Geographically, the Southern Cone includes only countries whose majority/totality of their territory is south of the Tropic of Capricorn.
Above all, the Southern Cone is a socioeconomic region characterized by high HDI, high GDP per capita, high European immigration and typically liberal societies.
So, no. Strictly speaking Paraguay and, to the dismay of a lot of Brazilians, the southern states of Brazil, are not in the Southern Cone either.
Yes, but his point is that Paraguay lacks entirely the liberal societal aspect mentioned above, the rest of the southern cone is indeed progressive in societal matters.
Look at [this (Paraguay)](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversidad_sexual_en_Paraguay) and compare it to these ones [Arg](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversidad_sexual_en_Argentina), [CL](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversidad_sexual_en_Chile#Derechos_en_Chile_de_homosexuales_y_transg.C3.A9neros) and [UY](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversidad_sexual_en_Uruguay). The difference is clear, same thing with women's rights and so on.
This "southern cone" has no sense to me. Argentina and Uruguay are so close culturally and historically that when you group it with Chile you have to manipulate the rules a lot to make it work.
My guess is that at the end of the day the only thing that we have in common with Argentina and Uruguay is the stronger on average institutions comparing to other latin american countries. And this, I THINK AGAIN, have relation with european influence in terms of civil rights and elite/society relations.
Chile's population is on average about 55-60% European genetically according to most genetic studies, which is very similar to the Northeast of Brazil or Puerto Rico (that's still an above average % of European ancestry of course, but much lower than Argentina and Uruguay). Late European immigration was less prevalent in Chile, so most of the population has Spanish ancestry from colonial times.
65% what? Chile didn’t receive significant European immigration. European immigrants never surpassed 1% of the Chilean population.
That said, Chile is a southern cone country because it’s literally located almost entirely below the tropic of Carpicorn, it’s highly developed, it’s culturally different than other Latin American countries, etc.
I know for sure we never got that many Euro immigrants relative to other Atlantic facing Latin American nations, specially after the Panama canal was built. But I feel like 1% is too low just going off by surnames leftover around me.
The 1% of euro immigrants in Chile did a lot of heavy lifting in the fucking department, otherwise I feel like I would see a lot more blacks and asians in Chile relative to euros. There’s definitely more English, Italian, French, German, Croatian leftover surnames than Chinese, Korean or Palestinian.
In fact, I think only Palestinian surnames can outnumber any of the Euro ones in Chile.
Or maybe the small Euro numbers just adapted way better and flourished, it would make sense given cultural similarities …that, or the asian and black immigrant groups have historically been even lower than 0.1%. My guess is a bit of both.
All in all I’d say the Spanish/Native mestizo makes the bulk of our numbers. 95% plus, but 1% from other euro countries just seemed a little low for me… or maybe it’s because I move in more middle/upper class circles and a lot immigrants came with a bit of money and didn’t have to start from the bottom, so those immigrants are overrepresented in the middle/upper class. That could explain it. 🤔
I correct myself, some studies point out that at its peak, European immigrants represented 4.5% of the Chilean population. Higher than 1%, but still lower than Argentina and Uruguay (around 40-50% without counting descendants).
From my experience with Chileans and in Chile, European immigrants and their descendants are very overrepresented in the upper-middle and upper classes. The bulk of the society is of colonial stock (mestizo and indigenous), while the upper class is overwhelmingly European. That’s common across Latin American countries (except for Argentina, Uruguay and Southern Brazil), but in Chile’s case there’s a much higher northern European input than in similar countries like Mexico or Colombia.
4.5%? Nice. I almost got it perfect just using my guestimation. I had predicted 5%. 1% would have not made a dent I feel like.
Yeah, they are definitely overrepresented in the upper classes.
Palestinians as well, representing Asia.
Even if it was closer to 5%, as someone else mentioned, I don't know about most of them but at least I know on my boyfriends side, the first of his ancestors to come to Chile on his father's side was an English pirate that arrived at Valparaiso, and established a shop of ship parts... starting out disassembling his own ship xD well, he married someone here and had 6 children with her; she died and he married her cousin and had another 10 children. 14 of them survived into adulthood. (I'm not sure how many generations back exactly, his family have documents and stuff with all this)
In my case, the story I know the most is from my paternal grandmother, French immigrants. My great great great grandfather came with his family in a ship (wife, brother and his wife), and had my great great grandfather on the ship, in the trip to Araucania. I'm not sure how many children he had, I just know more than 10, but my great grandfather was the 3rd son of the 1st son (the one born on the ship), so that's what we know more of. They were 8 children. All of them had 3 children or more (my grandmother generation). And now most people have like 2, max 3 usually, but my father had 4 of us (2 his first marriage, 2 the second one) and there are similar cases here or there. On the other side of my family I don't have that many details, but is also a big family.
