah I think what the Times is saying is that they need to collect taxes better, not actually increase taxation rates. I didn't state that very well in my post. I do agree with you, but I think it's kind of ridiculous that Bolivia had absolutely no income tax for so long. Also the informal economy is huge all around the region and most street vendors, etc. pay no taxes. Interestingly, microcredit institutions are giving loans to small business with the knowledge that they will not pay taxes.

Anon,

What sector of the World Bank does your girlfriend work? Does she deal with Latin America? I ask because I am trying to get my foot in the door there at some point in the near future.

You ask what lemonade could come of it? Well, I think Fox working with black leaders will be a good thing for racism as a whole. Progress, a little bit at a time.
 

I completely agree that Fox shouldn't have made the comment - it was stereotyping stupidity at its best (or worst), and something that all public figures should avoid. I agree with Sequeira in his observation that it is not surprising that it came from a Latin American leader.

That being said, I know that I could find myself making a similar statement. There's a considerable amount of truth to it.

If you know me, than you know that I am one of the least racist people around, and if I have prejudices, I am open about them.

That's the problem I have with the amount of emphasis placed on politically correctness. I find that there is too much pressure to simply mask prejudice, as opposed to having it out in the open and dealing with it properly (i.e. getting past racial discourse and looking at race relations concretely).

Getting back to Fox. His childish simplification of race issues doesn't necessarily make him a racist. It simply demonstrates that race and racism, as Gomez mentions, is more out in the open in Latin America (for better or worse, I am not quite sure).

This propensity to use labels does not just revolve around race. Nicknames, such as flaco, gordo, pelado, peludo, colorado, cabeza/zon, etc, are ingrained in what is a very open society regarding physical attributes.

If we are going to deal with racism properly, I think we have to confront people who hold the naive assumption that speaking in a politically correct manner is the best way.
 

Christian,

You wrote: "racism exists at the same levels in North America, but that it is not publicly acceptable to make racist comments. Thus, people are just as racist but cannot express this publicly."

I disagree. First of all, the fact that you cannot publicly make racist comments in the United States means a lot – and is not something to be taken lightly. One of the first steps in combating racism is calling people what they want to be called. Americans of African descent prefer to be called "African American" or "black" – not "Negro" or the infamous n-word. This also means not using words like "fag," "dyke," "chink," etc.

Don't misinterpret what I am saying: I am not against freedom of speech. But I do think that we should call people what they want to be called. The fact that you cannot publicly refer to blacks as the n-word or gays as "fags" is a good thing.

This is a big contrast to Latin America. When I visited Mexico City I hung out with white members of the upper class. A common term of insult is "indiorante" – a word that is a mix of "indio" (Indian) and "ignorante" (ignorant). This was completely acceptable, even in public. In fact, I even heard white Mexicans use this term in front of indigenous people!

You may argue something along the lines of, "Well, many white Americans have contempt for non-whites but will not say anything due to political correctness. White Mexicans feel similarly but they do not have PC restraints." I disagree.
I have found racist commentary a lot more frequent in Latin America than in the United States - this is a reflection of attitude not of political correctness.

I think that if you are not white, Latin America can be difficult. Christian, do you think Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Chile, and Costa Rica would have been so easy if you were a Chinese woman? What if you were a Sikh man with a turban? What if you were a Mayan woman or a Nigerian man?

Time and time again, I have met non-white people who have experienced harassment and discrimination in Latin America. A few examples:

I have a Chinese American friend who lived in San Jose, Costa Rica. She reported that she was constantly referred to as "la chinita" even when she told people her name. She would go to bars and the bartenders would say things like, "Qué querés, china?" Once she had stopped at a gas station and a young boy walked up to her, stared for about five minutes, pointed, and they yelled "Chinita! Chinita!" She never experienced anything like this in the United States.

In Costa Rica, I was asked absurd questions about India and Indians: "Do Indians think that cows are equal to Jesus? Is the Kama Sutra the 'Hindu bible'? Do they have flying carpets in India?"

In Mexico, I saw a country in which white people publicly treated non-whites with contempt – and this was acceptable. For example, when I was in line or in a market, the
white Mexicans would cut me expecting me to yield (presumably because their darker countrymen have yielded to them when they have done this in the past). It was almost as if white skin gave them the license to treat their darker countrymen badly.

