www.CostaRicaTicas.com

This topic came up in another thread in the VIP section and, while it was off topic in that particular thread, I think it is an interesting one that should be discussed further. If any of you are NOT interested in intellectual or philosophical discussions, be forewarned. You do not need to read any further.

First allow me, to be bring others up to speed. It started with this comment (forgive me, crooked, if I take it out of context):
While I think there is something to what crooked was trying to say, I don't think he hit the mark exactly. And he got this response:

Crooked tried to clarify his position with this:
And Professor replied with this:

Okay, now that everyone is up to speed, allow me to posit why each position seems to have some validity but does not, IMHO, exactly hit the mark. First of all, I would agree with Professor that Europeans, whether from the northern part or the south such as Spain or Italy are united by a common religion (Christianity) that ties them together and distinguishes them from the peoples of Africa and the Middle East. However, religion is just one element of culture. Europeans are often distinguished between those of Anglo-Saxon (mainly Protestant) origin and Latin-based (mainly Catholic) culture. One could hardly say that an Italian thinks exactly like a German or for that matter that either thinks like an Englishman. And this is after hundreds of years of having Christianity in common. Go back 500 years to when the European powers were colonizing the New World and one can see these cultural differences manifest themselves in practical terms.

The English colonized the northern part of the New World with an eye towards building something (bringing with them the so-called Protestant work ethic). The Spanish settled the southern part of the New World with an eye towards capturing it riches (gold) and resources. Maybe it wasn't due to any great differences in the home countries. Maybe it also had to do with the sorts of people that made up the bulk of each countries settlers. In the north, many came seeking religious freedom and economic opportunity that they found lacking back home. In the south, there were adventurers, conquistadors, each of which hoped to return back to spain with gold and glory and missionaries seeking not religious freedom but the conversion of native american souls. IMHO, both the character of the home countries and the people they sent over had some impact on the New World cultures that later developed. One can argue my exact characterization, but I don't think one can deny the different levels of MATERIAL success that resulted 500 years later.

Another thing that makes latino-american culture different from even Spanish culture in Europe is not the moorish influence that goes back over a thousand years but the much more recent infusion of black-african and indigenous cultures that were so much more a large part of the central and south american development than they were in the north. Our settlers came over with their families to build new lives. As a result there was much less racial mixing. Most of the early spanish settlers, came to build wealth, which they could take back to Spain. Sometimes they brought their women with them, sometimes they arranged to have women sent, but a lot of the time they made do with whomever was available locally. As a result, today, you can find on a small minority of latino-americans without some portion of mestizo blood. In contrast, in the US, while we have various mixtures of scottish-irish or later italian or germanic and amongst our black minority some portion of white DNA, dating back mostly to the slave era and nowadays a segment of our population that CLAIMS to have native american ancestry, If you were to do a DNA study you would undoubtedly find that the total portion of indigenous or african blood in a population is much smaller than it is in Latino cultures. So, to that extent the comparison shouldn't be so much between anglo-saxon and hispanic differences but rather between european and afro-caribbean-mestizo cultures.

The third element that I would like to posit is that the reason making these generalizations is so problematic is because there are also significant variations within a cultural group. In other words even the latino-american culture is not homogenious. For example, we always talk about differences between different latin groups - ticas vs. nicas vs. colombianas vs. domicanas. Sure they may have more in common with each other than they do with us as gringos, but they have important differences none-the-less. Historically, Costa Rica had relatively few indigenous peoples, by the time the first settlers made it up into the central highlands. As a result, CR did not have the same missionary movement or slave culture that existed in other spanish colonies. The early settlers had to do the work themselves because there were no locals to enslave to do it for them. And because they all had to work, there was not the same level of social stratification that existed elsewhere.They did not have the same level of meddling by either the Spanish church because, the only souls to save were their own which presumably didn't need any converting. And because there was no gold to mine or other natural resources (other than rich soil) they also had less meddling by the Spanish authorities. These early factors had a huge impact on CR's subsequent development and carryforward even to this day.

This is all well and good and I'd like to hear the Professor's reaction to this accounting, but it does not directly address the original question as to what the CURRENT cultural differences are. Do gringos (including northern Europeans) put a higher value on truth than do latinos and if so what is the basis for that?

