Why are there no Puerto Ricans in Star Trek?
Diogenes
elsewhere. But I've decided to take the question seriously for once,
and, give an equally provocative answer: there are no Puerto Ricans in
Star Trek for the same reason that Puerto Rico may never become the
51st state of the USA. Allow me to explain.
Puerto Ricans have reached a psycological ceiling. Nationalists would
rejoice, of course, because that's what they were aiming at anyway: a
consciousness of separateness and distinctiveness which will
eventually and perhaps, very rapidly, shall be caught up by political
developments enshrining that consciousness. If Puerto Ricans living
down in the island prefer some form of Free Association or full
independence, that will be their choice, whether they would want a
little help, a little crush, or dare to walk without help. That would
be their business. And there would be no moral onus on either choice.
But that's the way that they appear to be moving to.
And there is nothing particularly wrong with that, with wanting to
join the global consortium of nations. The world is filled with
nations and the nation-state is the current paradigm of global
society. Not all nations can have their states, and there are
multinational states, as well as federated states, home to many
nationalities, and yet they function reasonably well as nation-states
- such as the USA.
What makes the USA unique, in my view, is that, at the moment of their
foundation, the Founding Fathers were able to set aside enough of
their provincial loyalty to their immediate communities and set their
eyes and loyalty to an idea greater than themselves. Although the USA
had to undergo a Civil War that tested that transcendent loyalty to
the extreme, the ideal came out triumphant and since then, slowly,
steadily, the sphere of liberty and the mindset of national
commonwealth has kept on advancing.
Puerto Ricans, however, lack that mindset of national common-wealth,
not only between them and the rest of the USA, but one might say, with
much sadness, that they lack that mindset even among themselves.
Consider the local clash of mindsets one may witness in San Juan
itself. This beautiful city is like any other US city in so many
respects. Sometimes, one can close one's eyes and see Boston or
Miami, perceiving no difference. The walk a few blocks and there you
see the Third World: poverty, low self-esteem manifested in poorly
kept neighborhoods, homes, chicken running down the street, stray
dogs. Hell, I didn't even see that in downtown Bogotá, the day I had
the privilege of visiting that also beautiful city. And believe me,
they ARE the Thirld World.
Puerto Ricans suffer from a cultural hangup that disallow their body
politic from becoming the 51st state. And please, before you jump at
me and tell me how prejudiced I am, and how I dare opine with this
way, let me tell you that I don't give a damn about how diverse and
different Puerto Ricans are from their mainland compadres. Frankly, I
don't think that the culture, the language, the religion(s), the
worldview or traditions of the Puerto Ricans pose unsurmountable
barriers for the the Island to become a state. On the contrary, these
are true strengths that Puerto Ricans, as a people have been already
bringing into the cultural American mix and that would become even
stronger were Puerto Rico to become a state. I would welcome that.
No no no. The "cultural hangup" I am talking about has to do with the
native inability of their individual entrepeneurship, of private
initiative and creativity, to reach a critical mass that would propel
the society forward without depending on government handouts so much,
or in the public sector's initiative. The majority of Puerto Ricans,
it seems to me, have forfeited these spheres to the government and
favor only those politicians who would expand the public sphere, and
see that it is the role of politicians to deliver goodies to the
people, under the guise of social justice. This view affects
politician of all parties just the same. And if Puerto Ricans want
that, fine with me.
However, the downside of all this is that Puerto Ricans have forgotten
how to build communities, and thus, their sense of "common-wealth",
hasn't reached the proportion needed to impel them forward. This
mentality is not compatible with the cement keeping the USA together.
Rather, it is a mentality of those who want to go their own way. I
say that they have to be let go their own way and receive the freedom
to find out for themselves what is it that they want.
I am pessimistic that Puerto Rico will move forward culturally,
socially and economically under any political status if the present
cultural hangup is not removed. Puerto Rico would have a chance as an
independent country only if their individuals and their communities
are empowered. But I don't see that happening. Puerto Ricans, after
500 years of history, remain unsure and insecure of themselves.
Finally, Puerto Rico doesn't fit as a state because Puerto Ricans are
presently unable to render loyalty to an idea greater than themselves.
Heck, they are not even a solid national community themselves. How
could they be a state?
And that's why there are no Puerto Ricans in Star Trek either, for to
make it into a United World you have to owe loyalty first to a common
humanity and then only to your place of origin and then to the
different communities you may belong to. And in the 25th century,
Puerto Ricans would not have yet achieved that consciousness, is their
present state and pace is any measure and sign of things to come.
++Demostenes++
==============
...still looking...
abaergao
Primero, estoy de acuerdo que en PR, hay una carencia patologica de
espiritu empresarial. Que no quiere decir que todo puertorriquenho sea
vagonete e indiferente...pero en terminos generales, en nuestro
quehacer, no se busca la creatividad y la excelencia. Nuestra mayor
ambicion, en terminos muy generales, es tener un trabajito con el
gobierno, que nos page el sustento y nos de ciertos beneficios. Esa
mentalidad de empleado publico, y esa falta de ambicion ha sido
alimentada hasta cierto punto por los fondos federales que se reparten
a tutiplen. Esa "asistencia nutricional" genera una consciencia de
vagancia que nos limita como nacion. Si la necesidad es la madre de la
invencion...la abundancia es tia de la vagancia.
Los maximos exponentes de esta conducta conformista, hacen la
grandisima labor de ir a votar cada 4 anhos por el PNP; No para hacer
un estado 51 productivo y trabajador, sino para seguir navegando la
balsa de la conveniencia.
Con estos individuos no se puede contar para hacer una NACION
INDEPENDIENTE ni para hacer un ESTADO 51. Punto.
Si convirtieramos a Puerto Rico en una republica independiente, muchos
de estos individuos se irian corriendo despavoridos a los EEUU, a
explotar su ciudadania americana para no hacer nada. Sin embargo,
muchos anexionistas buenos y trabajadores, se darian cuenta de que de
INDEPENDENCIA y SOBERANIA no se ha muerto nadie, y de que vale la pena
seguir trabajando y echando a PR pa'alante.
La independencia no sera una puerta a los EEUU que se cierra; mas bien
seria una puerta AL RESTO DEL MUNDO que se abre. Muchos anexionistas,
tal vez los mas arrodillados, pretenden enajenarnos del resto del
mundo. Para muchos el resto del mundo es EEUU.
Habra boricuas en Star Trek...pero no todos, sino los pocos que se
fajen a trabajar y entiendan que Puerto Rico es patria y es universo.
skept...@my-deja.com (Diogenes) wrote in message news:<989e4906.01121...@posting.google.com>...
El Marques
news:989e4906.01121...@posting.google.com...
> Perhaps you've already seen the start of that
> tasteless joke elsewhere.
Just to clarify, Rossana Biggs, the half-klingon/half human lieutenant on
Voyager, is Puerto Rican, as was her character "Torres"! Of course, only
true "Trekkies" would know about this, since she didn't keep a Puerto Rican
Flag CD hanging from the ships windshield!
El Marques
h0mi
Diogenes wrote:
>
> Perhaps you've already seen the start of that tasteless joke
> elsewhere.
Which joke?
> But I've decided to take the question seriously for once,
> and, give an equally provocative answer: there are no Puerto Ricans in
> Star Trek for the same reason that Puerto Rico may never become the
> 51st state of the USA. Allow me to explain.
Is it that important to you to have Puerto Ricans appear in Star trek?
Are you absolutely certain that of the hundreds of TV episodes including
cartoons spanning now 5 different series in 5 different decades, not one
character was ever played by a Puerto Rican?
Personally I don't think it's much of an issue that one specific series
like this seems to be unable to employ Puerto Ricans. Considering the
second movie of this series and several episodes involved a very
prominant Latino actor, nevermind always having an asian or black actor
prominant during the episodes in the 60s or the first few movies that
came out, I'd think Trek should be more of a model of how a
"multicultural" group of actors can be successful commercially.
As far as Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state, the powers that control
that are not the same as the powers that keep latinos off Star Trek. If
that were so I'd be very frightened of the prospect of people who
control a science fiction television series having so much control over
people's lives.
Oh... also... Puerto Ricans total what, 6 million people (if that much)
out of 280 million?
h0mi
4th generation Puerto Rican btw.
Kind of blows Diogenes' theory in the water. Took me a while to find
this out on google, but <shrug>
Diogenes
> Diogenes wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps you've already seen the start of that tasteless joke
> > elsewhere.
>
> Which joke?
A bad one. No need to repeat it.
> > But I've decided to take the question seriously for once,
> > and, give an equally provocative answer: there are no Puerto Ricans in
> > Star Trek for the same reason that Puerto Rico may never become the
> > 51st state of the USA. Allow me to explain.
>
> Is it that important to you to have Puerto Ricans appear in Star trek?
I think that you missed the whole point. The Star Trek intro was
meant as an attention getter. Nothing more.
Although Lt. B'elana Torres was half Klingon, half Hispanic, she was
never identified as Puerto Rican. Judging by a retrospective episode
(had to do with her getting cold feet over her impeding marriage to
Lt. Tom Parish), she was never identified as Puerto Rican. The
impression was that her father was Mexican or Mesoamerican. But it
doesn't matter, doesn't it?
If you guys get all entangled on this detail and believe that this was
the crux of my point, and that by finding a technical fault (if any)
in it allows you to leave untouched the question of the critical
cultural deficiencies of Puerto Rican residents, deficiences that
apparently impair their collective ability to request admission to the
Union, and that also provides an unsympathetic Congress with more
ammunition to say "NO" to change, hey, you guys are part of the
problem, as I see it. No part of the solution.
> Are you absolutely certain that of the hundreds of TV episodes including
> cartoons spanning now 5 different series in 5 different decades, not one
> character was ever played by a Puerto Rican?
This is not my argument. Read again.
> Personally I don't think it's much of an issue that one specific series
> like this seems to be unable to employ Puerto Ricans. Considering the
> second movie of this series and several episodes involved a very
> prominant Latino actor, nevermind always having an asian or black actor
> prominant during the episodes in the 60s or the first few movies that
> came out, I'd think Trek should be more of a model of how a
> "multicultural" group of actors can be successful commercially.
This is not my argument. Read again.
> As far as Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state, the powers that control
> that are not the same as the powers that keep latinos off Star Trek. If
> that were so I'd be very frightened of the prospect of people who
> control a science fiction television series having so much control over
> people's lives.
This is not my argument. Read again.
> Oh... also... Puerto Ricans total what, 6 million people (if that much)
> out of 280 million?
<SIGH>
This is not my argument. Read again.
+Diogenes+
======
...still looking...
El Marques
> If you guys get all entangled on this detail and believe that
> this was the crux of my point, and that by finding a technical
> fault (if any) in it allows you to leave untouched the question
> of the critical cultural deficiencies of Puerto Rican residents,
> deficiences that apparently impair their collective ability to
> request admission to the Union, and that also provides an
> unsympathetic Congress with more ammunition to say "NO"
> to change, hey, you guys are part of the problem, as I see it.
> No part of the solution.
The problem with your argument is the same one which has been repeated ad
nauseum by the independejistas in PR for year, and it fails for the same
reason. You talk about cultural differences or "deficiencies" as you choose
to call them, but the statehood issue has nothing to do with "people" but
rather with "land" and "government". Let me give you the short version, the
Puerto Rican people have been US citizens for almost one hundred years now,
in spite of all those "deficiencies". Statehood will have no change in the
status of any Puerto Rican, it would just affect his rights as a US citizen
and where he will be allowed to enjoy them. This is not about granting the
"people" of PR a status, because we are full fledged citizens with all the
same rights as any other born anywhere else in the US, as long as we are
outside of Puerto Rico. If we stay in PR, we are deprived of representation
in the House and Senate, and we are deprived of our right to elect our
President. But it is not Puerto Ricans who are not allowed to vote for
President, for example, but ANYONE who moves down here, no matter where in
the US he was born, or where his parents were from. The US Congress created
a "Black Hole" for Puerto Rico, whereby unlike any other place on this
Earth, US citizens are not allowed to vote in US elections! If you move
from New York to France, you can vote in US elections, but if you move from
New York to PR, you can't.