I have a dark-skinned Indian (Asian Indian) friend who lives in Mexico. She told me that whenever she walks into places that "are supposed to be frequented by whites" – places like Starbucks, upscale bars, or fancy stores - she is stared at by the upper-crust patrons.

In fact, there are a good number of people in Mexico City who are white and recently-poor – these people originally came from families of means but have lost their money due to Mexico's underdevelopment. They have lost their money within the last twenty years. Despite the fact that most of these people are not doing well economically, they take pride in "having a good family" and having white skin. The sad thing is that many (non-white) people on the street see these once-aristocratic Mexicans as better due to their white skin and their Spanish pedigree.

I realize that all of my evidence is anecdotal and you could easily give me anecdotes describing American racism. Anecdotes aside, the civil rights movement in the U.S. has had a lot more force than in Latin America. On many American college campuses you will find people of all races. The U.S. military is, in many ways, a model for racial harmony.

I think that one of the biggest differences between the United States and Latin America is that there is a public political discourse on race in the U.S. Because of the political discourse, it would not be acceptable to yell "chinita!" or to cut in line because you are white.

With all of that said, I am not suggesting that Latin America is like Nazi Germany. In my experience, I've met many Latinos who are hypocritical in a good way. Example: a Panamanian friend of indigenous descent once told me that she "hopes her children do not marry blacks." Yet all of her brothers have married black women and she adores her nieces and nephews! Additionally, a lot of the Latin American orientalism (e.g. Asians are mysterious, Indians all practice Kama Sutra) is not rooted not in hatred but in ignorance of the rest of the world.
 

Vikrum,

Fundamentally I don't disagree with you, but I will offer some counter-arguments and anecdotes because I will stand by my original point, which is that I don't believe that Latin Americans are fundamentally more racist than Americans, because as Diego said, for better or for worse, they are more open about physical descriptions of people.

You said: "One of the first steps in combating racism is calling people what they want to be called. Americans of African descent prefer to be called "African American" or "black" – not "Negro" or the infamous n-word. This also means not using words like "fag," "dyke," "chink," etc."

What is interesting here is that this is constantly evolving. So while it was acceptable to call African-Americans Negroes and Coloreds back in the 50s and 60s, it is unacceptable today. Also, African-American is often used incorrectly despite its PC-ness. Same goes with the term Oriental to describe Asians. Many Americans of Iranian descent prefer to be called Persians despite the inconsistency of this label. Basically what this boils down to is that on a certain level, you might not even know what is politically correct and you might be offensive without any intention. This is exacerbated with all the self-segregation that occurs in America. So while I agree with you that there are people of all races on college campuses, think about how self-segregated they are. This I think is worse than misusing a label, with no racist intentions.

You wrote: "Christian, do you think Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Chile, and Costa Rica would have been so easy if you were a Chinese woman? What if you were a Sikh man with a turban? What if you were a Mayan woman or a Nigerian man?"

A lot of your points involved staring at people who were darker or Asian. I think people tend to stare at those who they rarely come into contact with. For example, when I lived in Chile, an extremely homogenous country, I rarely saw any black people. So every 2 or 3 weeks, when I saw a black person on a bus, I would instinctively stare because of the fact that I hadn't seen a black person in so long. So I would say the same would happen if a Sikh were in Uruguay. I would hesitate to assume that they would get harrassed, however. Another example: Bolivia is 60 percent indigenous. Hence, walking around La Paz you are constantly running into Aymara women dressed traditionally. An Aymara woman walking down the streets of Manhattan or Buenos Aires would probably elicit stares because of the novelty of it. Likewise, a black person would not be out of place in Sao Paulo but would elicit stares in Montevideo. I would hesitate to characterize this as racism, however.

You wrote: "I have a Chinese American friend who lived in San Jose, Costa Rica. She reported that she was constantly referred to as "la chinita" even when she told people her name. She would go to bars and the bartenders would say things like, "Qué querés, china?" Once she had stopped at a gas station and a young boy walked up to her, stared for about five minutes, pointed, and they yelled "Chinita! Chinita!" She never experienced anything like this in the United States.