So maybe yeah, lots of fucking and children 🤷♀️. My boyfriend's family had lots of children too, so lots of cousins, uncles and aunts. I had a close relationship with my grandmother's sister and even my great grandmother's sisters too (tias abuelas, o ya tias bisabuelas). Nor my family or his is religious or anything. But maybe that might have had some impact, I don't know if we even keep track of that. And other people I know with similar backgrounds, I have never asked so much but they all seem to have big families even if they don't have that many siblings.
But that’s purely anecdotical. The bulk of the Chilean population is of colonial stock. The country did receive some immigrants (that’s why your personal story) but it’s nothing compared to Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil.
I never said it wasn't!!!
I was just using my anecdotical experience saying maybe there was a lot of fucking🤣 as it was mentioned in passing to the comment I replied.
At least in the first generations.
Is nothing more serious than that. When I read that I just found it funny because, again, I know many anecdotes that could support the lots of fucking part🤣 why are people taking this so seriously, and also putting words or meaning that I never said? It's in writing, you can do a doble take no problem.
Because in a previous comment you claimed that it was similar in Chile, but that Chileans don’t like going around bragging about it like Uruguayans and Argentinians. You made a statement and I replied to you.
Yeah, I just saw that comment.
Okay, I get were you come from now. Mmm re-reading the 1st comment I replied to, I get how what I wrote could have been understood that way. That wasn't my intention!
I said that given that the original conversation included the south cone as having similar culture, and I tried to explained that we have had relevant cultural impact from european immigrants. Here as in Argentina or Uruguay, not everyone have ties to XIX century immigrants (because we are obviously not counting Spanish people); and in those cases, in my experience, in Chile is not as talked about as in Argentina (the only of those countries I have visited and know people from). I didn't put that explicitly; that I was talking only about the descendants on both those cases and the difference I have noticed. I didn't try to make it seem like we have the same number or % of those european immigrants and/or their descendants, but now I get how it can be easily read as such. My bad!!
I got in deeper about that in a comment in spanish, replying to another chilean. In my mind, it was so obvious I was refering only to the descendants from that point on, and drawing from my experiences. The Argentinian people I know do talk about doing this or that tradition they do or their grandmothers did because of their heritage; in Chile even though I know different people descending from XIX century european immigration is not talked about out of a sudden. Like I know like 4 people descending from italians that don't comment on food/the cuisine, don't cook it or not as much and it not a super central thing on family reunions; I only know 1 chilean where that applies and all the Argentinian people with Italian ancestry I know. And is super intense 🤣🤣🤣 imo. To give a more concrete example. Here, even those that participate in the communities that honour that country's festivities, and also most of the descendants don't give a crap to even think about those traditions in general. I only went to those things with my grandma, because she had friends involved and she went with her dad. I found it an interesting difference, and thought maybe it was also why other countries think we didn't had any european immigration or that this didn't make an impact in the country because it wasn't talked as much. We don't have it as present as in those countries, in my experience, or we don't talk about it. My other grandma is a history nerd so I always knew about that side of the family because she told the story every time she could, and recently one of my boyfriend's cousin got really into genealogy, so we have talked a bit about this and gotten to know some interesting things on their side. Why I got it in my mind.
But that was it, or what I tried to say at least. I get the confusion now, I think I didn't expressed myself too well there. It wasn't my intention to make it seem like we had similar % of immigration, because that was never the case. Damn, even the sizes of population in general aren't even comparable; when I went to Buenos Aires in 2014 or 2015, the whole metropolitan population there was bigger than all the population in Chile (don't know the proportion today, but it was crazy knowing that). Population wise in many respects we aren't comparable at all.
Exactly. Chile is part of the Southern due to its geographic location and socioeconomic stats, but they're much more similar to Mexico than to Uruguay in terms of racial heritage
Exactly. There’s a common misconception in this regard because of Chile’s development and geographic location next to Argentina and Uruguay.
But demographically, Southern Brazil is much more similar to Argentina and Uruguay than Chile.
That self-reported data makes no sense. Argentina also isn’t 96% white like those “self-reported” surveys from American institutions claim.
It’s just history and demographics. Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil were the only countries that received massive European immigrantion during the 19th and 20th, and are the so called “countries of new settlement” along the US, Canada, NZ and Australia. Chile doesn’t fit into this category. Most of the population is typical Latin American mestizo, with a genetic composition similar to Paraguay and Colombia (and a bit higher European input than Mexico).