Even with all our "cultural deficiencies", we are citizens of the USA just
like Jimmy Carter, Muhamad Ali, Bob Vila, Oscar de la Hoya, James
Gandolfini, etc. Our "culture" is not the issue, the issue is the fact that
many of us Puerto Ricans and many of the other citizens of the US still try
to raise those "cultural differences" as an excuse to maintain a piece of
land, in this case the Island of Puerto Rico, in a political limbo forever,
while those same people who raise this specter make a life for themselves
away from the mythical land that they want to "protect" from statehood, and
their "culture" does not deprive them from being full US citizens in New
York, Chicago, Orlando, etc. Anywhere except Puerto Rico. Sure we Puerto
Ricans are "different", but am I, El Marques, the same person here in Puerto
Rico as I am when I visit my sister in Georgia? If so, why then could I
vote if chose to be "different" in Georgia and not if I remain here in PR?
Same person, same parents, same culture, same place of birth, but different
Civil Rights just because of where I choose to live? It doesn't sound right
to me. It sounds very much like "apartheid" if you look at it carefully.
El Marques
Stephen Voss
>>
>
> 4th generation Puerto Rican btw.
>
> Kind of blows Diogenes' theory in the water. Took me a while to find
> this out on google, but <shrug>
>
]
To be fair , there has never been a regular hispanic character.
Torres doesnt count because shes playing a half-klingon making any
hispanic heritage of the character a non-issue never really addressed
in the series, , she had neither hispanic nor true klingon attitudes,
beliefs, or culture...her father was even played by an anglo actor.
Beltran is hispanic but hes playing a native american.
h0mi
Diogenes wrote:
>
> h0mi <h0...@yahooo.com> wrote in message news:<3C217E71...@yahooo.com>...
> > Diogenes wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps you've already seen the start of that tasteless joke
> > > elsewhere.
> >
> > Which joke?
>
> A bad one. No need to repeat it.
>
> > > But I've decided to take the question seriously for once,
> > > and, give an equally provocative answer: there are no Puerto Ricans in
> > > Star Trek for the same reason that Puerto Rico may never become the
> > > 51st state of the USA. Allow me to explain.
> >
> > Is it that important to you to have Puerto Ricans appear in Star trek?
>
> I think that you missed the whole point. The Star Trek intro was
> meant as an attention getter. Nothing more.
>
> Although Lt. B'elana Torres was half Klingon, half Hispanic, she was
> never identified as Puerto Rican. Judging by a retrospective episode
> (had to do with her getting cold feet over her impeding marriage to
> Lt. Tom Parish), she was never identified as Puerto Rican. The
> impression was that her father was Mexican or Mesoamerican. But it
> doesn't matter, doesn't it?
You brought up the red herring, so obviously it mattered to you.
How many of the Star Trek characters were introduced in a manner so that
their ethnicity (as a human in starfleet) mattered?
> If you guys get all entangled on this detail and believe that this was
> the crux of my point, and that by finding a technical fault (if any)
You started off making your point by comparing Puerto Ricans in the US
and the question of statehood to the matter of Puerto Ricans in Star
Trek.
Your entire point was rendered invalid because of the lack of validity
in your Star Trek claim.
> in it allows you to leave untouched the question of the critical
> cultural deficiencies of Puerto Rican residents, deficiences that
> apparently impair their collective ability to request admission to the
> Union, and that also provides an unsympathetic Congress with more
> ammunition to say "NO" to change, hey, you guys are part of the
> problem, as I see it. No part of the solution.
I have a suggestion then.
Rephrase your rant into something that makes more sense and maybe next
time I'll pay more attention to the point you're attempting to make.
Otherwise, all you've done is make an invalid comparison, which causes
me to question why I ought to take the rest of your post seriously.
> > Are you absolutely certain that of the hundreds of TV episodes including
> > cartoons spanning now 5 different series in 5 different decades, not one
> > character was ever played by a Puerto Rican?
>
> This is not my argument. Read again.
It's the subject of your post. You started off your post making such
claims.
> > Personally I don't think it's much of an issue that one specific series
> > like this seems to be unable to employ Puerto Ricans. Considering the
> > second movie of this series and several episodes involved a very
> > prominant Latino actor, nevermind always having an asian or black actor
> > prominant during the episodes in the 60s or the first few movies that
> > came out, I'd think Trek should be more of a model of how a
> > "multicultural" group of actors can be successful commercially.
>
> This is not my argument. Read again.
>
> > As far as Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state, the powers that control
> > that are not the same as the powers that keep latinos off Star Trek. If
> > that were so I'd be very frightened of the prospect of people who
> > control a science fiction television series having so much control over
> > people's lives.
>
> This is not my argument. Read again.
Then why compare Puerto Ricans in the US with the Puerto Rican prescence
in Star Trek, if you're not trying to draw a parallel between the powers
that be in the US with the powers that be in the Star Trek universe?
h0mi
Unless you retain NY residency.
If you establish PR residency, you can't.
It's sort of like Washington DC actually.
<snip>
> Same person, same parents, same culture, same place of birth, but different
> Civil Rights just because of where I choose to live? It doesn't sound right
> to me. It sounds very much like "apartheid" if you look at it carefully.
It's different. I don't think the comparison is valid- whites who are
not latino who move to Puerto Rico also lose the ability to vote for
president. It's not much different than how Americans were treated in
the territories of Alaska, Hawaii, Arizna, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and the
other parts of the US that were territories prior to becoming states.
But it's not an "apartheid" system.
Diogenes
<..>
>
> The problem with your argument is the same one which has been repeated ad
> nauseum by the independejistas in PR for year, and it fails for the same
> reason.
First of all, I am not "independenjista." I am sympathetic to the
pro-statehood cause, but also skeptical. It's slipping further and
further away. And it is all because of your own fault (understand
here the nameless, collective "you").
> You talk about cultural differences or "deficiencies" as you choose
> to call them, but the statehood issue has nothing to do with "people" but
> rather with "land" and "government".
It has EVERYTHING to do with people and their own perceptions and
misperceptions of who they ARE and what they can ACCOMPLISH. There
rest is mere legalism, which I am open to accept BTW, but that when
all is said and done, SOLVES NOTHING.
> Let me give you the short version, the
> Puerto Rican people have been US citizens for almost one hundred years now,
> in spite of all those "deficiencies".
I think that this paradigm that statehooders have been using for a
while, appealing to citizenship rights and responsibilities NO LONGER
WORKS. FACE IT. Parallel attention should be given to the CULTURAL
DRIVERS that, either don't exist in Puerto Rico, or do exist, but have
not reached the "critical mass" necessary to impel the people to
recognize or to want a common future with the rest of their fellow
citizens. That consciousness of mutual destiny and common purpose IS
NOT generalized in Puerto Rico. Statehooders need to face that
failure and build procedures and institutions that create or foster
that consciousness or YOU WILL FAIL and WILL CONTINUE FAILING. And
remember, we in the States will not wait forever. Our patience will
be exhausted one day.
> Statehood will have no change in the status of any Puerto Rican, it would >just affect his rights as a US citizen and where he will be allowed to enjoy >them.
Look. I know all that. But that's no longer the point. The paradigm
behind these arguments NO LONGER SUFFICES. And I dare say, with all
due respect to their sacrifice, the argument about all those Puerto
Rican - Americans who gave their life for our values, is an emotional
argument that doesn't hold sway in Congress any more. DEEDS. We need
DEEDS, not rethoric, not poetic appeals. Congress can and will take
care of Puerto Rican veterans whether Puerto Rico is part of the US or
not. They will discharge their responsibility to them.
You need to change a cultural paradigm, a dead weight keeping many
Puerto Ricans locked into an impotent frame of mind, unaware and
untrusting of their native genius, of their private initiatives, their
sense of community and common-wealth (not in the sense of the current
political status, btw). That doesn't seem to exist in a coherent way.
Puerto Rico is akin to the inner cities in the US, or indian
reservations. I have observed the same cultural deficiencies (yes, as
I called them) in those places too. You are not unique in that sense.
But we can't cut off the reservations or our inner cities. We have
to deal with them. But we don't have to deal with Puerto Rico. We
either do it with you, or you do it by yourselves. People have to
wake up to that reality.
<..>
>
> Even with all our "cultural deficiencies", we are citizens of the USA just
> like Jimmy Carter, Muhamad Ali, Bob Vila, Oscar de la Hoya, James
> Gandolfini, etc. Our "culture" is not the issue, the issue is the fact that
> many of us Puerto Ricans and many of the other citizens of the US still try
> to raise those "cultural differences" as an excuse to maintain a piece of
> land,
Please, have in mind that I defined previously what I meant by
"cultural deficiencies" and purposefully excluded the ones you talk
about because the ones you refer to are not relevant to the debate,
and do not change the crux of the matter: Puerto Ricans have created,
sometimes with our help, sometimes in spite of our "help", a dynamic
democratic society, but the society remains unconvinced that the other
part of the recipe, local, private initiative and entrenepeneurship,
the creation and fostering of strong communities, are vital for the
society as a whole and go hand-in-hand with political liberties,
rights, and responsibilities. This is what made the US great.
Now, the people may think that the public sector must have the
principal initiative in all those social and economic areas. But
that's a deep philosophical difference. I call it a "defect" and with
reason. For you (the "collective you" again) it may be a "social
virtue". But this "virtue" is incompatible with the way societies
generally behave in the States.
Look again how much socialism and "muńocism" has affected the
political order in Puerto Rico. Take for example Rosselló. On one
side he privatizes, and on another he socialized (medicine, for
example). You can't have this schizophrenia! This drives statehood
away even further!
>in this case the Island of Puerto Rico, in a political limbo forever,
> while those same people who raise this specter make a life for themselves
> away from the mythical land that they want to "protect" from statehood, and
> their "culture" does not deprive them from being full US citizens in New
> York, Chicago, Orlando, etc. Anywhere except Puerto Rico. Sure we Puerto
> Ricans are "different", but am I, El Marques, the same person here in Puerto
> Rico as I am when I visit my sister in Georgia? If so, why then could I
> vote if chose to be "different" in Georgia and not if I remain here in PR?
<SIGH>
PLEASE, read again my original argument. I never made nor implied
what you say here. I never addressed the cultural issue in the context
you supplied above. TRY AGAIN.
Thanks,
++Demostenes++
PS
I apologize for all the typos or other errors in expression. I am
writing in a hurry and do not have time to proofread.
=========
...still looking...
XXX
>
>First of all, I am not "independenjista." I am sympathetic to the
>pro-statehood cause, but also skeptical. It's slipping further and
>further away. And it is all because of your own fault (understand
>here the nameless, collective "you").
Not really. Within PR itself, statehood still has hundreds of thousands of supporters. In the
states, there has never been a movement to admit PR as a state. In fact, historically speaking,
few states indeed were admitted easily. The vast majority had to wait, and ask and ask again
before being admitted. Why should PR be any different?
>I think that this paradigm that statehooders have been using for a
>while, appealing to citizenship rights and responsibilities NO LONGER
>WORKS. FACE IT. Parallel attention should be given to the CULTURAL
>DRIVERS that, either don't exist in Puerto Rico, or do exist, but have
>not reached the "critical mass" necessary to impel the people to
>recognize or to want a common future with the rest of their fellow
>citizens. That consciousness of mutual destiny and common purpose IS
>NOT generalized in Puerto Rico.
Well, there's more than 3 million PRs living in the states right now, do you think your
allegation holds true for them? And what about the thousands serving in uniform right now, plus
the hundreds of thousands of PR veterans? Do you think it holds true for them?
>Statehooders need to face that
>failure and build procedures and institutions that create or foster
>that consciousness or YOU WILL FAIL and WILL CONTINUE FAILING. And
>remember, we in the States will not wait forever. Our patience will
>be exhausted one day.
