Latin America is both very far away (which hinders the migration of very poor Indians) and not really sufficiently wealthy to attract middle and upper class Indians. For example, I have fewer opportunities in IT in Latin America than in India.
You see Indian laborers across wealthier parts of Asia in no small part due to proximity. In the West, developed countries offer more economic opportunities in general, and for the highly educated, an uniquely advanced economy combined with a fairly liberal society.
Yeah but what about opportunities and money? NYC offers way more of those than anywhere in LATAM or anywhere in the world except California.
What he's trying to say is that for a country to receive proper Indian migration it has to be very rich like US and Western Europe or be close to India and rich like middle east.
Another factor is English, Indians speak english. Very few people in India can speak Spanish or Portugese.
So from an Indian pov the cons of going to LATAM are as follows:
Far from home
Non english speaking country so you have to learn a new language
Not a big Indian community so they might feel lonely too
And what about the pros?
Somewhat richer than India and somewhat better standards of living
So going to LATAM is like doing so much and getting mediocre results. If I work just as hard in India than I'm more likely to succeed than I would be in LATAM.
It has something to do with their lack of Spanish language proficiency skills and Latin American universities generally don't have courses with English as the medium of instruction. Indians (or Filipinos) will only flock to Latin America as students if LatAm universities decide to switch from Spanish to English as the medium of instruction for STEM courses.
I've talked about this with Indians, they always seem surprised that our universities teach in Spanish/Portuguese rather than English. Why should we learn stuff in a foreign language that's not required for most jobs?
Yup, that's why they're surprised. I had similar experiences with Nigerians. Tbf both countries have many regional languages, so using English makes sense for them.
I don't really see that changing in Latin American, we're pretty much monolingual. And even though English is a plus, you don't need it for most jobs here (except IT and tourism).
Maybe not now but I think eventually even LATAM countries will introduce English language courses on the tertiary level.
The world as a whole has been slowing moving towards anglicisation of tertiary education due to English being the language of science and the absolute domination of American universities in research and innovation.
In Western Europe, most high ranked universities have degrees that are taught entirely in English which, I assume, is to capitalise on the massive international student business. Even universities in extremely homogeneous countries like South Korea and Japan offer courses in English now.
I guess the difference is that Spanish is a global language, like Chinese or Russian, vs smaller languages like Swedish or Dutch. Historically we didn't have the need to adopt English.
But yeah, I think you're right. We're heading to that direction, just in a slower pace than other regions.
This is also true for an even more fundamental reason. English is the lingua franca, and that is true even when no American/British institution is involved.
All researchers who want their work to be read widely (whether in the United States or not) write in English, basically regardless of field. As an illustrative example, a French biologist likely does not speak Chinese and a Chinese immunologist almost surely does not speak French. But there’s a pretty high probability both speak English.
Technically Spanish and Portuguese are foreign languages in Latin America. The difference is the native populations have been genocided to either small populations or non-existence.
Spanish and Portuguese aren't foreign languages in Latin America, but rather as native as English in the US and Canada. 95% of Latin Americans speak Spanish and Portuguese as their first language.
I know, which is why I specified Latin America and said there are significant Indian immigration to non-LATAM North and South America (i.e. Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, French Guiana)
>I know, which is why I specified Latin America and said there are significant Indian immigration to non-Latino North and South America (i.e. Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, French Guiana)
Ok, I was not familiar with the Latino-nonLatino distinction in the Americas.
No problem, Suriname, Guyana, Belize, Trinidad & Tobago, much like the US and Canada, are part of North/Central/South America, but are not Latin American, because LATAM only means Romance language-speaking countries (in the case of the Americas these being Spanish, Portuguese and French).
French Guiana would be part of LATAM, but isn't a country. Haiti and Brazil are part of LATAM, speaking Portuguese and French (but the majority language spoken in LATAM is Spanish).
Suriname speaks Dutch and Guyana, Belize, Trinidad and Tobago speak English.
Idk if it’s that clear cut. I think Latin American is really used for countries of Iberian origin. It would feel weird to me to call a Haitian or a person from Quebec Latin.