In Costa Rica, I was asked absurd questions about India and Indians: "Do Indians think that cows are equal to Jesus? Is the Kama Sutra the 'Hindu bible'? Do they have flying carpets in India?""

To illustrate a point, let me run down the nicknames of all of my friends in Chile (these were nicknames that replaced their names, and acquantances would use these monikers also). Simio (ape), Caballo (horse), Croata (Croatian), Rana (frog), Chancho (pig), Guaton (big belly), Chino (Chinese), Chico (small), Nes (Short for japones, Japanese), Tio Buchecha (Uncle Cheeks - because he is old and has big cheeks), and on and on. All of these nicknames are in reference to their physical appearance, and became endearing. Can you imagine calling someone Horse-face or Ape in the States? (My nickname was Chancho - pig, because they pretended that I was gaining weight) Hence I would hesitate to call the Chinita things as racist - just as I was referred to as "gringo" or "flaco" or "macho" by strangers.

Finally, I am pretty sure that those ridiculous questions did not have malicious intent. I have been asked in the States by Ivy League educated people whether we ate Tacos in Colombia, etc etc. I have been called Paco, Pablo Burrito, Spictian (rhymes with Christian), wetback, drug dealer, Juan Valdez, etc etc. Ignorance has amused me, but it has never bothered me. I guess it's a question of how you are going to take it. If you felt insecure by being one of the darkest people in Costa Rica, then rather than focusing on how you perceive people treating you, you can help educate those who have never met an Indian before.

Hence why I laughed when my uncle's girlfriend asked me if I got sick of eating hamburgers all of the time in the States.
 

Christian,

You wrote: "What is interesting here is that this is constantly evolving. So while it was acceptable to call African-Americans Negroes and Coloreds back in the 50s and 60s, it is unacceptable today. Also, African-American is often used incorrectly despite its PC-ness. Same goes with the term Oriental to describe Asians. Many Americans of Iranian descent prefer to be called Persians despite the inconsistency of this label. Basically what this boils down to is that on a certain level, you might not even know what is politically correct and you might be offensive without any intention. This is exacerbated with all the self-segregation that occurs in America. So while I agree with you that there are people of all races on college campuses, think about how self-segregated they are. This I think is worse than misusing a label, with no racist intentions."

Of course "this" is constantly evolving. Yet that does not mean that my argument is flawed. What I argued (which you did not address directly) is that it is a good thing that people do not say things like "indiorante" in front of indigenous people in the United States. It is a good thing that people do not say "stupid negrito" in front of people of African descent.

I agree with you that there is a lot of self-segregation on college campuses. But I also offered an alternative: the American military.

Yet in my experience, I saw more racial segregation in Latin America than in the United States. For example, a lot of American universities are segregated, but at least there is diversity. Brazil is a very diverse nation, yet the universities are almost entirely white. African and indigenous Brazilians do not have the same educational access as white Brazilians.

The northeast of Brazil is predominantly African and mulatto. When I lived in Natal I visited the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, and noticed that almost all of the students were white. That says something.

I saw the same thing at UNAM, one of the better universities in Mexico. When I walked around the UNAM campus, I did not see many indigenous or dark-skinned people. Most people were middle class and white.

You wrote: "I think people tend to stare at those who they rarely come into contact with."

You missed my point. People stare in Latin America if someone is "not in their place." If a Tzotzil-speaking Indian woman walks into a five-star hotel in Mexico City, she will be stared at because she is not in her place. In Latin America – to an enormous extent – race and class are intertwined.

You wrote that black people would not be stared at in Brazil. Here’s a true story: when the former black mayor of Rio de Janeiro Benedita da Silva walked into a five-star hotel, the staff mistook her for a maid. Why? She was not immediately recognized as the "Mayor of Rio." The underlying assumption (something that is deeply ingrained in the Brazilian psyche) was that a Black woman could not be a guest in a five-star hotel. In other very similar scenarios, white Brazilians would start speaking with the person in English thinking that a black person with money must be a foreigner.

I recommend two interesting books: David Helwig's "African American Reflections on Brazil’s Racial Paradise" and "Blacks and Whites in Sao Paulo Brazil 1888-1988" by George R. Andrews, which is quite fair and well-researched. I also recommend two NPR articles on race in Brazil:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/
story.php?storyId=3934715

and

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/
story.php?storyId=4050541.