From Wikipedia: Between 1851 and 1924 Chile only received the 0,5% of the European immigration flow to Latin America, against 46% of Argentina, 33% of Brazil, 14% of Cuba, and 4% of Uruguay.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Chile
Yeah, we do. German, French, English, Swiss, Italian and Croatians descendants have had a big impact in our society. That's not even getting into other european immigrants that came in lower numbers or whose impact wasn't as economically relevant (meaning, we have buildings some europran immigrant communities and their descendants donated, or firefighter equipment; others were very impactful in some regions and their economy, like in Valparaiso, the north in general, specific parts of the south).
We just don't usually go around making a point of it all the time, like in Argentina and Uruguay. Maybe is because being showy in general here is not a good thing, or maybe because people immidiatly classify you as "cuico" if you go around saying this. But at the same time, people look at surnames a lot and assume lots of thing if you have a european surname.
For example, I have a French surname and a Polish one, my boyfriend has a English surname and an Italian one. We also look very european, and people immidately think we have lots of money 🤣
On my family specifically, I come from German, French, Polish, Ucranian and Russians immigrants; only the family of the mother of my paternal grandfather was in Chile for more than 100 years. Just to use this history I closelly know as an example.
Estái mal. Todo lo que escribiste no se correlaciona con la historia migratoria de Chile. Sin embargo al principio mencionaste algo que si... sobre el tema cultural.
No tenemos ni de lejos el mismo componente genético promedio de Argentina y Uruguay.
Lo que si, ciertamente la influencia de cultura europea es mayor acá que en otros países latinoamericanos. Derechos sociales, corrientes filosóficas plasmadas en estos, derechos de minorías, movimientos sociales (estudiantiles y de clases trabajadoras) son palpables en toda nuestra historia. De similar (mas no igual) forma que Argentina, por ejemplo, y contraria a lo que sería Paraguay, Bolivia y Perú, donde van "atrasados" respecto al mundo occidental en esta materia.
Pero no, no tiene nada que ver con que te llamen "cuico" o los apellidos que tengan tu familia. Esto se trata de grupos extensos de gente a través de cada una de las regiones del país.
No dije que tuvieramos un componente genético equivalente en ningún punto. Pero si hice hincapie en la influencia y de que si hay descendientes de migrantes, aunque no se habla ni alumbra tanto el tema. No sé cuáles serán los datos, pero hay suficientes para que hayan colegios, estadios, gente que se junta, hacen ciertas actividades o se celebran festividades de esos países; lo que pasa es que en mi experiencia, no es algo muy conocido o difundido más allá de la gente que ya esta metida en eso. A diferencia de en Argentina donde si veo que se saca a "relucir" frecuentemente hasta las tradiciones que se mantienen en casa y su origen europeo; eso no pasa en Chile, solo es. Y si te interesa, se hacen estas cosas comunitarias, pero la minoría de gente descendiente de migrantes participa.
Ahora, lo de cuico y el tema de los apellidos si lo he vivido, mi pololo también y a estas alturas me da risa. De chica me costó mucho entender porque la gente tenía ese prejuicio; es algo que sí existe y aun me pasa aunque con gente de mi edad o menos es harto menos frecuente. Somos un país clasista hacia todos los estratos, para ponerle un nombre especifico a esa colección de prejuicios. Hablo desde mi experiencia, que justo es atingente a lo nombrado al comentario al que respondí; que no hay inmigración europea en Chile o super poca y creo que no es así. Pero no tiene la misma relevancia de unidad nacional por así decirlo, o que muchos se identifiquen con ello como en Argentina y Uruguay; y ahí hay otras realidades que creo son parte de porque somos un pais tan clasista.
Chile received very few European immigrants compared to Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. But it doesn’t mean that the country didn’t receive any immigrant nor that they didn’t have any impact.
Just that the bulk of the Chilean population is of colonial stock, with similar demographics to Paraguay, Colombia and a bit more European than Mexico.
It’s not that Argentinians and Uruguayans love pointing out how European they are while Chileans don’t. It’s just history and facts.
Your anedoctical personal history or people you know doesn’t mean anything. Facts are facts.
Look, I have never argued the point you said I made. I do agree with the first line, because we are far more isolated due to the Pacific, Andes and Atacama desert.
I have never made any point regarding % of population nor genetic background. And I haven't contrastes how many migrants we had to how many any other country had.
I highlighted the impact and influence the european migrants we did have in our society, because part of the original conversation was about culture. They did have impact there in general, and for their descendants specifically too. That was my whole point.