Listen, the reality is this: PR is a tax exempt joint where a bunch of multinational companies
operate, most prominent among them being the pharmaceuticals. Right now, 70% of all prescription
drugs in the states are produced in PR. And it should not surprise you that the pharmaceuticals
that operate here (Baxter, Beckson-Dickson, Johnson & Johnson, Astra-Zeneca, Pharmacia-Upjohn,
Bristol Myers Squibb, SmithKlineBeecham, American Home Products, to name but a few) make record
profits. Not only that, but leading US retailers, like Sam's, Penney's, Sear's, Costco and
others make tidy profits as well. In fact, more than 60% of all the profits K-Mart is making, is
from the Island. These companies would raise bloody hell if the idea of independence is
actually considered seriously. Conversely, since they came to operate in a US territory that is
tax-exempt, they would and have, objected to statehood. Which is why the status quo
predominates.
And there is absolutely no movement in Congress right now to change that.
>Look. I know all that. But that's no longer the point. The paradigm
>behind these arguments NO LONGER SUFFICES. And I dare say, with all
>due respect to their sacrifice, the argument about all those Puerto
>Rican - Americans who gave their life for our values, is an emotional
>argument that doesn't hold sway in Congress any more. DEEDS. We need
>DEEDS, not rethoric, not poetic appeals. Congress can and will take
>care of Puerto Rican veterans whether Puerto Rico is part of the US or
>not. They will discharge their responsibility to them.
>
>You need to change a cultural paradigm, a dead weight keeping many
>Puerto Ricans locked into an impotent frame of mind, unaware and
>untrusting of their native genius, of their private initiatives, their
>sense of community and common-wealth (not in the sense of the current
>political status, btw). That doesn't seem to exist in a coherent way.
You have a point. Commonwealth, after 50 years, has produced a place where 58% are below the
poverty line, 15% are illiterate, and far too many receive some kind of federal aid.
On the other hand, there is a small elite who has made out like gangbusters with this set-up.
Our present governor comes from this small yet wildly rich social group---which owns the major
local companies---and her real job is to make sure that nothing upsets this neat little deal that
makes millions for them.
You see, in the states, a guy like Henry Ford--wildy racist as he was--raised salaries so that
his employees could purchase his products. Other industrialists in the states realized that if
they paid their employees a living wage, and, rather than the hand to mouth existence common in
the 19th century, made it so that their workers could be eager consumers, their riches would
actually increase. Which is why you have such a huge middle class, enjoying creature comforts,
in the states.
But that is not the case in PR. The "powers that be" have it made here and don't have to pay
decent wages (for example, PR schoolteachers are the lowest paid in the nation; policemen's basic
salary starts off at about $1500 per month) because the Great Society programs insure that those
at the bottom will still have access to homes, food and health providers. And so, those in power
make it so tha the situation you describe occurs: a people with an identity crisis, not taking
care of their environment or themselves. This stasis plays right in to the hands of those who
have benefitted mightily off commonwealth and they will do anythin and everything possible to
make sure it stays that way.
>Puerto Rico is akin to the inner cities in the US, or indian
>reservations. I have observed the same cultural deficiencies (yes, as
>I called them) in those places too. You are not unique in that sense.
> But we can't cut off the reservations or our inner cities. We have
>to deal with them. But we don't have to deal with Puerto Rico. We
>either do it with you, or you do it by yourselves. People have to
>wake up to that reality.
Wrong answer. The reality is that, by virtue of being american citizens, PRs can move to the
states--and do--anytime they feel like it. That's why there's 3 million of us in the states
right now.
>Please, have in mind that I defined previously what I meant by
>"cultural deficiencies" and purposefully excluded the ones you talk
>about because the ones you refer to are not relevant to the debate,
>and do not change the crux of the matter: Puerto Ricans have created,
>sometimes with our help, sometimes in spite of our "help", a dynamic
>democratic society, but the society remains unconvinced that the other
>part of the recipe, local, private initiative and entrenepeneurship,
>the creation and fostering of strong communities, are vital for the
>society as a whole and go hand-in-hand with political liberties,
>rights, and responsibilities. This is what made the US great.
Here's something else that adds to the mix: The type of government that we have, was molded in
the 40s and 50s, when the liberal philosophy of government as the answer had great influence.
If you think of PR as a place where the New Deal was allowed to operate without borders, you can
understand. It's no wonder that many PRs look to government as the solution; part and parcel of
the commonwealth is that it is the government that has final say, not the citizen.
The end result is that government has wound up as the employer of last resort, it employs about a
third of the workforce, and there are more rules, regulations and laws on the book than you might
think.The end result is that local government is slow, inefficient and full of people who
obtained their jobs due to political patronage. Again, this has been extremely harmful to the
vast majority, but not to the elite at the top, which has utilized this inefficiency to slow down
their competitors when needed, while they "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" their way into doing what
they want to do.
I'll give you a quick example of how this works: Exxon had some gas station in the town of
Barranquitas polluting the living shit out of the place. The local Environmental Quality Board
was going to fine Exxon about 75 million. Exxon goes out and hires a law firm where one of the
governor's campaign managers works and they come to a deal. The EQB president refuses to
acquiesce to the deal and she is promptly fired over the weekend. The governor will probably get
a hefty campaign donation from Exxon, Exxon avoids a humungous fine, the governor's ex-campaign
manager collects a tidy legal fee, and the people of Barranquitas get fucked. BTW, this
happened just this week---but you won't see the commonwealth defenders in this group talking
about it.
>Now, the people may think that the public sector must have the
>principal initiative in all those social and economic areas. But
>that's a deep philosophical difference. I call it a "defect" and with
>reason. For you (the "collective you" again) it may be a "social
>virtue". But this "virtue" is incompatible with the way societies
>generally behave in the States.
>
>Look again how much socialism and "muñocism" has affected the
>political order in Puerto Rico. Take for example Rosselló. On one
>side he privatizes, and on another he socialized (medicine, for
>example). You can't have this schizophrenia! This drives statehood
>away even further!
Rossello didn't socialize medicine. Prior to his election, the way it worked was that medical
indigents could only get treatment at local clinics, called CDT's, and municipal and state
hospitals. Due to the piss poor salaries and constant budgetary deficiencies, the result was
that PRs state owned hospitals had the highest death rates in the nation.
So Rossello took the medically indigent and put them into HMO's. The government's role went from
being provider to insurer---but the medically indigent now had a much wider choice as to who
would be their primary doctor.
As for Muñoz, he was a socialist, so the devised a local government which would have its fingers
stuck everywhere.
Rossello went a long way into privatizing things, getting rid of inefficient state owned
industries, like the Sugar corporation, the shipping line and the like. The present government
is doing a sharp about face on that one.
El Marques
> Unless you retain NY residency.
> If you establish PR residency, you can't.
Not correct. PR is specifically excluded from the "absentee ballot"
requirements of all 50 states. If you are here (unless you are on a
military base) your voting rights are gone!
> It's sort of like Washington DC actually.
Wrong again. DC has no Senators and no Congresspersons, just a
representative, but are people who are residents there are still allowed to
vote in National Elections (President, etc.) In PR no one can!
El Marques
Stephen Voss
XXX wrote:
> In article <989e4906.0112...@posting.google.com>, skept...@my-deja.com says...
>
>>First of all, I am not "independenjista." I am sympathetic to the
>>pro-statehood cause, but also skeptical. It's slipping further and
>>further away. And it is all because of your own fault (understand
>>here the nameless, collective "you").
>>
>
> Not really. Within PR itself, statehood still has hundreds of thousands of supporters. In the
> states, there has never been a movement to admit PR as a state. In fact, historically speaking,
> few states indeed were admitted easily. The vast majority had to wait, and ask and ask again
> before being admitted. Why should PR be any different?
Indeed Utah took decades to get admitted and was rejected 3 times.
btw: How is a 46% statehood vote "slipping away"?
Frankly I think statehood would have won if not for the phony
"enhanced commonwealth" issue. If it was just a vote between
Statehood, territory ,independence, statehood would have won this
last time.
enhanced commonwealth was a brilliant red herring put out by the
anti-statehood people, especially couching it in a "none of the above"
vote.
Observador
there will be "NO PUERTORICAN" per se. We would have become
a state and have been so absorbed into the mainstream of American life
that the "Identity" of Pueto Rican would have lost its meaning, it
would be just a geographical name with NO EHTHNOLOGICAL meaning.
It would just be a geographical name like New York, Idaho, etc...
On 17 Dec 2001 08:09:41 -0800, skept...@my-deja.com (Diogenes)
wrote:
Jaime Rivera-Sierra
puertorriqueños no queremos la estadidad.
Si esa mentalidad se le llevara al boricua, estoy seguro que el PNP
obtendría menos del 1%. Lo que pasa es que lo ocultan.
He aquí esa visión en todo su explendor...
jrs
"Observador" <obser...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:3c23b019...@news.bellatlantic.net...
Observador
de palo en palo.
Star Treak tiene lugar 5000 años en el futuro, asi que usted me dice
cual pais de 5000 en el pasado esta todavia Etnologicamente puro, y yo
le dare la razon, el propio Pueto Rico NO es Etnologicamente Puro, es
una mestura de "Varios" indios, o indigenas, Europeos de diversa
ethnicidad, prietos esclavos, tambien de varios grupos etnicos
africanos, asi que No Cambio De opinion Independiente o Estado,
El Puerto Rico De 5000 en el futuro NO sera ethnolgicamente el mismo
de hoy.
Los Populares/Independentistas tienen que expandir sus mentes par
enfrentarse a conceptos nuevos.....Perdon que te hize abochornar !
Observador
Star Treak tiene lugar 5000 años en el futuro, asi que usted me dice
cual pais de 5000 en el pasado esta todavia Etnologicamente puro, y yo
le dare la razon, el propio Pueto Rico NO es Etnologicamente Puro, es
una mestura de "Varios" indios, o indigenas, Europeos de diversa
ethnicidad, prietos esclavos, tambien de varios grupos etnicos
africanos, asi que No Cambio De opinion Independiente o Estado,
El Puerto Rico De 5000 en el futuro NO sera ethnolgicamente el mismo
de hoy.
Los Populares/Independentistas tienen que expandir sus mentes par
enfrentarse a conceptos nuevos.....Perdon que te hize abochornar !
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 17:23:35 -0500, "Jaime Rivera-Sierra"
<jaim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
roberto
la estadidad no ha ganado en PR. la gran mayoría,
no queremos perder nuestra identidad.
RMeléndez
"Observador" <obser...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:3c23b019...@news.bellatlantic.net...
Jaime Rivera-Sierra
La persona que se batalla con flejes como Jimmo, Franchezca y Miller por el
premio del más ignorante en este grupo me dice que no quiere obochornarme...
Explícame como es que no quieres que uno no se ría...
mira "knocklehead", de aquí a 5,000 años ninguno de los que ahora escribe
aquí existirá.
Si acepto tus premisas y obviando que el mundo se hizo más chiquito con los
avances tecnológicos y de informática, cabe mencionar que ni siquiera EEUU
va a existir...
Mire retardao, el hecho de que yo vaya a morir tarde o temprano, no quiere
decir que actúe ahora como si estuviera muerto. Puerto Rico dejará de
existir algún día tal y como lo conocemos. Sin embargo, no va a dejar de
existir gracias a mi.
Lo que da pena es que tu ni calvo tienes dos dedos de frente como para
entender eso.
Puerto Rico va a cambiar, yo espero que para bien y va a ser un proceso
largo, a lo mejor todo el mundo termina hablando el mismo idioma, eso,
simplemente, no me importa...
Si queda un boricua al final, ese voy a ser Yo, levantando la monoestrellada
con la mano derecha, mi puño bien cerrado en la mano izquierda, mi boina del
Che y en las plantas de mis zapatos, la bandera del imperio que en ese
momento riga a PR. Si no hay ninguno, entonces estaré acostado listo para
morir...
jrs
"Observador" <obser...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:3c23b72b...@news.bellatlantic.net...
CLBailey
Sus palabras son como un suicidio para los PNP!