You wrote: "Likewise, a black person would not be out of place in Sao Paulo but would elicit stares in Montevideo. I would hesitate to characterize this as racism, however."

Not to be pedantic, but there Sao Paulo is a very white city and Montevideo has more people of African descent than Sao Paulo (proportionally). So that is a bad example.

You wrote: "Hence I would hesitate to call the Chinita things as racist - just as I was referred to as "gringo" or "flaco" or "macho" by strangers."

However you, Christian Gomez, may feel, I think that most Chinese Americans and Chinese nationals would not like being referred to as "chinita" all the time.

Let me reiterate one point: in a city like New York, it is not uncommon to see black businessmen or non-whites in fancy restaurants. While Boston is a very white city, most people will not stare at a non-white person if he enters a five-star hotel or a gourmet-eating establishment.

Christian, you speak excellent Spanish, you are white, and you are a man. If you walked around Mexico, the common people would assume that you are a member of the Mexican upper class. You would be treated better than someone with darker skin and you would be considered more attractive (since the standard of beauty in Latin America is European). In short, you would benefit.

The United States is far from perfect. But white Americans do not cut darker-skinned Americans when they are waiting in line - they do not feel that being white gives them license to cut their darker-skinned countrymen (as is the case in Mexico).

Americans generally accept the idea that one can be rich and of any race. A well-dressed black man could walk into a five-star hotel in New York, Boston, or Philadelphia without a hitch. In Brazil (I mention Brazil because I have studied it) and other Latin American countries, blacks, indigenous people, and other non-whites are made to feel they do not belong in places "they are not supposed to frequent." This happens all over the world, but it is far worse in Latin America than the United States.
 

Vikrum,

I think it would impossible to know if North Americans are more/less racist than South Americas. What I do know, however, is that racism existed and still exists in both regions for a long time. But due to the lack of clear-cut, visible, state-sponsored racist legislations, many South Americans fail to recognize their own racist attitudes. Instead, they are quick
to point their finger to the pre-civil rights US, happy to remind others that in their countries Blacks and Whites always drank water from the same fountain.

Reality is much more complex. South America remains a very racist and class-conscious society where
institutional and structural discrimination are all too pervasive, while the US (despite civil rights victories and a culture of political correctedness) still have a long way to go.

I grew up in Brazil, so it is one society I know well. In my view, the notion that the county is a racial
democracy where blacks and whites live in harmony under conditions of equality is absurd. Racial inequality is pervasive (it has been documented) and the diffusion of anti-black attitudes and stereotypes
are widespread.

For decades, Brazilian soap operas only portrayed Blacks as ‘maids’ or ‘servants.’ Playboy magazine (au!) never had a black Brazilian on its cover—and I don’t think there is a scarcity of beautiful black women there. Even back in the days (early 1900-s) when the soccer leagues were forming, black players were not encouraged to play (I read about this somewhere; I can get the source later) so they would put “po’ de arroz’ (some sort of white powder) on their faces in a failed attempt to fool the crowds which labeled those players ‘po de arroz.’ I could go on with countless examples…

I think what’s also important to keep in mind is that discrimination and racial inequality in Brazil, by and large, was not imposed by racist legislation (in contrast to the American South prior to the civil
rights movement, or South Africa). State-mandated laws, as George Anrews argues, usually make discrimination more rigid, inflexible and visible. They also make it easier for people to
mobilize since you have a clear ‘target.’ (Racist laws, in the case of South Africa). In contrast,
Brazil’s racism and discrimination, left to more arbitrary actions from individuals than actual policies, are more inconsistent and unpredictable; it follows that in the absence of major or overt state-mandated racist legislation, most whites doubt its existence and blacks have a harder time organizing
around specific ‘targets.’

If you read the scholarship coming out of Brazil, you will see that there are two major schools of thought on this issue. One is based on the work of Gilberto Freyre, who popularized the myth of ‘racial
democracy.’ As far as I could understand him, Brazil’s extensive miscegenation (a word that every
Brazilian schoolchild learns before fifth grade) dissolved whatever prejudice the Europeans might have
brought while producing a large population of mixed race. According to Freyre, quoting now directly from
his work “this harmony of races formed the basis for the broad democratization of Brazilian society.” This idea was of course very popular during the dictatorship. Freyre was a right-wing supporter of military rule, so anybody that questioned the ‘racial democracy’ idea was labeled a communist or an anti-nationalist. One of the critics was Florestan
Fernandes, whose ideas, by and large, I sympathize with. He wrote a number of books and articles
challenging the racial democracy. The military saw his criticisms as an act of subversion and he left the
country in exile.

