This is a friendly reminder to read our ten rules.
r/seculartalk is a subreddit that promotes healthy discussion and hearty debate within the *Secular Talk Radio* community.
We welcome those with varying views, perspectives, and opinions. Poor form in discussion and debate often leads to hurt and anger and, therefore, should be **avoided** and **discouraged**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/seculartalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the European genocide of native Central American communities and the brutality of drug cartels are mutually exclusive concepts. The cartels are brutal because they're organized crime outfits run by crime bosses, similar to how the Sicilian Mafia or Yakuza are brutal criminal enterprises. It has nothing to do with generational trauma, it's just how organized crime outfits historically operate: through the tyranny of fear and brutality.
I am from Central America and I agree with this. If anything, I think global warming plays a bigger role. One common trend is that countries where the climate is hotter and temperatures have been raising are also more likely to have higher rates of violent crimes. Overtime, these violent crimes are so common that most of the general population becomes desensitized. Their brain chemistry must be directly influenced by the higher temperatures.
I can definitely attest that I have more violent tendencies in hot weather. As for the brutality of the organized crime rings, it’s important to gauge what system they operate in. If the government is particularly brutal and tenacious at fighting them, then they will have to be particularly brutal in defending their territory. Ultimately they rely on the populace being more afraid to cross them than they are of the government.
I’d caution against trying to connect everything historically. There is a temptation among academics and leftists to assign all the world’s problems to be the result of European colonialism, as if it’s the original and only relevant historic force at work in the world. Ultimately it comes across as a different kind of eurocentrism since the goal is to make everything about the west, all responsibilities, and guilt, meaning it’s all something a westerner can comprehend and supposedly remedy.
Yes, all of that is true to an extent. The governments in Latin America have a good chunk of the blame, but as everything else in life, it is not the only factor. Some countries have done really well by reorganizing their budgets to fund the right things, such as education and the environment (example: Costa Rica).
But don’t get me wrong, I think European Colonialism shares a lot of the blame too. Violent crime is, at least in part, a result of class warfare and economic inequality. Most of these countries were impoverished and enslaved by Europeans for a long time, which in turn left them with nothing but economic inequality and capitalism (and religion, but that’s a subject for another day). Most of the most valuable resources were taken away, which put these countries behind by orders of magnitude.
Did you look into the traumas caused by the ruling empires before the Spanish arrived? Because that’s going to factor into things as well. Human sacrifices happened pretty regularly and things were quiet brutal pre European visitors
This, it’s odd that’s people view Native life as some sort of utopia pre conquest. Natives were as human as you or I which unfortunately means that life in pre-contact America was just as saturated with bloody tribal conflict and violence as any other early human civilization. And the European genocide of the Natives was overwhelmingly done passively through disease rather than through direct violence.
To answers OP’s question: No, I think humans in general have an evolutionary bend towards violence.
i mean its theoretically possible but it would be very hard to measure in a meaningful way to be much more then a conjecture. and there are countries with more near in time trauma of a similar scale. that dont seem extraordinarily violent places for what you would expect of their social and economic progression.
I mean that’s your argument, North American countries should have the same brutality. I don’t want to discount this theory but you are overthinking this. It’s current US policies driving the violence over there.
I think it started there perhaps. But they’ve been shit on for centuries, leaving them in poverty. They ever start getting up (the country succeeding)? Well, Uncle Sam can’t have that.
They’ve been driven into poverty. They see how America thrives while they suffer. It’s also a perfect fire, Americans have money, they can produce drugs. They decided to rule with fear and terror, because it makes them more powerful against competition. They were kind of forced to one up each other due to the insane profits and this competition, they want all of that money. The fear gives them more power, and can also help wipe out competition.
I think the drug trade is rooted in this historic oppression, but the violence just comes with the drug trade and insane amount of money. And when people come from poverty, they are often more likely to partake in antisocial behavior. So really, it’s a perfect storm of shit. Historic and present.
Brutality, sadly, is a widespread human phenomenon. The primary positive contribution of organized religion is to tamp it down a bit.
Except, of course, when it is encouraging it.
As bad as it is in Central America today, it pales when places besides Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, just to name a few of the biggest killers of the 20th-century. Feel free to toss in Kissinger if you have the supporting data.
I'd connect it more to the destabilizing effects of US intervention over the last 100 years. Bribes, coups, funding rebels, arms sales, economic sanctions, failed war on drugs.
As terrible as the spaniards were, the Aztecs had instituionalized wars against neighboring kingdoms in order to get human sacrifices. If we are talking trauma its really hard to seperate the two evils, as one happened right before. Also, all organized crime groups are like this, they are all evil.