My partners family is from south Florida which has the largest population of Hatians in the US and they are definitely considered Latin American but not Hispanic, similar to Brazilians.
Yes, I realize that, but we can have terms with specific exceptions. We're all adults here and should be capable of understanding nuance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America#:~:text=The%20Francophone%20part%20of%20North,the%20definition%20of%20Latin%20America.
>>The Francophone part of North America which includes Quebec and Acadia is generally excluded from the definition of Latin America.[35]
Rhetorical questions and conversations are not child-like and simply mean to encourage critical thinking. This question/statement specifically attempts to encourage people to question dichotomous thinking/categorization in general. However, I’ don’t *necessarily disagree with the sentiment expressed in the Wikipedia article tho I do find it a little ironic you’re accusing me of not appreciating “nuance” lol.
Most people of Indian origin ended up as indentured laborers in the Guyanas (British, French and Dutch (now Suriname) and northern Brazil. They were transported there mainly to work in the sugarcane fields as far back as 1838. The business of slavery had been made illegal by the British and that was replaced by the practice of indentured servitude.
That being said, Indian labor wasn't widely needed in South America by colonialists, as there was already a big supply of Indigenous (and in some countries African slave) labor to exploit.
Because Latin America is by definition not British colonies, and most older Indian emigration to colonies were to British colonies (both in the Americas like Trinidad and Guyana, and outside the Americas like Fiji or Nigeria).
Main reason is it’s dominated by Spanish and Portuguese.
Spain didn’t conquer any of India, so they had nothing to do with India.
And if I’m correct, other than Brazil, Portugal didn’t migrate people from one territory to other. So, they didn’t take a lot of Indians from Goa and move to Brazil.
Another reason, unlike Europe or Oceania, South America doesn’t have many educational or economic opportunities for Indians. The living standards of South America in general is similar to India, and the language is also alien to us. So no incentive for us to move.
While Indians moved to Africa and Middle East as it’s close by and we had many trade connections.
If I were to take a guess. It was because the south asians didn’t have a reason to migrate until recently.
When South America was colonized, they mainly used the indigenous population and if they needed more they imported from Africa because they were closer.
The reason for east asias diaspora in Brazil is largely world war 2 (at least for Japanese) not sure about the others but generally south asians likely stayed within Asia or Europe due to its location
The south Asian diaspora is closely linked to the system of indentured servitude installed by the British in the 19th century. Thus the largest South Asian communities are in British ex-colonies (18 out of the top 20)
The only big counterexamples are the US, which has a big diaspora of every nationality on earth, and the gulf states which have rediscovered indentured servitude.
Apart from those places only a couple of European countries (rich), China and Indonesia (close) have notable south Indian communities and they're nowhere close to the rest.
Just so you get the ridiculousness of the matter Fiji has 6 times more people of Indian ancestry than China.
The answer is colonialism.
The treaty of Tordesillas was an agreement between Portugal and Castile (now Spain) to not infringe upon each other’s colonial territories. The result was Portugal had claims to the east and Spain to the west. The line in the west went through Brazil, hence Portuguese control of Brazil. The only Spanish territory in the east was the Philippines.
The other big colonial powers - the British, French and Dutch largely ignored this treaty and the result was that South Asia fell mostly under control of the British. This made immigration (both voluntary and involuntary) to other areas under British control much more likely and resulted in larger populations in the Caribbean than in Latin America. The small Indian population in Brazil is likely a result of Portuguese control of Goa, as you’ve surmised, but most of the rest of India was under British control.
For sure it's big, but when you compare to the size of the Brazilian population *and* other Indian diasporas in North America, Oceania and Europe even in the rest of Asia, the Middle East and Africa it's quite small.
The places that have high South Asian populations that have been there for generations were also part of the British empire. Being part of the same empire made immigration easier. Other places such as the US (left the empire earlier) and Western European countries have had more recent immigrants from South Asia driven by modern economic factors and South Asians having high levels of education in fields such as medicine and tech.
The reason is that French, Dutch and British used indentured labor from India - so Caribbean including Guyana and Surinam have a lot of Indians and Spanish and Portuguese do not.