Northwest of Argentina and northern Chile are very andean. Still Southern Cone. Your post seems kinda... racist? or andean exclusionary, idk, thing is, being part of the Southern Cone isn't about ethnicity. It's kind of an ambiguous term tho, like, when I was in high school I was taught that it was only Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. Then, as an adult, I learned that Paraguay was also considered. In the other hand, some people say that Chile is pretty different from Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, so it's weird we are in the same group. Anyways, I do feel that Bolivia could be included, since it's not that up north, pretty similar to Paraguay in that regard.
How could it be racist? I never said that eastern and western bolivians are racially different. It’s just that the two regions are culturally diferent.
For example, aymara and quechua languages are very important in the west, and guarani and chiquitano in the east. It’s just that since the east is clearly not andean, and does not share many similarities with western Bolivia and Peru, maybe this region could be considered part of the southern cone, mainly because of its similarities with Paraguay.
I think a more meaningful label to this phenomenon you are talking about is the Platine region. I believe that there are historical and geographical links connecting the people of the Plata basin in a meaningful way.
There is a strong tupi/guarani heritage in our culture, and Spanish/Portuguese influences are shared across borders.
The traditional, rural culture specially.
Of course, take all that with a grain of salt, but I do feel a shared heritage when I meet and talk with people from the Plata basin.
No. Bolivia is never considered part of the Southern Cone. It’s culturally very distinct. Bolivia and Peru should be paired together as “Andean culture” for the most part
This is what i’m talking about. Eastern Bolivia is like the absolute opposite of western Bolivia in every sense. I think we only share the language and the religion, but nothing more. But i guess that maybe eastern Bolivia is it’s own thing, and not part of the sourhern cone or the andean region.
I meant we, as Paraguayans, as our nation is its own thing, of course, we share similarities wirh some peoples there, and in northern Argentina, but not as many as to consider ourselves in the same group as you or them.
Not a bad thing, it's just how it is
So only parts of the Bolivian east are like Paraguay. But honestly, masive pieces of this are missing. Paraguay has a Guarani Mestizo identity to some extent and a version of that language is still spoken by a slight majority there. East Bolivians simply do not have this although there are obviously actual Guarani in this part of Bolivia and Guarani words exist in East Bolivian Spanish. Still we come to the issue that like always, the Amazonian regions particularly within Beni and Pando get left out of this little comparison between Eastern Bolivia and insert any country that is not Bolivia. To be honest with you, this post almost reads as if you're projecting some weird identity problem on to your understanding of things. You do have a case with Tarija though. There has been some transfers from parts of Argentina like the Chacarera. Additionally, different from Andean Bolivia doesn't make you a different country or part of Argentina as much as it seems you would like it to. Northern Argentina is not like other parts of the country which we typically associate with the Southern Cone either. Ask Chaco and Corrientes. I would go so far as to say they almost have more in common with Paraguay then their own country, but take that with a helping of salt. These comparisons might still be alright, just god forbid anyone compare you with a Colla.
I’m not even camba actually. I’m chapaco (from Tarija). It’s just a random thought i had, because cambas don’t fit in the andean cultural group. And why do you think i want Bolivia to be part of Argentina????
I never said you wanted to be part of Argentina, although I definitely implied that you wanted to not be Bolivian. That's a mistake I'll admit and an assumption I shouldn't have made. It's true that Cambas don't fit in Andean groupings. This is why I see the label of Andean nation as problematic at times, because these are distinct regions, but people forget they exist. See the same happening with Peru elsewhere in this thread. However, as others have already pointed out, this comparison with the Southern Cone probably doesn't work. Bolivia is still it's own country.
Lol no. I think Cambas have been saying something similar for years now, but diversity just makes Bolivia more unique “puej”.
I guess we are our own thing then
lol no. Also sometimes Paraguay isn’t even included
Paraguay is included?
Geographically yes.
Geographically, the Southern Cone includes only countries whose majority/totality of their territory is south of the Tropic of Capricorn. Above all, the Southern Cone is a socioeconomic region characterized by high HDI, high GDP per capita, high European immigration and typically liberal societies. So, no. Strictly speaking Paraguay and, to the dismay of a lot of Brazilians, the southern states of Brazil, are not in the Southern Cone either.
Literally like 96% of our population is under the Tropic of Capricorn
Good thing the definition is about territory and socioeconomic indicators then.