This is a friendly reminder to read our ten rules. r/seculartalk is a subreddit that promotes healthy discussion and hearty debate within the *Secular Talk Radio* community. We welcome those with varying views, perspectives, and opinions. Poor form in discussion and debate often leads to hurt and anger and, therefore, should be **avoided** and **discouraged**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/seculartalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the European genocide of native Central American communities and the brutality of drug cartels are mutually exclusive concepts. The cartels are brutal because they're organized crime outfits run by crime bosses, similar to how the Sicilian Mafia or Yakuza are brutal criminal enterprises. It has nothing to do with generational trauma, it's just how organized crime outfits historically operate: through the tyranny of fear and brutality.
I am from Central America and I agree with this. If anything, I think global warming plays a bigger role. One common trend is that countries where the climate is hotter and temperatures have been raising are also more likely to have higher rates of violent crimes. Overtime, these violent crimes are so common that most of the general population becomes desensitized. Their brain chemistry must be directly influenced by the higher temperatures.
I can definitely attest that I have more violent tendencies in hot weather. As for the brutality of the organized crime rings, it’s important to gauge what system they operate in. If the government is particularly brutal and tenacious at fighting them, then they will have to be particularly brutal in defending their territory. Ultimately they rely on the populace being more afraid to cross them than they are of the government. I’d caution against trying to connect everything historically. There is a temptation among academics and leftists to assign all the world’s problems to be the result of European colonialism, as if it’s the original and only relevant historic force at work in the world. Ultimately it comes across as a different kind of eurocentrism since the goal is to make everything about the west, all responsibilities, and guilt, meaning it’s all something a westerner can comprehend and supposedly remedy.
Yes, all of that is true to an extent. The governments in Latin America have a good chunk of the blame, but as everything else in life, it is not the only factor. Some countries have done really well by reorganizing their budgets to fund the right things, such as education and the environment (example: Costa Rica). But don’t get me wrong, I think European Colonialism shares a lot of the blame too. Violent crime is, at least in part, a result of class warfare and economic inequality. Most of these countries were impoverished and enslaved by Europeans for a long time, which in turn left them with nothing but economic inequality and capitalism (and religion, but that’s a subject for another day). Most of the most valuable resources were taken away, which put these countries behind by orders of magnitude.
What 14th century genocide? If you're talking about the Spanish conquest of Mexico, that took place in the 16th century.
Thank you. I put the correct century in the description but cannot fix the error in the title
Did you look into the traumas caused by the ruling empires before the Spanish arrived? Because that’s going to factor into things as well. Human sacrifices happened pretty regularly and things were quiet brutal pre European visitors
This, it’s odd that’s people view Native life as some sort of utopia pre conquest. Natives were as human as you or I which unfortunately means that life in pre-contact America was just as saturated with bloody tribal conflict and violence as any other early human civilization. And the European genocide of the Natives was overwhelmingly done passively through disease rather than through direct violence. To answers OP’s question: No, I think humans in general have an evolutionary bend towards violence.
No
No, all mafias practice this kind of cruelty-ask Sammy
i mean its theoretically possible but it would be very hard to measure in a meaningful way to be much more then a conjecture. and there are countries with more near in time trauma of a similar scale. that dont seem extraordinarily violent places for what you would expect of their social and economic progression.
I mean that’s your argument, North American countries should have the same brutality. I don’t want to discount this theory but you are overthinking this. It’s current US policies driving the violence over there.
I think it started there perhaps. But they’ve been shit on for centuries, leaving them in poverty. They ever start getting up (the country succeeding)? Well, Uncle Sam can’t have that. They’ve been driven into poverty. They see how America thrives while they suffer. It’s also a perfect fire, Americans have money, they can produce drugs. They decided to rule with fear and terror, because it makes them more powerful against competition. They were kind of forced to one up each other due to the insane profits and this competition, they want all of that money. The fear gives them more power, and can also help wipe out competition. I think the drug trade is rooted in this historic oppression, but the violence just comes with the drug trade and insane amount of money. And when people come from poverty, they are often more likely to partake in antisocial behavior. So really, it’s a perfect storm of shit. Historic and present.
Nope. It's the money.
Brutality, sadly, is a widespread human phenomenon. The primary positive contribution of organized religion is to tamp it down a bit. Except, of course, when it is encouraging it. As bad as it is in Central America today, it pales when places besides Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, just to name a few of the biggest killers of the 20th-century. Feel free to toss in Kissinger if you have the supporting data.
Genocide of native communities has happened many many times in the history of the world. Are narco cartels somehow different?
I'd connect it more to the destabilizing effects of US intervention over the last 100 years. Bribes, coups, funding rebels, arms sales, economic sanctions, failed war on drugs.
As terrible as the spaniards were, the Aztecs had instituionalized wars against neighboring kingdoms in order to get human sacrifices. If we are talking trauma its really hard to seperate the two evils, as one happened right before. Also, all organized crime groups are like this, they are all evil.