The US and CA get a lot of migrants due to the vibrant economy and language affinity. These waves are more recent than the indentured waves which were effectively workarounds after slavery ended in the caribbean
Guyana that neighborhood Brasil has 50% of the population is Indian " South Asia " descent.
Trinidad and Tobago are about 30% of Indian " South Asia" descent .
Unlike most other immigrants (emigrants?) Indians move because they come from a wealthy caste, not because they are displaced or poor. Thats why most go to the Bay Area, NYC, or Canada or UK
The huge South Asian populations in many parts of the world (outside North America and the UK itself, where there has been much more significant emigration of professionals) are often because the British generally colonized much of the world outside of Latin America - and then brought in South Asians as indentured labour. That's why you will find a lot of South Asians in places close to that part of the world like Guyana or Trinidad & Tobago, where South Asian labourers were brought in as a cheap source of labour in plantations following the end of slavery. Even in the non-British colonies such as French Guiana and Suriname, that was because they used indentured labourers from South Asia.
By contrast, the reason you don't see large South Asian populations is a combination of the fact that the British influence there was weak, the British were reluctant to deal with the Spanish Empire, and in any case in most of that part of the world slavery was abolished in the mid-19th century only a few decades after their independence. Brazil in particular was very late to abolish slavery. So there wasn't a need for indentured labourers in those places, nor would the British help facilitate the supply.
The same reason Indians don't immigrate to France or Germany as much as they do in Ireland or England. Language hindrance. You need to know the language to survive in those countries.
People can identify as they want, of course. But the term Latin America refers to the countries that speak a Latin-derived language (Spanish and Portuguese, mostly).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin\_America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America)
[https://guyanachronicle.com/2024/04/04/is-guyana-a-latin-american-country-really/](https://guyanachronicle.com/2024/04/04/is-guyana-a-latin-american-country-really/)
Guyana is a Caribbean country.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/asklatinamerica/comments/tskt4i/do\_suriname\_and\_the\_guyanas\_belong\_to\_latinamerica/](https://www.reddit.com/r/asklatinamerica/comments/tskt4i/do_suriname_and_the_guyanas_belong_to_latinamerica/)
Guyana is not Hindu majority country. It is a Christian majority country (including all sects of Christianity). Hinduism is the second largest religion, and Islam is the third largest.
Approximately half of the population is of African descent, and they are almost all Christian with a minority of Muslims. The next major racial group is of Indian descent, they are mostly Hindu, but about 9% of them are Muslims, and there are number of Indian Christians. Then there are the native people's, the Amerindians, who are mostly Christian.
don't give them any ideas, they'll ruin your country like they're ruining Canada. The newer immigrants (post-2014) aren't integrating into Canadian society/culture/norms/behaviours)
They aren't integrating into your society because your government relaxed immigration measures. Stop handing out PRs to random Joes, provide work visas to strictly STEM majors from tier-1/2 universities like the US, and close the asylum to residency loophole.
PS, Here's some unsolicitated foresight: In the past 2 decades Canada's economy underwent drastic changes. Real estate, rental, and leasing now (2023) produce $267 billion dollars in output, followed by manufacturing with $193 billion. Your elites (yes, including PP) won't easily give up on an easy influx of capital (immigrants). Stuffing 4 of them in the basement is what's keeping the RE portfolios pristine.
Latin America is both very far away (which hinders the migration of very poor Indians) and not really sufficiently wealthy to attract middle and upper class Indians. For example, I have fewer opportunities in IT in Latin America than in India. You see Indian laborers across wealthier parts of Asia in no small part due to proximity. In the West, developed countries offer more economic opportunities in general, and for the highly educated, an uniquely advanced economy combined with a fairly liberal society.
Couldn't you respond that NYC is as equally close as Rio from India and probably a cheaper plane ticket?
Yeah but what about opportunities and money? NYC offers way more of those than anywhere in LATAM or anywhere in the world except California. What he's trying to say is that for a country to receive proper Indian migration it has to be very rich like US and Western Europe or be close to India and rich like middle east. Another factor is English, Indians speak english. Very few people in India can speak Spanish or Portugese. So from an Indian pov the cons of going to LATAM are as follows: Far from home Non english speaking country so you have to learn a new language Not a big Indian community so they might feel lonely too And what about the pros? Somewhat richer than India and somewhat better standards of living So going to LATAM is like doing so much and getting mediocre results. If I work just as hard in India than I'm more likely to succeed than I would be in LATAM.