CLB
"Jaime Rivera-Sierra" <jaim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3vOU7.9164$BX4.8...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
XXX
>
>Precisamente por estas consecuencias es que
>la estadidad no ha ganado en PR. la gran mayoría,
>no queremos perder nuestra identidad.
Y quien te dijo que por el mero hecho de vivir en un estado, pierdes tu identidad? Asi de fragil
es la tuya? Asi de susceptible?
Lo unico que demuestras con ese comentario, es que tienes un complejo enorme.
Pero no te preocupes, que al otro dia de PR convertirse en estado, seguiras siendo el fotuto PPD
inpensante que has sido toda tu vida.
abaergao
>
Demostenes,
Tocas puntos muy buenos, aunque difiero de ti en algunos
planteamientos.
Excusa a esta gente, puesto que no toleran cualquier opinion que huela
a pensamiento critico...
Entiendo que eres pro-anexion y crees que el discurso anexionista debe
cambiar ya que el mundo esta en cambio. El discurso independentista
tambien debe cambiar...Los independentistas ya han ganado la batalla
ideologica. Lamentablemente, muchos independejistas (como dicen por
aqui) se han quedado estancados en la batalla ideologica, y no saben
que hacer mas alla de la victoria.
Unos comentarios:
A) Puerto Rico es una nacion. Lo se, esa discusion no forma parte de
tu planteamiento. Pero no es un detalle que nos podamos dar el lujo de
obviar. Eso a llevado a la derrota del anexionismo, referendo tras
referendo.
B) El problema de la falta de iniciativas en PR y la dependencia del
ciudadano comun del gobierno tambien se ve en muchos paises de Europa,
donde los gobiernos han crecido hasta el punto de la inaccion...El
gobierno en Puerto Rico es demasiado grande e ineficiente. A pesar de
que Rossello trato de agilizar el gobierno mediante la privatizacion y
consolidacion de departamentos, la base del PNP (y del PPD)necesita un
gobierno grande donde se le pueda ofrecer un trabajo a los sobrinos y
allegados de aquellos que ayudaron en la campanha electoral exitosa.
Ahi hay un conflicto de intereses y una contradiccion dentro del
anexionismo. Tanto el PNP como el PPD (y si hubiera tenido la
oportunidad, el PIP), se aprovechan de ese sistema de dependencia y de
falta de iniciativa privada, y lo utilizan para llegar al poder. Por
eso las victorias electorales valen tan poco!
C) En PR tenemos mentalidad de mucamas, y no de duenhos de hotel.
Fijate como todos los partidos, incluyendo al PIP, plantean la
atraccion de capital extranjero como medio economico, y la creacion de
empleos mediante incentivos contributivos y otras bondades.
Ningun partido discute el papel de la investigacion cientifica y la
ingenieria para la produccion y exportacion de productos. O la
exportacion de productos Gourmet, como los ajies picantes, las
parchas, mangoes, cafe.
En otras palabras, nos ponemos contentos cuando viene Hyatt a montar
un hotel porque ahi podemos trabajar, mas sin embargo no nos
planteamos montar un pequenho hotelito o un hostal.
UN BUEN COMIENZO SERIA ELIMINAR LOS CUPONES DE ALIMENTO!
abaergao
> de hoy.
De verdad? No me digas? Y esto lo dedujiste tu solito?
XXX
>
>Indeed Utah took decades to get admitted and was rejected 3 times.
Hawaii, Arizona, Oklahoma, Wyoming, the Dakotas and a whole mess of other states had to wait.
>btw: How is a 46% statehood vote "slipping away"?
Got me. On the other hand, independence, which obtained a 4.4% vote in 93, went to 2.2% in 98.
Make of that what you will.
>Frankly I think statehood would have won if not for the phony
>"enhanced commonwealth" issue. If it was just a vote between
>Statehood, territory ,independence, statehood would have won this
>last time.
>enhanced commonwealth was a brilliant red herring put out by the
>anti-statehood people, especially couching it in a "none of the above"
>vote.
The none of the above sham was a last ditch effort made out so that anti-statehooders would
coalesce. Even then, they barely got 50% of the vote. Meanwhile, statehood, faced with the
opposition of the Catholic church, the unions, the commonwealth people and the most powerful
family on the island (owners of two out of the 3 leading dailies and with investments all over
the media spectrum) still managed to get about 47%.
This is what these knuckleheads call "slipping away".
XXX
>
>skept...@my-deja.com (Diogenes) wrote in message
news:<989e4906.0112...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>
>Demostenes,
>
>Tocas puntos muy buenos, aunque difiero de ti en algunos
>planteamientos.
>Excusa a esta gente, puesto que no toleran cualquier opinion que huela
>a pensamiento critico...
Cuando tu demuestres que puedes argumentar utilizando criterios serios y sobrios, sere el primero
en decirtelo. Pero hasta el momento, demuestras ser otro acomplejado independejista mas.
>Entiendo que eres pro-anexion y crees que el discurso anexionista debe
>cambiar ya que el mundo esta en cambio. El discurso independentista
>tambien debe cambiar...Los independentistas ya han ganado la batalla
>ideologica. Lamentablemente, muchos independejistas (como dicen por
>aqui) se han quedado estancados en la batalla ideologica, y no saben
>que hacer mas alla de la victoria.
>
>Unos comentarios:
>
>A) Puerto Rico es una nacion. Lo se, esa discusion no forma parte de
>tu planteamiento. Pero no es un detalle que nos podamos dar el lujo de
>obviar. Eso a llevado a la derrota del anexionismo, referendo tras
>referendo.
Papo, lo que verdaderamente ha quedado derrotado, ha sido el PPD y su criatura, el ELA. En el
plebiscito del 93, recurrieron al invento ese de "lo mejor de dos mundos" utilizando una
propuesta que luego JAMAS se atrevieron a presentarle al congreso. En el del 98, ya con menos
base, tuvieron que recurrir al zafacon de la quinta columna.
En otras palabras, ya van casi 10 años desde que en PR se rechaza electoralmente al ELA, y el
partido que lo creo, ya ni lo defiende.
Mientras tanto, el voto independejista sigue atrofiado, en menos del 5%, mientras que el
estadista se mantiene sobre el 45%.
>
>B) El problema de la falta de iniciativas en PR y la dependencia del
>ciudadano comun del gobierno tambien se ve en muchos paises de Europa,
>donde los gobiernos han crecido hasta el punto de la inaccion...
En eso es que terminan los gobiernos socialistas.
>El
>gobierno en Puerto Rico es demasiado grande e ineficiente. A pesar de
>que Rossello trato de agilizar el gobierno mediante la privatizacion y
>consolidacion de departamentos, la base del PNP (y del PPD)necesita un
>gobierno grande donde se le pueda ofrecer un trabajo a los sobrinos y
>allegados de aquellos que ayudaron en la campanha electoral exitosa.
>Ahi hay un conflicto de intereses y una contradiccion dentro del
>anexionismo. Tanto el PNP como el PPD (y si hubiera tenido la
>oportunidad, el PIP), se aprovechan de ese sistema de dependencia y de
>falta de iniciativa privada, y lo utilizan para llegar al poder. Por
>eso las victorias electorales valen tan poco!
El patronaje politico no es un fenomeno boricua. Ocurre en todos lados. Tienes razon al
señalar el gigantismo gubernamental y el problema profundo de los partidos en bregar con el.
Como te dije previamente, si dices algo que sea serio, te lo admito inmediatamente.
>C) En PR tenemos mentalidad de mucamas, y no de duenhos de hotel.
>Fijate como todos los partidos, incluyendo al PIP, plantean la
>atraccion de capital extranjero como medio economico, y la creacion de
>empleos mediante incentivos contributivos y otras bondades.
>Ningun partido discute el papel de la investigacion cientifica y la
>ingenieria para la produccion y exportacion de productos. O la
>exportacion de productos Gourmet, como los ajies picantes, las
>parchas, mangoes, cafe.
Es que eso ya esta ocurriendo. El cafe Alto Grande y otros son exportados a precios riduculamente
caros---pero si los japoneses estan dispuestos a pagar, alla ellos.
Hay otros productos agricolas fruteros (el citron, por ejemplo) que se exportan. Pero solo puede
ser como "niche". PR simplemente no tiene el territorio para produccion agricola a gran escala.
Lo otro que mencionas suena bueno, pero la realidad es que no se puede hablar en generalizaciones
como "investigacion cientifica". Que tipo de investigacion? Que producto se busca? Quien va a
invertir y cual es el riesgo? Hablar en el abstracto siempre te va a llevar a un paraiso, pero
la realidad de los mercados es otra.
>En otras palabras, nos ponemos contentos cuando viene Hyatt a montar
>un hotel porque ahi podemos trabajar, mas sin embargo no nos
>planteamos montar un pequenho hotelito o un hostal.
Parece que hace tiempo que no vienes a la Isla. Hay unos hoteles conocidos como "Paraderos"de los
cuales hay literalmente decenas, que son precisamente lo que propones. Y llevan decadas
funcionando.
>UN BUEN COMIENZO SERIA ELIMINAR LOS CUPONES DE ALIMENTO!
Y que lograrias con eso? Te tengo noticias, los cupones se le dan a gente que no llega a tener
cierta cantidad de ingresos. En otras palabras, lo que llaman en los EU "the working poor"
reciben cupones. Si se los eliminas, los estas hundiendo. Y si no trabajan por X o Y razon,
entonces los estas condenando al hambre. Si quieres ver como funciona un sitio asi, date la
vuelta por la RD y despues preguntales porque cientos de ellos se montan en yolas semanalmente.
XXX
>
>Deja ver algo,
>La persona que se batalla con flejes como Jimmo, Franchezca y Miller por el
>premio del más ignorante en este grupo
No te preocupes, que ese premio lo tienes tu desde hace tiempo. Porque mira que eres un pendejo
miserable.
>me dice que no quiere obochornarme...
Pero si tu te "obochornas" tu solito de lo mas bien.
Explicanos algo: Ya que en esa cabeza metalica tuya lo que tienes es tanto patriotismo, entonces
porque carajos vives en los EU?
Observador
<jaim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Deja ver algo,
>La persona que se batalla con flejes como Jimmo, Franchezca y Miller por el
>premio del más ignorante en este grupo me dice que no quiere obochornarme...
>Explícame como es que no quieres que uno no se ría...
>
>mira "knocklehead", de aquí a 5,000 años ninguno de los que ahora escribe
>aquí existirá.
Wow que observacion brillante
>Si acepto tus premisas y obviando que el mundo se hizo más chiquito con los
>avances tecnológicos y de informática, cabe mencionar que ni siquiera EEUU
>va a existir...
Segun Van las cosas
>Mire retardao, el hecho de que yo vaya a morir tarde o temprano, no quiere
>decir que actúe ahora como si estuviera muerto. Puerto Rico dejará de
>existir algún día tal y como lo conocemos. Sin embargo, no va a dejar de
>existir gracias a mi.
Papo, La ESTADIDAD ES INEVITABLE, dejense de estar soñando con
pajaritos de Colores....La Estadiad Es un Concepto que no tiene
competencia, La Republica Associada es un fenomeno en la mente de
Sida-Calderon, que ya no se menciona, El Estado Libre Y la
Independencia no son alternativas viables en la economia de Puerto
Rico. Si no lo cree preguntele a el electorado De Puerto Rico si esta
dispuesto a Cambiar los Dolares Americanos por una futura moneda
Boricua....ahora veras que solo un verdadero "knuckleheaed" "retard"
seria el que haya tal absurdidad.
>Lo que da pena es que tu ni calvo tienes dos dedos de frente como para
>entender eso.
>
>Puerto Rico va a cambiar, yo espero que para bien y va a ser un proceso
>largo, a lo mejor todo el mundo termina hablando el mismo idioma, eso,
>simplemente, no me importa...
Es mejor que empiesen a manejar el idioma de comercio internacional, y
ese es el ingles!