With re-democratization in the 80s, he returned to Brazil (to Sao Paulo) and joined the Worker’s Party (not surprisingly…Lula’s administration has been the first one to identify the issue of racism and discrimination as real). Both scholars, as far as I can tell, differ markedly on their views of slavery.

Fernandes sees it as inherently hierarchical system which, quoting him, “ implanted prejudice and a strong sense of racial superiority in the hearts of white Brazilians.” I fully agree with this. This sense of superiority is still very pervasive. Needless to say,
the ills of slavery crippled Blacks as a people and put them at a comparative disadvantage to compete
against whites for jobs, education etc….

Freyre disagrees, of course and see slavery as a positive force and influence on Brazil’s social and
cultural development.

I think is it also important to realize that the heritage of slavery cannot and should not be used to
explain everything. Most white Brazilians would probably use it to justify the status quo. In the
process, they overlook the real present-day discrimination that keeps preventing blacks from
moving up. There are also other historical development, aside from slavery and its abolition that
I think we need to pay attention to—examples: urbanization, industrialization, skewed land
distribution etc…

I think somebody like the intellectual, singer, song-writer Caetano Veloso—to me, one of the greatest minds that the country has produced— is quite right to say (as he does so beautifully in his album “Noites do Norte: Live in Bahia”) that the legacy of slavery remains a crucially distinctive aspect of Brazilian national identity; but, Brazilians must be mindful that discrimination still exists in present day.
 

My comments on this subject have not been academically based.

Sergio and Vikrum, I commend you for your insights in Brazil, especially taken from an rigorous analytical perspective.
 

Hello,

I was directed to this blog by Vikrum, as it relates to an article that I recently posted to my blog, concerning the "Colonial Mentality" in Mexico.

After reading the debates here, two things are obvious to me (1) racism remains a serious social problem throughout Lat Am. (2) The precise form and aetiology of racism differs dramatically from country to country.

Vikrum noted that he came across latent and overt signs of racism everywhere he went in Latin America, and I do not challenge this perception. Perhaps I would only like to drill down a bit further, to look underneath the surface.

I will talk about Mexico, because that is really the only country that I have intimate knowledge of. In order for the outsider to understand the complexities of "race" relations in Mexico, it is necessary to understand a little history, some psychology, and some sociology.

Mexico is the only one of the "Big Three" countries (Arg, Bra, Mex) in Latin America that does not have a European-descended majority. In this regard, Mexico is much more like Bolivia or Peru. This places Mexico in a rather unique situation. Since before Independence, Mexico has always been a majority-brown (Mestizo and Indígena) country. After Independence, the mestizos, who are mostly brown-skinned, came to power. So you would think that the Mestizos would set things up so that people of color, who are i the majority, would occupy all or most of the positions of power and privilege in society. And this is precisely what happened. But then, something else started to happen. If you read Wikipedia's definition of "Colonial Mentality," or better yet, read Samuel Ramos' "El Perfil del Hombre y la Cultura en México," you will begin to understand what happened. The Mestizo is a colonial being, brought into existence by the violent conquest of one society by another. Thus, the Mestizo consciously or subconsciously believes that "European" or "White" is better. So the Mestizos that came to power perpetuated the colonial mentality. They would only marry European women, they adopted French manners and customs. In fact, they imported large numbers of European immigrants mostly from Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, in order to "whiten" the ruling class. Put bluntly, the ruling Mestizos thought "We really want to have a kick-ass country, with factories, and railroads, hospitals and universities. But we are a country of ignorant brown Mestizos and Indios, we are just to stupid and ugly to be able to build such a kick-ass country! We want our country to be like Germany or France!"

So the self-loathing Mestizo rulers imported mostly Eastern European doctors, lawyers, engineers, and professors, and intermarried with them, creating the class of "white" Mexicans that Vikrum came in to contact with in Mexico City.