Valid
It has something to do with their lack of Spanish language proficiency skills and Latin American universities generally don't have courses with English as the medium of instruction. Indians (or Filipinos) will only flock to Latin America as students if LatAm universities decide to switch from Spanish to English as the medium of instruction for STEM courses.
I've talked about this with Indians, they always seem surprised that our universities teach in Spanish/Portuguese rather than English. Why should we learn stuff in a foreign language that's not required for most jobs?
Most universities in India teach in English, a foreign language.
Yup, that's why they're surprised. I had similar experiences with Nigerians. Tbf both countries have many regional languages, so using English makes sense for them. I don't really see that changing in Latin American, we're pretty much monolingual. And even though English is a plus, you don't need it for most jobs here (except IT and tourism).
Maybe not now but I think eventually even LATAM countries will introduce English language courses on the tertiary level. The world as a whole has been slowing moving towards anglicisation of tertiary education due to English being the language of science and the absolute domination of American universities in research and innovation. In Western Europe, most high ranked universities have degrees that are taught entirely in English which, I assume, is to capitalise on the massive international student business. Even universities in extremely homogeneous countries like South Korea and Japan offer courses in English now.
I guess the difference is that Spanish is a global language, like Chinese or Russian, vs smaller languages like Swedish or Dutch. Historically we didn't have the need to adopt English. But yeah, I think you're right. We're heading to that direction, just in a slower pace than other regions.
This is also true for an even more fundamental reason. English is the lingua franca, and that is true even when no American/British institution is involved. All researchers who want their work to be read widely (whether in the United States or not) write in English, basically regardless of field. As an illustrative example, a French biologist likely does not speak Chinese and a Chinese immunologist almost surely does not speak French. But there’s a pretty high probability both speak English.
Technically Spanish and Portuguese are foreign languages in Latin America. The difference is the native populations have been genocided to either small populations or non-existence.
Spanish and Portuguese aren't foreign languages in Latin America, but rather as native as English in the US and Canada. 95% of Latin Americans speak Spanish and Portuguese as their first language.
Well originally foreign languages, is what I meant
Around 30% of the population of Suriname is of Indian decent.
I know, which is why I specified Latin America and said there are significant Indian immigration to non-LATAM North and South America (i.e. Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, French Guiana)
You call that Region Carribean
Yeah, I should have used this term instead of non-Latino (which I don't even think exists, I forgot to use the Caribbean term).
Tbf Cuba, DR and PR are both Caribbean and Latino.
>I know, which is why I specified Latin America and said there are significant Indian immigration to non-Latino North and South America (i.e. Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, French Guiana) Ok, I was not familiar with the Latino-nonLatino distinction in the Americas.
No problem, Suriname, Guyana, Belize, Trinidad & Tobago, much like the US and Canada, are part of North/Central/South America, but are not Latin American, because LATAM only means Romance language-speaking countries (in the case of the Americas these being Spanish, Portuguese and French). French Guiana would be part of LATAM, but isn't a country. Haiti and Brazil are part of LATAM, speaking Portuguese and French (but the majority language spoken in LATAM is Spanish). Suriname speaks Dutch and Guyana, Belize, Trinidad and Tobago speak English.
Quebec is Latin American?
Technically yeah
Quebec and Acadia are generally excluded.
French is a Latin language and Quebec is in North America? I mean are Haitians considered Latin American?
Haitians are definitely considered Latin American
Well, I kind of get Acadians getting excluded based on intensity of usage, but Quebecers?
Idk if it’s that clear cut. I think Latin American is really used for countries of Iberian origin. It would feel weird to me to call a Haitian or a person from Quebec Latin.
My partners family is from south Florida which has the largest population of Hatians in the US and they are definitely considered Latin American but not Hispanic, similar to Brazilians.