>Si queda un boricua al final, ese voy a ser Yo, levantando la monoestrellada
>con la mano derecha, mi puño bien cerrado en la mano izquierda, mi boina del
>Che y en las plantas de mis zapatos, la bandera del imperio que en ese
>momento riga a PR. Si no hay ninguno, entonces estaré acostado listo para
>morir...
Cuando Seamos Estados nada va a cambiar, sino para lo mejor, vamos a
tener dos Senadores, y como 8 representantes en la camare y vamos a
sentirnos un poquito mas orgulloso y andar con el pecho mas grande al
saver que tenemos voz y voto en nuestra propia patria !
El gobierno local se va a quedar igual...no habra cambio, sino que
tendremos mas seguridad.
h0mi
El Marques wrote:
>
> "h0mi" <h0...@yahooo.com> wrote in message
> news:3C22BE12...@yahooo.com...
> > Unless you retain NY residency.
> > If you establish PR residency, you can't.
>
> Not correct. PR is specifically excluded from the "absentee ballot"
> requirements of all 50 states. If you are here (unless you are on a
> military base) your voting rights are gone!
This doesn't make sense to me.
If I'm a resident of, say New York state, and I'm in Puerto Rico for 2
months, how can they strip me of my voting rights in NY State? Keep in
mind this visit to Puerto Rico isn't permanent.
> > It's sort of like Washington DC actually.
>
> Wrong again. DC has no Senators and no Congresspersons, just a
> representative, but are people who are residents there are still allowed to
> vote in National Elections (President, etc.) In PR no one can!
The only national election is for President... and referring to it as a
national election is actually inaccurate- you're voting for president on
the basis of electing representatives to the electoral college.
Note the "sort of" since like Puerto Rico there are no senators or
congressional representatives with voting powers like DC. The 23rd
amendment however doesn't apply to PR.
h0mi
XXX wrote:
>
> In article <989e4906.0112...@posting.google.com>, skept...@my-deja.com says...
<snip>
> Here's something else that adds to the mix: The type of government that we have, was molded in
> the 40s and 50s, when the liberal philosophy of government as the answer had great influence.
> If you think of PR as a place where the New Deal was allowed to operate without borders, you can
> understand. It's no wonder that many PRs look to government as the solution; part and parcel of
> the commonwealth is that it is the government that has final say, not the citizen.
Well that explains a few things.
Despite being overwhelmingly Catholic, and the general tendency (until
the mid 90s) of Hispanics to support Republicans/Conservatives, Puerto
Ricans always bucked this trend, especially within liberal American
cities like NYC, Chicago, etc.
> The end result is that government has wound up as the employer of last resort, it employs about a
> third of the workforce, and there are more rules, regulations and laws on the book than you might
> think.The end result is that local government is slow, inefficient and full of people who
> obtained their jobs due to political patronage.
And also explains how various puerto rican politicians (Badillo eons
ago, and Ferrer more recently come to mind) have rose up through the
ranks politically and become prominent. It's not about being 'part of
the community' or being a 'non-assimilated latino' but rather being a
latino who has assimilated into the political culture of a given metro
area. They don't offer any new reforms that would really benefit the
community. And it doesn't seem it'd matter, the community wouldn't
recognize these things as "reforms" but rather 'rocking the boat'.
> Again, this has been extremely harmful to the
> vast majority, but not to the elite at the top, which has utilized this inefficiency to slow down
> their competitors when needed, while they "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" their way into doing what
> they want to do.
>
> I'll give you a quick example of how this works: Exxon had some gas station in the town of
> Barranquitas polluting the living shit out of the place. The local Environmental Quality Board
> was going to fine Exxon about 75 million. Exxon goes out and hires a law firm where one of the
> governor's campaign managers works and they come to a deal. The EQB president refuses to
> acquiesce to the deal and she is promptly fired over the weekend. The governor will probably get
> a hefty campaign donation from Exxon, Exxon avoids a humungous fine, the governor's ex-campaign
> manager collects a tidy legal fee, and the people of Barranquitas get fucked. BTW, this
> happened just this week---but you won't see the commonwealth defenders in this group talking
> about it.
Incidentally who are the 'commonwealth defenders'? I'm guessing they
don't post in english much since I've not seen any 1st hand.
Thanks.
El Marques
news:820d2d3f.01122...@posting.google.com...
> UN BUEN COMIENZO SERIA ELIMINAR
> LOS CUPONES DE ALIMENTO!
Ya que XXX toco los demas puntos de tu mensaje, yo solo pienso añadir un
poco a este tema recurrente tuyo de los "cuponeros". Dime una cosa - tu te
crees que la gente que recibe cupones los enrolla y se los fuman? Por si no
lo logras entender, la gente que recibe cupones LOS GASTA! Y donde los
gasta? En TIENDAS de distintas clases - supermercados, colmados,
ferreterias, liquor stores, etc. Que tienen en comun todos esos negocios?
Que en todos esos negocios hay EMPLEADOS, los cuales, si no hay clientes y
ventas NO COBRAN, porque los botan o cierran el negocio. Y si me vas a
decir que son los dueños de los negocios los que se hacen ricos con los
cupones - que hacen los "ricos" con su dinero? Lo meten en una boveda como
Rico McPato para poderlo contar todos los dias? Los "ricos" LO GASTAN, en
carros, en joyas, en viajes, en botes, etc. Y adivina quien les vende todos
esos lujos a los "ricos"? Un PELAO que tiene que trabajar vendiendole las
joyas, los carros, la ropa, los botes, los pasajes, etc! En otras
palabras - tu jamas te has puesto a pensar en realidad sobre eso que repites
como el papagayo de que "quiten los cupones pa' que la gente trabaje",
porque si hubieras pensado sabrias que gracias a esos cupones es que hay
tanta gente trabajando en supermercados, restaurantes, y negocios de todas
clases, porque todo ese dinero de los cupones se REINVIERTE en la economia
de nuestra Isla. Ponte a pensar sobre esto, y veras que el dueño del
restaurante compra comida en el supermercado, quien se la compra al
mayorista, quien la manda en un camion que compro en un dealer, y el chofer
se comio un hamburger por el camino, y el hot-doguero compro hielo en la
planta, y el empleado de la planta fue a trabajar en carro publico, y el
chofer de carro publico se tuvo que poner pantalones para poder guiar,
etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Pero en tu mundito de fantasias borincanas,
si quitamos los cupones todo se va a arreglar, porque todos tendrian que
trabajar, verdad? EN DONDE CARAJO, SO PENDEJO? Cortando caña tres dias a
la semana? Y quien diablos va a comprar la caña, pa' pagarle a todos esos
cortadores? O tu le piensas pagar en caña? Viste que las cosas no son tan
faciles? Pero como tu oiste a Ruben y a Fernando Martin hablando mal de los
cupones un dia, alli va el nene a imitar a los "lideres"! Como te dije,
cuando inaugures tu cerebro, me avisas pa' hacerte el party!
El Marques
El Marques
> Incidentally who are the 'commonwealth defenders'? I'm
> guessing they don't post in english much since I've not
> seen any 1st hand.
I guess somebody should have told you, the "commonwealth defenders" are
those who write here calling themselves "independentistas"! When push comes
to shove, those green guys turn out to be red on the inside - that's why we
call them the "melons".
El Marques
Jaime Rivera-Sierra
senadores y representantes de otros estados sobre territorio boricua?
Ahora lo pueden hacer pero, si se hace algo que atente contra la soberanía
política (la poquita que tenemos) los boricuas podemos ir a la ONU u otros
mecanismos internacionales a denunciar la mentira colonial estadounidense...
jrs
"Observador" <obser...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:3c240e2e...@news.bellatlantic.net...
XXX
>
>
>
>XXX wrote:
>Despite being overwhelmingly Catholic, and the general tendency (until
>the mid 90s) of Hispanics to support Republicans/Conservatives, Puerto
>Ricans always bucked this trend, especially within liberal American
>cities like NYC, Chicago, etc.
You also have to remember that by the time PRs started hitting Chitown and NYC, those cities were
solidly controlled by Democratic political machines, which also explains why they ended up as
captives of the Demos.
>And also explains how various puerto rican politicians (Badillo eons
>ago, and Ferrer more recently come to mind) have rose up through the
>ranks politically and become prominent. It's not about being 'part of
>the community' or being a 'non-assimilated latino' but rather being a
>latino who has assimilated into the political culture of a given metro
>area. They don't offer any new reforms that would really benefit the
>community. And it doesn't seem it'd matter, the community wouldn't
>recognize these things as "reforms" but rather 'rocking the boat'.
The dichotomy is that while you can have a guy like Gutierrez in Chicago, who bucked the Daley
machine, and got into Congress, when it comes time to run for citywide office, then the situation
is totally different.
>Incidentally who are the 'commonwealth defenders'? I'm guessing they
>don't post in english much since I've not seen any 1st hand.
They're guys like Roberto and Luis Arroyo, who post in español, and who defend anything and
everything the present government does. And then you have clowns like "Dr" Victor and Jaime
Rivera-Sierra, who post amazingly anti-US posts and proclaim themselves to be for independence,
but whom, when you start criticizing commonwealth politicians invariably come to their defence.
For example, there is a thread here about Congressman Gutierrez, who says he's for independence
but whose political funding is primarily from pro-commonwealth people down here. He talks the
talk, but he sure doesn't walk the walk.
You see, one of the phenomenons in scpr is that you won't find hardly any defenders of
commonwealth---they know that it is a sham and are too ashamed to come out and defend something
like that. Instead, they keep harping on pro-statehood politicians being allegedly corrupt. Yet,
you ask them what they're for, and they change the subject.
In other words, they know that enhanced commonwealth ain't happening, they know that independence
means financial ruin, but they sure as hell know they're against statehood. In a way, this kind
of explains the morass the Island is in: too many people who don't know what they're for, but
only know what they're against.
abaergao
*******************************************************************
De verdad que los cuponeros invierten el dinero en la economia local?
No me digas? TREMENDA DEDUCCION! El punto no es que los cupones no
ayuden a sostener el barco a flote...El punto es que los cupones no
van a llevar al barco a ninguna parte. Los cupones no son un proyecto
economico a largo plazo...Quien plantea los cupones como proyecto
economico, tiene mentalidad de balsero flotador y no de barco de
carga!!!
VIVA OSAMA!!!
Jorge Franchi
> y entiendan que Puerto Rico es patria y es universo.
Y que Puerto Rico "universo"...
JA JA JA!!
Me meoooooooo!! :-))
Grow up kiddo, it will do your body good!
Jorge Franchi
XXX
>
>De verdad que los cuponeros invierten el dinero en la economia local?
>No me digas? TREMENDA DEDUCCION! El punto no es que los cupones no
>ayuden a sostener el barco a flote...El punto es que los cupones no
>van a llevar al barco a ninguna parte. Los cupones no son un proyecto
>economico a largo plazo...Quien plantea los cupones como proyecto
>economico, tiene mentalidad de balsero flotador y no de barco de
>carga!!!
Coño, a la verdad que como estudiante graduado, demuestras una simpleza de mente y falta de
profundidad increible.
En ningun momento se ha planteado que los cupones son un plan economico--aunque la realidad es
que son una inversion de billones de dolares para la industria agricola. Lo que se ha planteado,
y tu no has podido ni de lejos contestar, es que uno no puede tumbar algo como los cupones asi
porque si. Por un lado estan los que dependen de los cupones para comer, algo que a ti parece
importarte un bledo. Y por el otro estan los que tienen empleos que estan, en parte, mantenidos
por los cupones. Si remueves los cupones, no solamente estas jodiendo a los que menos pueden
aguantarlo, ya que los estas condenando al hambre, sino que tambien vas a perjudicar a aquellos
cuyos trabajos desapareceran ante la merma de ingresos en sus compañias.
Asi que lo que tu planteas con esa frase pamfletera, es el caos.
Seria idoneo si tuvieramos una sociedad donde nadie dependiera de beneficiencia social para
vivir. Pero esa no es la realidad. Y comentarios como el tuyo, solo reflejan una ignorancia
enorme sobre como funcionan las cosas.