Do you see the irony here? These Eatern Europeans were not particularly racist. In fact, they were idealists: socialists, Trotskiites, etc., who saw an opportunity to uplift a downtrodden country, participating in its development. Ah, but the Mestizos just saw the white skin and the blue eyes. They wanted their children to be white, to rule all over the ignorant brownies. The poor idealist Eastern Europeans did not know what they were getting themselves into. They were to become an inextricable element in the Mestizos' colonical inferiority complex.

So today, when you see those "white" euro-preps in Mexico City, remember that some of their grandparents or great-grandparents were probably little brown men and women just ordinary Mexicans, that wanted to "whiten" their progeny in order to get rid of any evidence of their dreaded indigenous and african ancestry in future generations.

Thus, although the original cause of the Colonial Mentality can be traced all the way back to the Spanish conquest, the proximal cause of much of the social structure that you see in Mexico today can be traced to the 19th and early 20th Century Mestizos' decision to import Europeans and intermarry with them, thus creating a ruling group of Euromestizos.
 

After I wrote the previous post, I realized that it was incomplete and I there were several things that I needed to add. First off, as I mentioned, Mexico is a predominantly Mestizo country. Those native Mexicans who can trace a "pure" European bloodline probably amount to less than 5% of the population. So just about everybody has some "indio" in him/her. So the people that say things like "indiorante" are not really referring to a racial attribute. This can be confusing for those who come from a country where races are well-defined, such as the U.S. or Western European countries. In Mexico "Indio" has come to mean basically, "backwards, ignorant, uneducated, and poor." I think that in many ways it is kind of the equivalent of "red-neck" or "hick" in the U.S., terms which I also find offensive.

To show that, while offensive, "indio" is not really a racial epithet in the way you might think it is, consider this: some middle-class brown-skinned mestizos call poor, rural and uneducated light-skinned people from States such as Michoacan or Sinaloa Indios! So this is what I mean, although the latent racist background is there, in the Mexican context, race and class are often turned upside based on what we might expect from our understanding of race relations in the U.S. A lot of it just has to do with the Colonial Mentality, as I explained. Most people in Mexico just think European ways are better. Take that tzotzil speaking woman, put her in a Chanel skirt-suit, teach her some phrases of upper-crust Spanish, and she can be a political leader in Mexico. If you don't believe me, take a look at some of the MPs in Mexico. Some of them are dark-skinned women, but they have bleached blond hair, wear expensive jewelry, and drive BMWs. Crazy, isn't it?
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Hi people
I do not know what to give for Christmas of the to friends, advise something ....
 

Hello. Good day
Who listens to what music?
I Love songs Justin Timberlake and Paris Hilton
 

2019.10.15台北酒店上班就業服務處將於10月15日至18辦徵才酒店工作活動，為所有大學生、上班族想要酒店兼差求職的朋友提供20家知名便服店、禮服店、制服店，共釋出300個酒店打工機會。知名酒店經紀梁小尊/梁曉尊指出，知名台北八大行業為近幾年熱門的酒店小姐產業，在推廣[早脫貧]口號行動之外也與各大知名酒店經紀公司合作提供小姐配套性服務，釋出的酒店兼職職缺並非強迫性,增取更多人力人才，目前市場數據公司民調指出:是求職者普遍年輕群喜愛快速賺錢的方式。
 

2020.02.21新冠肺炎疫情打亂酒店工作謀職步調，也造成不少酒店上班的酒店小姐運衝擊。根據知名酒店經紀公司「酒店打工發展調查」，年前正在謀職比例從36.7%驟降至19.5%，大幅下滑13.7%；不考慮換工作的比例也從年前14.2%升高至22.1%。上班族酒店兼差所屬有16.8%延後開工、14.2%放無薪假。2019年後是上班族轉換酒店兼職高峰，但調查發現，近一個月有38.8%有計畫轉職，和年前2020年1月21日公布的的40.6%相比，降低6.7%。且年前就開始找工作的比例，也從31.8%驟降至14.7%；不考慮陪睡(性交易) 、顏射(精子射在臉上) 、口交口爆(精子射在嘴裡) 、戴套肛交進行交易專業精緻化等行為的比例則從年前的40.7%降低至22.1%。
 