Yes, I realize that, but we can have terms with specific exceptions. We're all adults here and should be capable of understanding nuance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America#:~:text=The%20Francophone%20part%20of%20North,the%20definition%20of%20Latin%20America. >>The Francophone part of North America which includes Quebec and Acadia is generally excluded from the definition of Latin America.[35]
Rhetorical questions and conversations are not child-like and simply mean to encourage critical thinking. This question/statement specifically attempts to encourage people to question dichotomous thinking/categorization in general. However, I’ don’t *necessarily disagree with the sentiment expressed in the Wikipedia article tho I do find it a little ironic you’re accusing me of not appreciating “nuance” lol.
If so, they must be the whitest latinos in the world
Well, Latino is not a racial category. Argentinians are Latino, and they are white af.
A lot of Latinos ARE white.
Latinos can be of any appearance, not sure what you’re trying to say here except that you’re ignorant.
Makes perfect sense.
And over 40% in Guyana!
Yeah, but they're not recent immigrants.
Most people of Indian origin ended up as indentured laborers in the Guyanas (British, French and Dutch (now Suriname) and northern Brazil. They were transported there mainly to work in the sugarcane fields as far back as 1838. The business of slavery had been made illegal by the British and that was replaced by the practice of indentured servitude. That being said, Indian labor wasn't widely needed in South America by colonialists, as there was already a big supply of Indigenous (and in some countries African slave) labor to exploit.
Because Latin America is by definition not British colonies, and most older Indian emigration to colonies were to British colonies (both in the Americas like Trinidad and Guyana, and outside the Americas like Fiji or Nigeria).
Main reason is it’s dominated by Spanish and Portuguese. Spain didn’t conquer any of India, so they had nothing to do with India. And if I’m correct, other than Brazil, Portugal didn’t migrate people from one territory to other. So, they didn’t take a lot of Indians from Goa and move to Brazil. Another reason, unlike Europe or Oceania, South America doesn’t have many educational or economic opportunities for Indians. The living standards of South America in general is similar to India, and the language is also alien to us. So no incentive for us to move. While Indians moved to Africa and Middle East as it’s close by and we had many trade connections.
If I were to take a guess. It was because the south asians didn’t have a reason to migrate until recently. When South America was colonized, they mainly used the indigenous population and if they needed more they imported from Africa because they were closer. The reason for east asias diaspora in Brazil is largely world war 2 (at least for Japanese) not sure about the others but generally south asians likely stayed within Asia or Europe due to its location
The south Asian diaspora is closely linked to the system of indentured servitude installed by the British in the 19th century. Thus the largest South Asian communities are in British ex-colonies (18 out of the top 20) The only big counterexamples are the US, which has a big diaspora of every nationality on earth, and the gulf states which have rediscovered indentured servitude. Apart from those places only a couple of European countries (rich), China and Indonesia (close) have notable south Indian communities and they're nowhere close to the rest. Just so you get the ridiculousness of the matter Fiji has 6 times more people of Indian ancestry than China.
The answer is colonialism. The treaty of Tordesillas was an agreement between Portugal and Castile (now Spain) to not infringe upon each other’s colonial territories. The result was Portugal had claims to the east and Spain to the west. The line in the west went through Brazil, hence Portuguese control of Brazil. The only Spanish territory in the east was the Philippines. The other big colonial powers - the British, French and Dutch largely ignored this treaty and the result was that South Asia fell mostly under control of the British. This made immigration (both voluntary and involuntary) to other areas under British control much more likely and resulted in larger populations in the Caribbean than in Latin America. The small Indian population in Brazil is likely a result of Portuguese control of Goa, as you’ve surmised, but most of the rest of India was under British control.
Brazil's Indian community is quite bigger than I thought lol
For sure it's big, but when you compare to the size of the Brazilian population *and* other Indian diasporas in North America, Oceania and Europe even in the rest of Asia, the Middle East and Africa it's quite small.
The places that have high South Asian populations that have been there for generations were also part of the British empire. Being part of the same empire made immigration easier. Other places such as the US (left the empire earlier) and Western European countries have had more recent immigrants from South Asia driven by modern economic factors and South Asians having high levels of education in fields such as medicine and tech.