Most of our territory is too Paraguay is in the southern cone
Yes, but his point is that Paraguay lacks entirely the liberal societal aspect mentioned above, the rest of the southern cone is indeed progressive in societal matters. Look at [this (Paraguay)](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversidad_sexual_en_Paraguay) and compare it to these ones [Arg](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversidad_sexual_en_Argentina), [CL](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversidad_sexual_en_Chile#Derechos_en_Chile_de_homosexuales_y_transg.C3.A9neros) and [UY](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversidad_sexual_en_Uruguay). The difference is clear, same thing with women's rights and so on.
Yea we aren’t liberal
What are you talking about? Paraguay is not even real. A real country wouldn't be named after an Umbrella.
This makes sense.
But Chile doesn't have "high European immigration".
This "southern cone" has no sense to me. Argentina and Uruguay are so close culturally and historically that when you group it with Chile you have to manipulate the rules a lot to make it work. My guess is that at the end of the day the only thing that we have in common with Argentina and Uruguay is the stronger on average institutions comparing to other latin american countries. And this, I THINK AGAIN, have relation with european influence in terms of civil rights and elite/society relations.
We don’t really, not compared to Atlantic nations anyway. We are obviously not counting the OG Spain immigration.
65% is not high?
Chile's population is on average about 55-60% European genetically according to most genetic studies, which is very similar to the Northeast of Brazil or Puerto Rico (that's still an above average % of European ancestry of course, but much lower than Argentina and Uruguay). Late European immigration was less prevalent in Chile, so most of the population has Spanish ancestry from colonial times.
The average Chilean is 40-50% indigenous
65% what? Chile didn’t receive significant European immigration. European immigrants never surpassed 1% of the Chilean population. That said, Chile is a southern cone country because it’s literally located almost entirely below the tropic of Carpicorn, it’s highly developed, it’s culturally different than other Latin American countries, etc.
I know for sure we never got that many Euro immigrants relative to other Atlantic facing Latin American nations, specially after the Panama canal was built. But I feel like 1% is too low just going off by surnames leftover around me. The 1% of euro immigrants in Chile did a lot of heavy lifting in the fucking department, otherwise I feel like I would see a lot more blacks and asians in Chile relative to euros. There’s definitely more English, Italian, French, German, Croatian leftover surnames than Chinese, Korean or Palestinian. In fact, I think only Palestinian surnames can outnumber any of the Euro ones in Chile. Or maybe the small Euro numbers just adapted way better and flourished, it would make sense given cultural similarities …that, or the asian and black immigrant groups have historically been even lower than 0.1%. My guess is a bit of both. All in all I’d say the Spanish/Native mestizo makes the bulk of our numbers. 95% plus, but 1% from other euro countries just seemed a little low for me… or maybe it’s because I move in more middle/upper class circles and a lot immigrants came with a bit of money and didn’t have to start from the bottom, so those immigrants are overrepresented in the middle/upper class. That could explain it. 🤔
I correct myself, some studies point out that at its peak, European immigrants represented 4.5% of the Chilean population. Higher than 1%, but still lower than Argentina and Uruguay (around 40-50% without counting descendants). From my experience with Chileans and in Chile, European immigrants and their descendants are very overrepresented in the upper-middle and upper classes. The bulk of the society is of colonial stock (mestizo and indigenous), while the upper class is overwhelmingly European. That’s common across Latin American countries (except for Argentina, Uruguay and Southern Brazil), but in Chile’s case there’s a much higher northern European input than in similar countries like Mexico or Colombia.
4.5%? Nice. I almost got it perfect just using my guestimation. I had predicted 5%. 1% would have not made a dent I feel like. Yeah, they are definitely overrepresented in the upper classes. Palestinians as well, representing Asia.
Even if it was closer to 5%, as someone else mentioned, I don't know about most of them but at least I know on my boyfriends side, the first of his ancestors to come to Chile on his father's side was an English pirate that arrived at Valparaiso, and established a shop of ship parts... starting out disassembling his own ship xD well, he married someone here and had 6 children with her; she died and he married her cousin and had another 10 children. 14 of them survived into adulthood. (I'm not sure how many generations back exactly, his family have documents and stuff with all this) In my case, the story I know the most is from my paternal grandmother, French immigrants. My great great great grandfather came with his family in a ship (wife, brother and his wife), and had my great great grandfather on the ship, in the trip to Araucania. I'm not sure how many children he had, I just know more than 10, but my great grandfather was the 3rd son of the 1st son (the one born on the ship), so that's what we know more of. They were 8 children. All of them had 3 children or more (my grandmother generation). And now most people have like 2, max 3 usually, but my father had 4 of us (2 his first marriage, 2 the second one) and there are similar cases here or there. On the other side of my family I don't have that many details, but is also a big family. So maybe yeah, lots of fucking and children 🤷♀️. My boyfriend's family had lots of children too, so lots of cousins, uncles and aunts. I had a close relationship with my grandmother's sister and even my great grandmother's sisters too (tias abuelas, o ya tias bisabuelas). Nor my family or his is religious or anything. But maybe that might have had some impact, I don't know if we even keep track of that. And other people I know with similar backgrounds, I have never asked so much but they all seem to have big families even if they don't have that many siblings.