Alvin
estaremos en Star Trek es porque los puertorriqueños viajamos en La
Guagua Aerea.
roberto
La razón es que nosotros tenemos una imaginación tremenda, viajamos en el
tren urbano que nos dejó Roselló.
No necesitamos Star Trek para nada.
RMeléndez
"Alvin" <blackf...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:73db1cf8.01122...@posting.google.com...
Kip King
unspecified ethnic origin. He was Anglo looking which seems to support
this point of view from their (Paramount's) perspective, not that I do.
XXX
>
>ĄNo amigo no!
>La razón es que nosotros tenemos una imaginación tremenda, viajamos en el
>tren urbano que nos dejó Roselló.
>No necesitamos Star Trek para nada.
Al paso que va bajo el inepto ese de Izquierdo (el mismo que recibio el tapaboca humillante de
Sila hace par de semanas), parece que tendremos que esperar que venga y gane el PNP en el 2004
para que se pueda terminar el dichoso tren.
BTW, ya no se llama Tren Urbano. La vieja caprichosa esa, a un costo frivolo de 10 millones, le
cambio el nombre.
Anonymous
The features you call Hispanic are anything but, they are the product of the American (Indian, Native American) ancestry many Hispanics share, as do many of the so-called US Anglos, but to a different extent. It's only a matter of perspective.
Moi
Anonymous
Moi
XXX wrote:
In article <hRnV7.122386$lV4.19...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com>, robe...@prtc.net says...
>
>¡No amigo no!
Observador
Puertoricans, would have changed our name to something more
politically correct and ethnic neutral, we would have changed our
ethinic name
to KLINGONS....thats right, Klingons, beleive it or not!!!!!
Observador
Jaime Rivera-Sierra
"Anonymous" <anon...@anonymous.anonymous> escribió en el mensaje news:3C263BBB...@tld.net...
Jorge Franchi
> BTW, ya no se llama Tren Urbano. La vieja caprichosa esa, a un
> costo frivolo de 10 millones, le cambio el nombre.
Cual es el nombre nuevo?
Jorge Franchi
Kip King
I never said anything about a Hispanic race. The only reason that I said
he was Anglo looking was that the actor who portrayed the character
Sandoval was Anglo and the only reference to his origion was his name.
Kip King
I never said anything about a Hispanic race. The only reason that I said
he was Anglo looking was that the actor who portrayed the character
Anonymous
: )
Anonymous
Siempre estoy en la disposicion de ayudar a los literariamente menos afortunados. Si vueves a leer la previa E-misiva, te darás cuenta que se hacía referencia a una putativa apariencia "anglo", lo cual estoy seguro que entenderás, es una fenomenal barrabasada. Seguramente que has vistado a la perfida Albión, y aún a través de cualquier fuente indirecta de antropografía británica, es obvio que los pueblos que componen la actual Inglaterra provenian de fuentes diversas, y con apariencias diversas.
La forma en que se utiliza Anglosaxon en EEUU es totlamente inpredecible, y me atrevo a decir que insostenible. Como ejemplo, cierto amigo mio, judio ashkenazi de ascendencia polaca, era considerado Anglosaxon, esto a pesar que este era angloparlante de segunda generacion, y una cuarta parte italiano...
Por cierto que los ingleses, canadienses y australianos no consideran a los estadounidenses "Anglos".
: )
Cosas veredes, abyecto James
Regards
Moi
Jaime Rivera-Sierra wrote:
Let me get this right, ¿Now, the term "Anglo" has to do with an European Phenotype? I always thought it was the term used for all anglosaxons or of English language... You learn something new of this PNP "claque" everyday, can't wait for the newest version of the "PNP Spanglish Dictionary" part of all good statehooders kit... jrs
"Anonymous" <anon...@anonymous.anonymous> escribió en el mensaje news:3C263BBB...@tld.net...Puertoricans have Spanish ancestry, and many exhibit what you call "Anglo" features, which is simply the European phenotype. Hispanics are a cultural group, and there's no such thing as a Hispanic race.
Anonymous
As should be, Kip. It's utterly nonsensical to say someone looks Anglo, Jewish, or Hispanic, since they all are cultural terms, which I'm sure you will agree, have nothing to do with Race or, by extension, appearance.
A friend of mine was Indian, she also happened to be of Hispanic ancestry. Her lastname was Fernández, and she was from Calcutta !
My point is that whenever someone is said to look "hispanic", what they actually mean is that they look American (Original, Native, or "Indian").
Merry Xmas!
Moi
h0mi
XXX wrote:
>
> In article <3C242357...@yahooo.com>, h0...@yahooo.com says...
I snipped your earlier remarks because there's not much I can add to
them. Thanks though.
<snip>
> >Incidentally who are the 'commonwealth defenders'? I'm guessing they
> >don't post in english much since I've not seen any 1st hand.
>
> They're guys like Roberto and Luis Arroyo, who post in español,
Ok. As you know I don't speak spanish so I tend to gloss over posts in
spanish. And I've found that the spanish posted to scpr is not well
liked by babelfish.altavista.com for various reasons (tense usage seems
to be the biggest problem) so I end up with nonsensical translations
into english that doesn't give me much to go by if I'm going to
understand, let alone argue with the poster.
> and who defend anything and
> everything the present government does. And then you have clowns like "Dr" Victor and Jaime
> Rivera-Sierra, who post amazingly anti-US posts and proclaim themselves to be for independence,
> but whom, when you start criticizing commonwealth politicians invariably come to their defence.
That's funny. That's very funny.
That also confuses me on this term... "piti-yanqi". Just looking at the
term suggests, to me, that it means someone who is a lackey of the
"Yankees" or the US. I would suspect that anyone who is pro-US would be
described as such, and that ought to mean anyone who doesn't support
independence- support of the commonwealth or statehood is supporting
ties to the US which would warrant use of this term. At least as far as
I can tell. If I'm mistaken, please clarify.
> For example, there is a thread here about Congressman Gutierrez, who says he's for independence
> but whose political funding is primarily from pro-commonwealth people down here. He talks the
> talk, but he sure doesn't walk the walk.
> You see, one of the phenomenons in scpr is that you won't find hardly any defenders of
> commonwealth---they know that it is a sham and are too ashamed to come out and defend something
> like that. Instead, they keep harping on pro-statehood politicians being allegedly corrupt. Yet,
> you ask them what they're for, and they change the subject.
And see, most of the people I know who have an opinion on this issue,
and a vested interest (ie. they're puerto ricans with family there)
prefer that things stay the same- that we keep the commonwealth status
as is. The only independistas I knew were leftist radicals from College,
though 1 of them was more of a nationalist than a leftist- he did not
particupate in this "movement" to wear black arm bands on Columbus day
like other people in the Puerto Rican Students club at Columbia
University 11 years ago.
h0mi
El Marques wrote:
>
> "h0mi" <h0...@yahooo.com> wrote in message
> news:3C242357...@yahooo.com...
> > Incidentally who are the 'commonwealth defenders'? I'm
> > guessing they don't post in english much since I've not
> > seen any 1st hand.
>
> I guess somebody should have told you, the "commonwealth defenders" are
> those who write here calling themselves "independentistas"! When push comes
Yeah that needs to go into the scpr FAQ :)
> to shove, those green guys turn out to be red on the inside - that's why we
> call them the "melons".
Red as in communist I'm guessing.
But green? When I think of Green I think of the Green party... which
isn't exactly anti-communist either.
Anonymous
We don't support commonwealth, we endure it.
Regards
Moi
XXX
>
>Red as in communist I'm guessing.
>
>But green? When I think of Green I think of the Green party... which
>isn't exactly anti-communist either.
Nope. What happens is that the parties here are identified by colors. The statehood party
colors are blue and white; the commonwealth party's colors are red and white; and the
independence party's are green and white.
Thus the moniker "melon" to identify those who, give lip service to independence, but when
election time comes around, vote red, i.e. commonwealth.
El Marques
> Red as in communist I'm guessing.
> But green? When I think of Green I think of the Green
> party... which isn't exactly anti-communist either.
The local party's colors are NPP = Blue, PDP = Red, PIP = Green. The people
we call "melons" are those who talk about "patria" 24-7, they call Ruben a
"living saint", and when the elections roll around the vote PDP! Green on
the outside, red on the inside!
El Marques
Kip King
It's that he was Anglo and was clearly meant to represent a more
assimilated Hispanic from Gene Rodenberry's/Paramount's Star Trek vision
of the future.
Happy Winter Solstice to you (two days ago), Kip
Anonymous wrote:
>
> I never said anything about a Hispanic race...
>
> As should be, Kip. It's utterly nonsensical to say someone looks
> Anglo, Jewish, or Hispanic, since they all are cultural terms, which
> I'm sure you will agree, have nothing to do with Race or, by
> extension, appearance.
>
> A friend of mine was Indian, she also happened to be of Hispanic
> ancestry. Her lastname was Fernández, and she was from Calcutta !
>
> My point is that whenever someone is said to look "hispanic", what
> they actually mean is that they look American (Original, Native, or
> "Indian").
>
> Merry Xmas!
>
> Moi
>
> Kip King wrote:
>
> > I am aware of all that. I'm an (American) Indian with green eyes
> > myself.
> > I never said anything about a Hispanic race. The only reason that I
> > said
> > he was Anglo looking was that the actor who portrayed the character
> > Sandoval was Anglo and the only reference to his origin was his
Anonymous
Vive la difference !
May Lug's silver lance guide your way.
Moi
Real
knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.
. . . Confucius
FrankD
cuando solicitaron a Puerto Rico pertenecer a la Federación, Rossello
y sus secuases se robaron los chavos y no teniamos con que pagar la
cuota.
XXX
A la verdad que esto si que estuvo chistoso.
Anonymous
Secuaces se escribe con c, y no pertenece PR a la Federación porque la isla fué invadida por Venezuela tras Silly abrirle las piernas, digo, las puertas de esta, a los fuhrers de Cuba y Venezuela.
EEUU "libera" la Isla cuando descubrió que Silly y sus PIPulares habia concedido asilo político a Usama bin Laden por 250millones de dolares, necesarios para renovar su bacineta, y calzoncillos nuevos para MariBras.
Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez
Los judios, (Ashkenasi o Sefardita) luego de asimilados, son Anglo-Sajones y por lo tanto, "blancos" en la cultura popular.
La excepcion es en California y otras partes del suroeste donde los Chicanos llaman Anglo al "Blanco."
Lo que piensen los Canadienses o Britanicos sobre los EU, realmente no tiene mucha importancia.
--
Victor M. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
Chicano & Latino Studies Department
California State University, Long Beach
1250 Bellflower Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90840-1004
E-Mail: vrod...@csulb.edu
Home Page: http://members.home.net/rodrigvm
"My opinions only represent my personal views"
Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez
I have a Mexican friend whose last name is O'Reilly. He hardly speaks English (grew up in "el D.F." Chilango) and yet everyone assumes he is "Anglo." His great great grandfather fought on the side of Mexico in the St. Patrick brigade (group of Irish who deserted the US Army and joined their Catholic Mexican counterparts in battle against the "Anglos"!).
--
h0mi
Ok... Thank you Marques and you also for this clarification.
Anonymous
En la forma usada en USA (pardon
the pun! : ) ), es un termino que varia en significado de sitio
en sitio. Y por lo general todos son incorrectos. Un Judio puede
ser europeo en terminos raciales, pero un judio mediterraneo no
puede ser anglosajón.
Una extension del concepto en ese sentido "boggles
the mind".
Merry Xmas to y'all !
"Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez" wrote:
Anglo-Sajon es un concepto etnico, que se refiere a la cultura yanqui, no a las diferencias raciales (hoy dia la cultura Anglo-Sajona es muy diversa). Los Afro-Americanos son posiblemente el grupo mas asimilado a la cultura anglo-sajona. Pero, coloquialmente, los Anglo-sajones generalmente solo incluye a los Europeos.
Los judios, (Ashkenasi o Sefardita) luego de asimilados, son Anglo-Sajones y por lo tanto, "blancos" en la cultura popular.