2020.03.29酒店工作要在這當中賺大錢不是不可能，只是你要克服的就是所有消費者的人性，酒店上班簡單說：就是要讓消費者覺得你『物超所值』。所有的八大行業包含酒店經紀都是服務業，要踏進去要有把客人當成花錢大爺的心理準備。也就是說酒店打工要先把自尊、面子都放在家裡面再去上班。八大行業酒店PT裏頭都或多或少跟喝酒間扯上關係，酒喝下去原本斯文的變成野蠻不講理；可是他還是客人，你還是服務他的人，要做服務業請先做好酒店上班心理建設。
代價與報酬，兩者之間是相對的。
你要賺別人五倍十倍的錢，背後付出的就是五倍十倍的代價。
天下沒有白吃的午餐。

 

2020.05.06新冠肺炎疫情肆虐，由於先前有台北某知名酒店工作酒店女公關酒店S確診，因此指揮中心下令全台酒店上班暫時停業，連帶造成許多小姐生計出現困難。不過也正因為如此，大家開始討論八大行業酒店內秘辛、玩法、價位等等，一些不為人知的事情，浮上檯面；一名酒店小姐就分享，曾遇到狐臭味超重的客人。根據【酒店PT】鍵盤大檸檬網站真人真事，一名酒店打工酒店小姐因為經濟困難到酒店上班，卻遇上「超級狐仙」客人，對方味道濃醇不香，期間不斷手舉高、腋下對著她；回家洗澡完，她發現身上仍有客人的狐臭味，因此再次坐檯時，請求對方不要再點她檯了，結果男客居然犯賤，每回來都點她。隨著酒店停業，想必該位小姐暫時不會再被男客的狐臭味侵犯了。回顧先前本刊記者調查，台北市合法登記的酒吧及視聽歌唱等特種行業約30家，以每家平均40個包廂（桌數），單店每日營收60萬元至240萬元為計，停業一個月，損失最高飆破20億元，若計入不合法的地下酒店，損失將逾30億元。而有業者為了求生存，因此轉為「地下化」，更有酒店女公關轉戰應召市場，宜蘭甚至出現付1500元就能獲得全套服務亂象。目前台灣疫情逐漸趨緩，對於酒店何時解禁，中央流行疫情指揮中心指揮官陳時中表示，解禁沒有時間表，但只要大家願意好好配合，那開放的時間就越快。
 

酒店小姐也想轉戰SWAG賺得比較多2020.12.17付費平台「【酒店小姐】【酒店公關】也想轉戰Swag」充斥素人自導自演的性愛影片，片中的直播主全程無碼演出，時我在酒店工作的日子內容尺度更堪比日本A片，只要粉絲願意付費，就可直接下載觀賞。就有網友納悶不敢來酒店打工的原因，SWAG上的台女作風大膽，連露臉也沒在怕，比起私下酒店兼差接S的酒店小姐，毫不遮掩，「難道swagger有比酒店妹好賺嗎？」「寧可做swagger不去做酒店是什麼心態？酒店兼差不是一個複雜的工作環境？」有網友在PTT八卦板發問，「聽說【酒店上班】酒店妹月收12萬起跳，差不多是一般小公司副總等級了。最近很流行拍動作片放上swag給人家看，都被看光了，臉也露了，難道swagger有比酒店妹好賺嗎？同樣都是S，酒店妹至少隱密性高，不用動腦剪片想梗，swagger為什麼之前都不做酒店？」其他網友留言「喝酒傷身啊，上床不會怎樣吧，而且應該是跟她的熟人」、「工時長，還要一直吃肝藥vs藝術工作」、「swagger可以不用陪噁男啊」、「因為素質太差，連酒店都不收」、「拍片自己可以爽，酒店只能一直喝傷身」、「Swagger很多都修圖的」、「只有AV淪落去風俗的，風俗到AV是人生升級」。不少老司機點出差異，直言「跟男友／炮友上床還有錢賺，屌打酒店賣笑」、「酒店你要給醜肥宅摸，Swagger的對象可以自己選，喝太多酒也傷身體，而且日夜生活顛倒」、「一個上夜班，一個隨你喜好上班，當然後者」、「Swagger月薪不只12萬...遠超過」、「那些人出價約一次就是酒店一個月薪水了」。