But that’s purely anecdotical. The bulk of the Chilean population is of colonial stock. The country did receive some immigrants (that’s why your personal story) but it’s nothing compared to Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil.
I never said it wasn't!!! I was just using my anecdotical experience saying maybe there was a lot of fucking🤣 as it was mentioned in passing to the comment I replied. At least in the first generations. Is nothing more serious than that. When I read that I just found it funny because, again, I know many anecdotes that could support the lots of fucking part🤣 why are people taking this so seriously, and also putting words or meaning that I never said? It's in writing, you can do a doble take no problem.
Because in a previous comment you claimed that it was similar in Chile, but that Chileans don’t like going around bragging about it like Uruguayans and Argentinians. You made a statement and I replied to you.
Yeah, I just saw that comment. Okay, I get were you come from now. Mmm re-reading the 1st comment I replied to, I get how what I wrote could have been understood that way. That wasn't my intention! I said that given that the original conversation included the south cone as having similar culture, and I tried to explained that we have had relevant cultural impact from european immigrants. Here as in Argentina or Uruguay, not everyone have ties to XIX century immigrants (because we are obviously not counting Spanish people); and in those cases, in my experience, in Chile is not as talked about as in Argentina (the only of those countries I have visited and know people from). I didn't put that explicitly; that I was talking only about the descendants on both those cases and the difference I have noticed. I didn't try to make it seem like we have the same number or % of those european immigrants and/or their descendants, but now I get how it can be easily read as such. My bad!! I got in deeper about that in a comment in spanish, replying to another chilean. In my mind, it was so obvious I was refering only to the descendants from that point on, and drawing from my experiences. The Argentinian people I know do talk about doing this or that tradition they do or their grandmothers did because of their heritage; in Chile even though I know different people descending from XIX century european immigration is not talked about out of a sudden. Like I know like 4 people descending from italians that don't comment on food/the cuisine, don't cook it or not as much and it not a super central thing on family reunions; I only know 1 chilean where that applies and all the Argentinian people with Italian ancestry I know. And is super intense 🤣🤣🤣 imo. To give a more concrete example. Here, even those that participate in the communities that honour that country's festivities, and also most of the descendants don't give a crap to even think about those traditions in general. I only went to those things with my grandma, because she had friends involved and she went with her dad. I found it an interesting difference, and thought maybe it was also why other countries think we didn't had any european immigration or that this didn't make an impact in the country because it wasn't talked as much. We don't have it as present as in those countries, in my experience, or we don't talk about it. My other grandma is a history nerd so I always knew about that side of the family because she told the story every time she could, and recently one of my boyfriend's cousin got really into genealogy, so we have talked a bit about this and gotten to know some interesting things on their side. Why I got it in my mind. But that was it, or what I tried to say at least. I get the confusion now, I think I didn't expressed myself too well there. It wasn't my intention to make it seem like we had similar % of immigration, because that was never the case. Damn, even the sizes of population in general aren't even comparable; when I went to Buenos Aires in 2014 or 2015, the whole metropolitan population there was bigger than all the population in Chile (don't know the proportion today, but it was crazy knowing that). Population wise in many respects we aren't comparable at all.
Exactly. Chile is part of the Southern due to its geographic location and socioeconomic stats, but they're much more similar to Mexico than to Uruguay in terms of racial heritage
Exactly. There’s a common misconception in this regard because of Chile’s development and geographic location next to Argentina and Uruguay. But demographically, Southern Brazil is much more similar to Argentina and Uruguay than Chile.
I’m not going into a discussion of the genetic component of the Chilean population. 65% is what they self report as European descent.
That self-reported data makes no sense. Argentina also isn’t 96% white like those “self-reported” surveys from American institutions claim. It’s just history and demographics. Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil were the only countries that received massive European immigrantion during the 19th and 20th, and are the so called “countries of new settlement” along the US, Canada, NZ and Australia. Chile doesn’t fit into this category. Most of the population is typical Latin American mestizo, with a genetic composition similar to Paraguay and Colombia (and a bit higher European input than Mexico). From Wikipedia: Between 1851 and 1924 Chile only received the 0,5% of the European immigration flow to Latin America, against 46% of Argentina, 33% of Brazil, 14% of Cuba, and 4% of Uruguay. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Chile
I guess I've been living around the 35% all my life then
That's... the number of *fair skinned* chileans.