La excepcion es en California y otras partes del suroeste donde los Chicanos llaman Anglo al "Blanco."
Lo que piensen los Canadienses o Britanicos sobre los EU, realmente no tiene mucha importancia.
Anonymous wrote:
Hola James,
Siempre estoy en la disposicion de ayudar a los literariamente menos afortunados. Si vueves a leer la previa E-misiva, te darás cuenta que se hacía referencia a una putativa apariencia "anglo", lo cual estoy seguro que entenderás, es una fenomenal barrabasada. Seguramente que has vistado a la perfida Albión, y aún a través de cualquier fuente indirecta de antropografía británica, es obvio que los pueblos que componen la actual Inglaterra provenian de fuentes diversas, y con apariencias diversas.
La forma en que se utiliza Anglosaxon en EEUU es totlamente inpredecible, y me atrevo a decir que insostenible. Como ejemplo, cierto amigo mio, judio ashkenazi de ascendencia polaca, era considerado Anglosaxon, esto a pesar que este era angloparlante de segunda generacion, y una cuarta parte italiano...
Por cierto que los ingleses, canadienses y australianos no consideran a los estadounidenses "Anglos".
: )
Cosas veredes, abyecto James
Regards
Moi
Jaime Rivera-Sierra wrote:
Let me get this right, ¿Now, the term "Anglo" has to do with an European Phenotype? I always thought it was the term used for all anglosaxons or of English language...You learn something new of this PNP "claque" everyday, can't wait for the newest version of the "PNP Spanglish Dictionary" part of all good statehooders kit... jrs
"Anonymous" <anon...@anonymous.anonymous> escribió en el mensaje news:3C263BBB...@tld.net...Puertoricans have Spanish ancestry, and many exhibit what you call "Anglo" features, which is simply the European phenotype. Hispanics are a cultural group, and there's no such thing as a Hispanic race.The features you call Hispanic are anything but, they are the product of the American (Indian, Native American) ancestry many Hispanics share, as do many of the so-called US Anglos, but to a different extent. It's only a matter of perspective.
Moi
Kip King wrote:
The original Star Trek series did have a guest star named Sandoval of
unspecified ethnic origin. He was Anglo looking which seems to support
this point of view from their (Paramount's) perspective, not that I do.Observador wrote:
>
> Thats Easy, in the future years when "Star Treak" takes place,
> there will be "NO PUERTORICAN" per se. We would have become
> a state and have been so absorbed into the mainstream of American life
> that the "Identity" of Pueto Rican would have lost its meaning, it
> would be just a geographical name with NO EHTHNOLOGICAL meaning.
> It would just be a geographical name like New York, Idaho, etc...
>
Anonymous
Regards
Moi
"Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez" wrote:
XXX
>Anglo-Sajon es un concepto etnico, que se refiere a la cultura yanqui,
>no a las diferencias raciales (hoy dia la cultura Anglo-Sajona es muy
>diversa). Los Afro-Americanos son posiblemente el grupo mas asimilado a
>la cultura anglo-sajona. Pero, coloquialmente, los Anglo-sajones
>generalmente solo incluye a los Europeos.
>
>Los judios, (Ashkenasi o Sefardita) luego de asimilados, son
>Anglo-Sajones y por lo tanto, "blancos" en la cultura popular.
>
>La excepcion es en California y otras partes del suroeste donde los
>Chicanos llaman Anglo al "Blanco."
>
>Lo que piensen los Canadienses o Britanicos sobre los EU, realmente no
>tiene mucha importancia.
Aqui tienen lo cabronamente idiota y racista que es Victor. Mira y que decir que los judios son
"anglos" en la cultura popular. Y si lo que dices sobre los Chicanos es cierto, entonces estas
diciendo que son brutos tambien.
XXX
>It does not make sense sociologically but in terms of popular culture it
>does. If you called a Black person an Anglo (which is sociologically
>correct) he'd probably reject the label.
This comment from Victor is so fucking stupid that I should leave it alone, but I have to point
out that what he's really saying is that any group that shifts over to English as its native
language is "sociologically anglo". This is beyond absurd and can only be the product of an
extremely biased and prejudiced mind.
>I have a Mexican friend whose last name is O'Reilly. He hardly speaks
>English (grew up in "el D.F." Chilango) and yet everyone assumes he is
>"Anglo." His great great grandfather fought on the side of Mexico in the
>St. Patrick brigade (group of Irish who deserted the US Army and joined
>their Catholic Mexican counterparts in battle against the "Anglos"!).
This is what constitutes "research" for Victor: "I have a friend of a friend, and his friend
says so and so thinks this is correct".
BTW, retard, only a complete ignoramus would think that an Irishman is an Anglo.
Dwayne Conyers
Richard Periut
.
One entry found for Anglo-Saxon.
Main Entry: An搽lo-Sax搗n
Pronunciation: "a[ng]-glO-'sak-s&n
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin Anglo-Saxones, plural, alteration of Medieval
Latin Angli Saxones, from Latin Angli Angles + Late Latin Saxones
Saxons
Date: before 12th century
1 : a member of the Germanic peoples conquering England in the 5th
century A.D. and forming the ruling class until the Norman conquest --
compare ANGLE, JUTE, SAXON
2 a : ENGLISHMAN; specifically : a person descended from the
Anglo-Saxons b : a white gentile of an English-speaking nation
3 : OLD ENGLISH 1
4 : direct plain English; especially : English using words considered
crude or vulgar
- Anglo-Saxon adjective
Actually 2b, satisfies the definition, but you have to be "white" and you have to be from an
English speaking country. Notice the word "gentile."
Makes you wonder if Ph.D. after a name, really means anything???
R
XXX wrote:
--
We are all eternal, infinite, and substance...
Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez
antropologia!
Buen ejemplo de un BRUTO del PNP!
XXX wrote:
--
Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez
Anonymous wrote:
Permiteme diferir, Victor. Anglosajón es un concepto bastante bién definido, en su contexto cultural correcto, y antropolograficamente se refiere a dos grupos etnicos de Europa del Norte, las malamente llamadas tribus germánicas, y que se encontraron y mezclaron en Inglaterra. Un concepto similar al llamado Celtíbero.
Pos, puedes diferir y a la vez exprezar algo incorrecto. En los EUA, especialmente
en el area de "American Studies" Anglo-Sajon se refiere a los valores normativos
centrales de la cultura yanqui. Aunque no del todo correcto, se refiere
a la influencia de valores tales como la etica de trabajo, individualismo,
sentido de supremacia racial etc. Tambien incluye las normas religiosas
instituidas por los puritanos (Reformed Church).
En la forma usada en USA (pardon the pun! : ) ), es un termino que varia en significado de sitio en sitio. Y por lo general todos son incorrectos.
El hecho de que sean sociologicamente incorrectos no los elimina como conceptos
con un peso social importante. El concepto de raza es un concepto que aunque
NO es cientifico influencia la cultura yanqui de manera fundamental. "If
people believe it is real, it is real in its consequences" . W.I. Thomas.
Un Judio puede ser europeo en terminos raciales, pero un judio mediterraneo no puede ser anglosajón.
A veces si, a veces no....los Sefarditas (a menos que no sean Etiopes)
son, la mayor parte de las veces considerados como blancos "sospechosos"
igual que muchos Boricuas como Pitin.
Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez
XXX wrote:
--
Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez
You obviously do not understand the difference between a ossified dictionary definition from what a
popular culture and/or colloquial denotation mean.
Richard Periut wrote:
--
XXX
>
>Como siempre Pitin, demostrando que como abogado y leguleyo se merece el titulo de BRUTO en
>antropologia!
Canto de CABRON, donde esta tu refutacion a lo que dije?
Y no me llamo Pitin tampoco, it's Mr.XXX to you.
Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez
XXX wrote:
-
XXX
>
>Who gives a s....t about what you have to say?
Well, I guess you must be one of them, because there isn't a message I post here that you don't
answer.
Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez
que eres!
XXX wrote:
--
Dr. Victor Manuel Rodriguez Dominguez
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
XXX
>
>I am glad you are not in college, you would probably flunk, again!
>
>You obviously do not understand the difference between a ossified dictionary definition from
what a
>popular culture and/or colloquial denotation mean.
>
Another typical Victor response: when someone disagrees with him and cites a well respected
source, then Victor immediately engages in some petty insulting, followed by a ridiculous and
baseless challenge to the source.
And as his drinking progresses into the night, his responses will become more and more incoherent
and insulting,
XXX
>
>Mira Pitin pornografo,
No, no me llamo Pitin, ni soy pornografo.
>deja la bebida y comportate como ser humano, no como el cafre indecente que eres!
Notaran que Victor dice que soy esto y que soy aquello, pero lo que no hace es decir que es falso
el que el sea un cabron.
XXX
>
>Mira Pitin pornografo, yo tu, no me vanagloriaba de ese nombre!
No soy Pitin y XXX es meramente las letras que uso para identificacion cibernetica.
Pero sigues sin negar lo de ser un cabron.
XXX
>
>Pos, puedes diferir y a la vez exprezar algo incorrecto.
Eso lo sabemos todos, si cada vez que posteas algo aqui, es algo incorrecto.
>En los EUA,
>especialmente en el area de "American Studies" Anglo-Sajon se refiere a
>los valores normativos centrales de la cultura yanqui.
Ahora Victor pretende hacerse pasar como alguien que sabe algo sobre los americanos. Lo unico
que podriamos decir, es que sabe como odiarlos.
Sobre la "cultura yanqui", eso de Anglo-Sajon es otra de tus barrabasadas, el mito de la cultura
hegemonica anglo-sajona se fue hace tiempo. Claro, que a un mercader del odio como tu, le es de
suma importancia seguir diciendolo.
>Aunque no del
>todo correcto, se refiere a la influencia de valores tales como la etica
>de trabajo, individualismo, sentido de supremacia racial etc. Tambien
>incluye las normas religiosas instituidas por los puritanos (Reformed
>Church).
No seas animal, que a eso le dicen "the protestant work ethic". Y por si no lo sabias, esa etica
no viene de los miticos anglo-sajones que tanto te gusta tirarles, sino de Juan Calvino y Jan
Hus, uno frances y el otro hungaro.
Saben lo que pasa? Que Victor es Luterano, y si viene y admite que la etica predominante en los
EU viene de las iglesias protestantes, y da la casualidad que el es miembro de una de ellas,
entonces da la casualidad que Victor ha adoptado la etica religiosa de los americanos que tanto
odia.
Pero no te preocupes, pendejo, que nuestra etica viene de los judios, no de los anglo-sajones.
De hecho, la de ellos tambien viene de los judios.
Vamos a ver si se te ocurre quien fue el judio ese que nos ha dado un sistema de valores que
predomina en Occidente?
>El hecho de que sean sociologicamente incorrectos no los elimina como
>conceptos con un peso social importante. El concepto de raza es un
>concepto que aunque NO es cientifico influencia la cultura yanqui de
>manera fundamental. "If people believe it is real, it is real in its
>consequences" . W.I. Thomas.
No seas suruma, que por mas que creas que la tierra es cuadrada, no lo es.
>A veces si, a veces no....los Sefarditas (a menos que no sean Etiopes)
>son, la mayor parte de las veces considerados como blancos "sospechosos"
>igual que muchos Boricuas como Pitin.
"blancos sospechosos"??? De donde carajos te sacas estas cosas?
Me imagino que del mismo sitio donde sacastes el concepto que los judios son anglos
Kip King
world's largest casino, not just Indian casino, any casino) from
Connecticut appear to be African American. So do many other Indians from
the eastern U.S. and many others appear to be white. Blonde haired, blue
eyed actress Heather Locklear is a Lumbee Indian who won an Indian actor
of the year award a couple of years ago.
XXX
>
>Yes, and the vast majority of Mashantucket Pequot Indians (who have the
>world's largest casino, not just Indian casino, any casino) from
>Connecticut appear to be African American. So do many other Indians from
>the eastern U.S. and many others appear to be white. Blonde haired, blue
>eyed actress Heather Locklear is a Lumbee Indian who won an Indian actor
>of the year award a couple of years ago.