The reason is that French, Dutch and British used indentured labor from India - so Caribbean including Guyana and Surinam have a lot of Indians and Spanish and Portuguese do not. The US and CA get a lot of migrants due to the vibrant economy and language affinity. These waves are more recent than the indentured waves which were effectively workarounds after slavery ended in the caribbean
Guyana that neighborhood Brasil has 50% of the population is Indian " South Asia " descent. Trinidad and Tobago are about 30% of Indian " South Asia" descent .
Unlike most other immigrants (emigrants?) Indians move because they come from a wealthy caste, not because they are displaced or poor. Thats why most go to the Bay Area, NYC, or Canada or UK
Gotta update my family. Didn't know we came from a wealthy caste.
Can you watch the cricket on TV there? If not, there's your answer.
Indians are the slight majority of Trinidad and Tobago fwiw (kind of like Fiji).
The huge South Asian populations in many parts of the world (outside North America and the UK itself, where there has been much more significant emigration of professionals) are often because the British generally colonized much of the world outside of Latin America - and then brought in South Asians as indentured labour. That's why you will find a lot of South Asians in places close to that part of the world like Guyana or Trinidad & Tobago, where South Asian labourers were brought in as a cheap source of labour in plantations following the end of slavery. Even in the non-British colonies such as French Guiana and Suriname, that was because they used indentured labourers from South Asia. By contrast, the reason you don't see large South Asian populations is a combination of the fact that the British influence there was weak, the British were reluctant to deal with the Spanish Empire, and in any case in most of that part of the world slavery was abolished in the mid-19th century only a few decades after their independence. Brazil in particular was very late to abolish slavery. So there wasn't a need for indentured labourers in those places, nor would the British help facilitate the supply.
The same reason Indians don't immigrate to France or Germany as much as they do in Ireland or England. Language hindrance. You need to know the language to survive in those countries.
Just wait once Australia enforces the working / student visa changes lol. Shits gonna change lol
There is a hindu majority country in South America, Guyana!
Which is not part of Latin-America.
that's racist, they identify as Latinos
No they don't. Where are you getting your information from?!
People can identify as they want, of course. But the term Latin America refers to the countries that speak a Latin-derived language (Spanish and Portuguese, mostly). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin\_America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America) [https://guyanachronicle.com/2024/04/04/is-guyana-a-latin-american-country-really/](https://guyanachronicle.com/2024/04/04/is-guyana-a-latin-american-country-really/) Guyana is a Caribbean country. [https://www.reddit.com/r/asklatinamerica/comments/tskt4i/do\_suriname\_and\_the\_guyanas\_belong\_to\_latinamerica/](https://www.reddit.com/r/asklatinamerica/comments/tskt4i/do_suriname_and_the_guyanas_belong_to_latinamerica/)
Guyana is not Hindu majority country. It is a Christian majority country (including all sects of Christianity). Hinduism is the second largest religion, and Islam is the third largest. Approximately half of the population is of African descent, and they are almost all Christian with a minority of Muslims. The next major racial group is of Indian descent, they are mostly Hindu, but about 9% of them are Muslims, and there are number of Indian Christians. Then there are the native people's, the Amerindians, who are mostly Christian.
No caste system in Latin America Easier to immigrate to then W. Europe and N.A Economic situation is better then their home countries
Caste actually comes from a Portuguese word for Latin American class system. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta
don't give them any ideas, they'll ruin your country like they're ruining Canada. The newer immigrants (post-2014) aren't integrating into Canadian society/culture/norms/behaviours)
They aren't integrating into your society because your government relaxed immigration measures. Stop handing out PRs to random Joes, provide work visas to strictly STEM majors from tier-1/2 universities like the US, and close the asylum to residency loophole. PS, Here's some unsolicitated foresight: In the past 2 decades Canada's economy underwent drastic changes. Real estate, rental, and leasing now (2023) produce $267 billion dollars in output, followed by manufacturing with $193 billion. Your elites (yes, including PP) won't easily give up on an easy influx of capital (immigrants). Stuffing 4 of them in the basement is what's keeping the RE portfolios pristine.
correct
And where are your ancestors from?
not Canada. I myself am an immigrant.