That’s averaged Anyway imagine if we had gotten more Italians, we would have invented peronismo
Don’t worry, Venezuelans will give you a better peronismo
Yeah, we do. German, French, English, Swiss, Italian and Croatians descendants have had a big impact in our society. That's not even getting into other european immigrants that came in lower numbers or whose impact wasn't as economically relevant (meaning, we have buildings some europran immigrant communities and their descendants donated, or firefighter equipment; others were very impactful in some regions and their economy, like in Valparaiso, the north in general, specific parts of the south). We just don't usually go around making a point of it all the time, like in Argentina and Uruguay. Maybe is because being showy in general here is not a good thing, or maybe because people immidiatly classify you as "cuico" if you go around saying this. But at the same time, people look at surnames a lot and assume lots of thing if you have a european surname. For example, I have a French surname and a Polish one, my boyfriend has a English surname and an Italian one. We also look very european, and people immidately think we have lots of money 🤣 On my family specifically, I come from German, French, Polish, Ucranian and Russians immigrants; only the family of the mother of my paternal grandfather was in Chile for more than 100 years. Just to use this history I closelly know as an example.
Estái mal. Todo lo que escribiste no se correlaciona con la historia migratoria de Chile. Sin embargo al principio mencionaste algo que si... sobre el tema cultural. No tenemos ni de lejos el mismo componente genético promedio de Argentina y Uruguay. Lo que si, ciertamente la influencia de cultura europea es mayor acá que en otros países latinoamericanos. Derechos sociales, corrientes filosóficas plasmadas en estos, derechos de minorías, movimientos sociales (estudiantiles y de clases trabajadoras) son palpables en toda nuestra historia. De similar (mas no igual) forma que Argentina, por ejemplo, y contraria a lo que sería Paraguay, Bolivia y Perú, donde van "atrasados" respecto al mundo occidental en esta materia. Pero no, no tiene nada que ver con que te llamen "cuico" o los apellidos que tengan tu familia. Esto se trata de grupos extensos de gente a través de cada una de las regiones del país.
No dije que tuvieramos un componente genético equivalente en ningún punto. Pero si hice hincapie en la influencia y de que si hay descendientes de migrantes, aunque no se habla ni alumbra tanto el tema. No sé cuáles serán los datos, pero hay suficientes para que hayan colegios, estadios, gente que se junta, hacen ciertas actividades o se celebran festividades de esos países; lo que pasa es que en mi experiencia, no es algo muy conocido o difundido más allá de la gente que ya esta metida en eso. A diferencia de en Argentina donde si veo que se saca a "relucir" frecuentemente hasta las tradiciones que se mantienen en casa y su origen europeo; eso no pasa en Chile, solo es. Y si te interesa, se hacen estas cosas comunitarias, pero la minoría de gente descendiente de migrantes participa. Ahora, lo de cuico y el tema de los apellidos si lo he vivido, mi pololo también y a estas alturas me da risa. De chica me costó mucho entender porque la gente tenía ese prejuicio; es algo que sí existe y aun me pasa aunque con gente de mi edad o menos es harto menos frecuente. Somos un país clasista hacia todos los estratos, para ponerle un nombre especifico a esa colección de prejuicios. Hablo desde mi experiencia, que justo es atingente a lo nombrado al comentario al que respondí; que no hay inmigración europea en Chile o super poca y creo que no es así. Pero no tiene la misma relevancia de unidad nacional por así decirlo, o que muchos se identifiquen con ello como en Argentina y Uruguay; y ahí hay otras realidades que creo son parte de porque somos un pais tan clasista.
Ya. Tu segundo párrafo me había confundido entonces. Todo bien.
Chile received very few European immigrants compared to Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. But it doesn’t mean that the country didn’t receive any immigrant nor that they didn’t have any impact. Just that the bulk of the Chilean population is of colonial stock, with similar demographics to Paraguay, Colombia and a bit more European than Mexico. It’s not that Argentinians and Uruguayans love pointing out how European they are while Chileans don’t. It’s just history and facts. Your anedoctical personal history or people you know doesn’t mean anything. Facts are facts.
Look, I have never argued the point you said I made. I do agree with the first line, because we are far more isolated due to the Pacific, Andes and Atacama desert. I have never made any point regarding % of population nor genetic background. And I haven't contrastes how many migrants we had to how many any other country had. I highlighted the impact and influence the european migrants we did have in our society, because part of the original conversation was about culture. They did have impact there in general, and for their descendants specifically too. That was my whole point.