>
where they are meaningless.
Of course, as you point out, the legal ramnifications of having the Bureau of Indian Affairs give
you tribal status can be very beneficial indeed,
Richard Periut
name. Gives much galvanization to the place where you obtained it from.
Unless you bought it....
Jews Anglo Saxons! Ha, there is a real kicker!!!!! :))))) Say, is that one of those smuggled Chicano
dictionaries you are using??
Better stick to the bombings in Vieques.....
R
Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez wrote:
Kip King
recognized tribe (as are about one third of all US Indian tribes). What
makes a person an Indian is membership in a tribe, not degree of Indian
blood. It's like in Scotland many people have much English, Norman
and/or Viking blood but they are still considered Scottish. Indian
tribes are small domestic nationalities. We will never be extinct no
matter how much non Indian blood we absorb. Indian tribes will outlive
the US itself.
XXX
>
>As was said before, your postings are so stupid, I would think again about putting Ph.D.. after
>your name.
You would, be he won't. He's intent on letting the rest of us know how his intelligence has no
beginning.
>Gives much galvanization to the place where you obtained it from.
>Unless you bought it....
He claims to have gotten it from Louisiana State---which is where I guess you would go if you
were conducting a case study on the Puerto Rican sugar cane industry.
Sort of like going to the University of Bogota to study French Literature.
>Jews Anglo Saxons! Ha, there is a real kicker!!!!! :))))) Say, is that one of those smuggled
>Chicano dictionaries you are using??
>
>Better stick to the bombings in Vieques.....
Well, he's getting bombed on a daily basis. He's graduated from writing about sugar cane, to
drinking it in its fermented liquid form
XXX
>
>Her tribe, the Lumbee Indians of North Carolina, are a non federally
>recognized tribe (as are about one third of all US Indian tribes). What
>makes a person an Indian is membership in a tribe, not degree of Indian
>blood. It's like in Scotland many people have much English, Norman
>and/or Viking blood but they are still considered Scottish. Indian
>tribes are small domestic nationalities. We will never be extinct no
>matter how much non Indian blood we absorb. Indian tribes will outlive
>the US itself.
Based on this incredibly elastic definition you have provided, I guess not. If you don't have to
have indian blood and yet still consider yourself indian, seems to me, to be akin to saying you
don't believe in Jesus but consider yourself Christian.
Kip King
I said that you have to be a tribal member. All tribes require some
Indian blood to be a tribal member. I remember several years ago when
California still had affirmative action, some black people filed a suit
because some guy got a minority set aside contract as an Indian when he
had 1/512 Indian blood. The suit was thrown out. The judge said he was
an Indian (and therefore a minority) because he was a member of a tribe
(in this case, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma).
Anonymous
"Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez" wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Permiteme diferir, Victor. Anglosajón es un concepto bastante bién definido, en su contexto cultural correcto, y antropolograficamente se refiere a dos grupos etnicos de Europa del Norte, las malamente llamadas tribus germánicas, y que se encontraron y mezclaron en Inglaterra. Un concepto similar al llamado Celtíbero.Pos, puedes diferir y a la vez exprezar algo incorrecto. En los EUA, especialmente en el area de "American Studies" Anglo-Sajon se refiere a los valores normativos centrales de la cultura yanqui. Aunque no del todo correcto, se refiere a la influencia de valores tales como la etica de trabajo, individualismo, sentido de supremacia racial etc. Tambien incluye las normas religiosas instituidas por los puritanos (Reformed Church).
Quizas esa sea su opinion,o la opinion de algunos en EEUU. De todas formas sigue siendo incorrecta. El hecho de que cuatro monos decidan llamar negro al color blanco, no hace a este negro. Y Victor, no existe una culturaYanqui, y lo que es mas sorprendente todavia, NO EXISTE UNA CULTURA AMERICANA (US).
El hecho de que sean sociologicamente incorrectos no los elimina como conceptos con un peso social importante. El concepto de raza es un concepto que aunque NO es cientifico influencia la cultura yanqui de manera fundamental. "If people believe it is real, it is real in its consequences" . W.I. Thomas.En la forma usada en USA (pardon the pun! : ) ), es un termino que varia en significado de sitio en sitio. Y por lo general todos son incorrectos.
Tienes razón y concuerdo en esto contigo. La mentira es mas poderosa que la verdad, cuando la ultima es incómoda.
Saludos
Moi
Un Judio puede ser europeo en terminos raciales, pero un judio mediterraneo no puede ser anglosajón.A veces si, a veces no....los Sefarditas (a menos que no sean Etiopes) son, la mayor parte de las veces considerados como blancos "sospechosos" igual que muchos Boricuas como Pitin.
Y sin embargo, los sefarditas son los judios verdaderos, no crossovers como los ashkenazi. Los judios y arabes provienen del mismo grupo europeo meridional que pobló Norafrica y el Oriente medio.
Anonymous
: )
Best Regards
Moi
Anonymous
This is getting interesting !
Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez
Anonymous wrote:
"Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez" wrote:
Quizas esa sea su opinion,o la opinion de algunos en EEUU. De todas formas sigue siendo incorrecta. El hecho de que cuatro monos decidan llamar negro al color blanco, no hace a este negro. Y Victor, no existe una culturaYanqui, y lo que es mas sorprendente todavia, NO EXISTE UNA CULTURA AMERICANA (US).Anonymous wrote:
Permiteme diferir, Victor. Anglosajón es un concepto bastante bién definido, en su contexto cultural correcto, y antropolograficamente se refiere a dos grupos etnicos de Europa del Norte, las malamente llamadas tribus germánicas, y que se encontraron y mezclaron en Inglaterra. Un concepto similar al llamado Celtíbero.Pos, puedes diferir y a la vez exprezar algo incorrecto. En los EUA, especialmente en el area de "American Studies" Anglo-Sajon se refiere a los valores normativos centrales de la cultura yanqui. Aunque no del todo correcto, se refiere a la influencia de valores tales como la etica de trabajo, individualismo, sentido de supremacia racial etc. Tambien incluye las normas religiosas instituidas por los puritanos (Reformed Church).
Date una hojeada a los programas academicos de las universidades mas prestigiosas yanquis y encontraras unos programas interdisciplinarios llamados "American Studies." Adivina que estudian...la cultura "Americana"! De hecho, aqui he anotado cuchucientas veces un estudio de un sociologo de la cultura, R. Williams donde detalla los "core values" de esa cultura. La gran mayor parte de ella proviene de los fundadores Anglo-Sajones.
Y btw, Pitin, no sabe nada, de nada por lo que despotrica sobre todo (ni de leyes sabe pues se dormia en los cursos de leyes!). Mira el moron dice que la etica del trabajo no es anglo-sajona porque dizque, viene de los Holandeses. El moron no sabe que los Calvinistas que vinieron inicialmente a las colonias venian directamente de Inglaterra, no directamente de Holanda. Pero tal como dije los valores puritanos son la base de la etica del trabajo que subyace la cultura yanqui. Y otra brutalidad que dice el moron ese es que se le llama "protestant work ethic." La version contemporanea de la etica del trabajo no es religiosa, sino una version secular (materialista, adquisitiva), en sus origenes lo era pero ya, no lo es.
No se como no se averguenza el Pitin ese de escribir aqui...pero entiendo
porque se encapucha, si yo fuera tan moron, tambien lo haria...
Tienes razón y concuerdo en esto contigo. La mentira es mas poderosa que la verdad, cuando la ultima es incómoda.
El hecho de que sean sociologicamente incorrectos no los elimina como conceptos con un peso social importante. El concepto de raza es un concepto que aunque NO es cientifico influencia la cultura yanqui de manera fundamental. "If people believe it is real, it is real in its consequences" . W.I. Thomas.En la forma usada en USA (pardon the pun! : ) ), es un termino que varia en significado de sitio en sitio. Y por lo general todos son incorrectos.
Saludos
MoiY sin embargo, los sefarditas son los judios verdaderos, no crossovers como los ashkenazi. Los judios y arabes provienen del mismo grupo europeo meridional que pobló Norafrica y el Oriente medio.
Un Judio puede ser europeo en terminos raciales, pero un judio mediterraneo no puede ser anglosajón.A veces si, a veces no....los Sefarditas (a menos que no sean Etiopes) son, la mayor parte de las veces considerados como blancos "sospechosos" igual que muchos Boricuas como Pitin.
Una extension del concepto en ese sentido "boggles the mind".Merry Xmas to y'all !
--
Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez
anyone as Indian. In fact the blood quantum rule is a European invention, many Indian nations were very
accepting of non-Indians. Many whites and Blacks went into the wilderness in colonial times and were
accepted into tribal groups.
Kip King wrote:
--
Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez
--
Anonymous
Date una hojeada a los programas academicos de las universidades mas prestigiosas yanquis y encontraras unos programas interdisciplinarios llamados "American Studies." Adivina que estudian...la cultura "Americana"! De hecho, aqui he anotado cuchucientas veces un estudio de un sociologo de la cultura, R. Williams donde detalla los "core values" de esa cultura. La gran mayor parte de ella proviene de los fundadores Anglo-Sajones.Quizas esa sea su opinion,o la opinion de algunos en EEUU. De todas formas sigue siendo incorrecta. El hecho de que cuatro monos decidan llamar negro al color blanco, no hace a este negro. Y Victor, no existe una culturaYanqui, y lo que es mas sorprendente todavia, NO EXISTE UNA CULTURA AMERICANA (US).
Te repito, el que cuatro monos se reunan y
prediquen su opinion como la verdad absoluta y como esta aplica al resto
de la fauna, no es significativo en el ambiente cientifico. En mis
cursos de antropologia me divertia mucho analizando la sociedad de EEUU,
en la misma forma que ellos patronizadoramente usaban para estudiar las
de otros, y era un choque para sus pretensiones el verse analizados en
su turno.
La sociedad americana es un mosaico de culturas, y no existe un patron común que una los diferentes estratos de la misma. Para hacertelo sencillo, lo que hay (aunque esto también aplica, en menor grado, a otras sociedades) es un melange de culturas dentro de culturas, hasta llegar al core basico social y cultural de la familia. Lo que une a la sociedad americana, el integumento común, es su esquema económico.
El llamado work ethic es un elemento común de mi familia y antepasados, que ni son protestantes, ni holandeses, pero si muy hispanos. ¿Deberia llamarlo la Etica Católica del Trabajo ?
Regards
Moi
Anonymous
: )
"Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez" wrote:
Richard Periut
XXX wrote:
--
Kip King
tribal member to be an Indian (politics) and with all US Indian tribes
it's necessary to have some Indian blood to be a tribal member. Some
tribes only require simple descent from a past tribal member with any
degree of blood, others require a certain minimum amount of Indian blood
(the amount varies). More and more tribes are going from blood quantum
to simple descent as tribes realize that blood quantum causes three
problems: One, as less and less people can meet their tribe's minimum
blood quantum, the tribe is brought closer to extinction. Two, once
blood quantum is discarded in favor of simple descent there is the
question of the status of tribal descendants who were not tribal members
under to old blood quantum rules but would be eligible for membership
under simple descent. Some tribes have tried to solve this problem with
a "grandfather clause" which says that only children of a tribal member
can be tribal members, thus shutting out descendants who have Indian
blood but don't have a parent who is/was a tribal member. This often
causes the dilemma of having a group of tribal descendants who are not
tribal members yet who in many cases have as much, or even more, Indian
blood than many tribal members. Third, having a minimum blood quantum in
some cases forces some tribal members to marry only other tribal members
to keep their children's blood quantum high enough for tribal membership
(Indian blood from another tribe won't due since when figuring blood
quantum tribes only count their own blood for example, my tribe has
simple descent so I don't have to worry about it but I'm 3/8 Indian,
5/16 Cherokee and 1/16 Delaware-Muncie. My tribe only considers me 5/16
not 3/8).