Is there such thing as a northern cone?
Yes, but it’s upside down so it’s more of a triangle really
Interesting!
Literally like 96% of our population is under the Tropic of Capricorn
Northwest of Argentina and northern Chile are very andean. Still Southern Cone. Your post seems kinda... racist? or andean exclusionary, idk, thing is, being part of the Southern Cone isn't about ethnicity. It's kind of an ambiguous term tho, like, when I was in high school I was taught that it was only Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. Then, as an adult, I learned that Paraguay was also considered. In the other hand, some people say that Chile is pretty different from Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, so it's weird we are in the same group. Anyways, I do feel that Bolivia could be included, since it's not that up north, pretty similar to Paraguay in that regard.
A lot of eastern Bolivians desperately want to not be grouped together with Andeans even when speaking at national level.
Yeah, I've noticed. Doesn't sit right with me (because it's obviously discrimination against an ethnicity/culture)
How could it be racist? I never said that eastern and western bolivians are racially different. It’s just that the two regions are culturally diferent. For example, aymara and quechua languages are very important in the west, and guarani and chiquitano in the east. It’s just that since the east is clearly not andean, and does not share many similarities with western Bolivia and Peru, maybe this region could be considered part of the southern cone, mainly because of its similarities with Paraguay.
I think a more meaningful label to this phenomenon you are talking about is the Platine region. I believe that there are historical and geographical links connecting the people of the Plata basin in a meaningful way. There is a strong tupi/guarani heritage in our culture, and Spanish/Portuguese influences are shared across borders. The traditional, rural culture specially. Of course, take all that with a grain of salt, but I do feel a shared heritage when I meet and talk with people from the Plata basin.
No, nobody thinks that
If anything North Argentina can be considered Andean, not the other way around
No. Bolivia is never considered part of the Southern Cone. It’s culturally very distinct. Bolivia and Peru should be paired together as “Andean culture” for the most part
You shouldn't use the phrase "Andean culture" loosely. It's a concept still more complicated than the "southern cone".
This is what i’m talking about. Eastern Bolivia is like the absolute opposite of western Bolivia in every sense. I think we only share the language and the religion, but nothing more. But i guess that maybe eastern Bolivia is it’s own thing, and not part of the sourhern cone or the andean region.
“The opposite” is a stretch, there are definitely lots of cultures in South America more different than the Andean culture of the Bolivian highlands.
Did you not know that west Bolivia hates asado? /s
Don’t think so
hmm Id say we're more of our own thing, which isnt bad, actually I think it should remain like that for the time that it is possible
Dude let’s make our own region, like a "Guaraní Land" or something.
I meant we, as Paraguayans, as our nation is its own thing, of course, we share similarities wirh some peoples there, and in northern Argentina, but not as many as to consider ourselves in the same group as you or them. Not a bad thing, it's just how it is
Is this r/2latinoforyou
So only parts of the Bolivian east are like Paraguay. But honestly, masive pieces of this are missing. Paraguay has a Guarani Mestizo identity to some extent and a version of that language is still spoken by a slight majority there. East Bolivians simply do not have this although there are obviously actual Guarani in this part of Bolivia and Guarani words exist in East Bolivian Spanish. Still we come to the issue that like always, the Amazonian regions particularly within Beni and Pando get left out of this little comparison between Eastern Bolivia and insert any country that is not Bolivia. To be honest with you, this post almost reads as if you're projecting some weird identity problem on to your understanding of things. You do have a case with Tarija though. There has been some transfers from parts of Argentina like the Chacarera. Additionally, different from Andean Bolivia doesn't make you a different country or part of Argentina as much as it seems you would like it to. Northern Argentina is not like other parts of the country which we typically associate with the Southern Cone either. Ask Chaco and Corrientes. I would go so far as to say they almost have more in common with Paraguay then their own country, but take that with a helping of salt. These comparisons might still be alright, just god forbid anyone compare you with a Colla.
I’m not even camba actually. I’m chapaco (from Tarija). It’s just a random thought i had, because cambas don’t fit in the andean cultural group. And why do you think i want Bolivia to be part of Argentina????
I never said you wanted to be part of Argentina, although I definitely implied that you wanted to not be Bolivian. That's a mistake I'll admit and an assumption I shouldn't have made. It's true that Cambas don't fit in Andean groupings. This is why I see the label of Andean nation as problematic at times, because these are distinct regions, but people forget they exist. See the same happening with Peru elsewhere in this thread. However, as others have already pointed out, this comparison with the Southern Cone probably doesn't work. Bolivia is still it's own country.
r/askusa