Before I attack that question, allow me to comment on part of the Professors inital repsonse. He said "I have studied just a few cultures, and all have positive and negative attributes." I'd say that using the terms positive and negative in such a context belies a cultural bias in of itself. Supposing it is true that latinos place less of a value on truth as we define it in the US, does that mean it is necessarily a "bad" thing? Sure it is from our perspective because by virtue of out initial assumption we place truth over all. But from the perspective of a culture that does not value truth so highly, they may see our always having to tell the truth as actually being the bad thing if by doing so it ignores what to them are equally or even more important values such as not hurting someones feelings, pride, social harmony or what ever that might be. So lets dispense with good or bad, positive or negative in these discussions.

The Professor also said "The last time that I conducted detailed interviews with racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. and Brazil, the participants would strongly disagree with the aforementioned generalization." this closely relates to the last paragraph, without the value judgements thrown in, but still with certain problems. Without commenting on whether a greater tendency to telling falsehoods actually exists in the latino-american cultures, one would first have to consider how each group even perceives truth. Lets suppose some culture, any culture values truth less highly than we do in the west, then wouldn't it also be possible that what they consider the truth (or telling falsehoods) would also be different. For example, we've all heard of white lies. Perhaps in those cultures such lies would not be considered lies at all. As in any social study, how you ask the question is at least as important as any answer you get. If you ask "do you lie" or "is lying good", you very well might get similar answers between different demographic groups. But if you frame the question more complexly such as "Is it always important to tell the truth even if that means hurting or shaming someone", you might start to get not only different answers but different views towards those who answer that question differently. You might also phrase the question as "Is it a lie if the teller believes what he/she is saying even if it turns out to be false" and we all know how these chicas can often lie to the point that they make themselves believe what they're saying and no longer seem to consciously even realize that they're lying.

I'll leave with a couple of examples of some cultural differences between gringos and latinas. Example one, a latina says she'll meet you at 8PM but doesn't show up until 9PM and knew all along that was probably when she'd get there. Is that lying? In her culture, being an hour late is being on time. Example two, a tico husband goes out late to see his mistress, he comes back and tells his tica wife that he has been drinking with his buddies. Both sides know he's lying, because the tica wife also knows that all men are dogs and this is what they do. She may act very suspicious and play it for all its worth but she'll let it go as long as his actions are not paraded in her face or, worse, done in such a way that her friends and family can see what her husband is doing behind her back. The worst thing a tico husband can do, even worse than the infidelity itself, is to be so careless as to let his wife find out in such a way that she can't deny the truth to herself. In this example, lying is not necessarily "bad" if it works at keeping things hidden. It is only bad if it doesn't work.

some links: http://laburu.org/~alex/rants/americas
http://www.dmh.missouri.gov/ada/provider/sti/05/Handouts/STIO5PDF/William%20Chignoli%20-%20Cultural%20Differences%205%2005.pdf

Two notes:
1. I don't believe you can get an adequate sampling of cultural differences based on the relationships between prostitutes and their foreign customers.

You might find that the more mainstream members of any society are a much more realistic sample. I believe you will also get a better idea of how a culture is based on how they interact with each other as opposed to how they deal with foreigners.

2. For the most part the biggest differences between cultures in the modern world can be broken down into language, religion and economics. All else is history and strictly academic.

I fully join Prolijo's statements, except the one regarding African and native blood in the population. I would be inclined to assert that these groups have a much larger percentage that believed. Various reasons exist, e.g., "passing" and "keeping the 'family secret' a secret" to suppress this knowledge.

Prolijo was right to correct, or expand, upon my comments on truth and my use of "good" versus "bad" in the discussion. My primary goal was to address comments that tended to suggest that those of Western European descent corner the market on values and truthfulness. Of course, Prolijo served us well when he elaborated on my response. His cultural observation on appointment times and infidelity was timely.

This was a good discussion. Thanks, Prolijo.

Now, how's that TOTM??

That's a very good point and I'd agree. You might noticed that very little if anything I posted above is specific to chica hookers and us johns, but rather more general in nature. However, cultural differences specific to our 2 specific demographic subgroups and how we interact as a result would be a very interesting discussion in its own right.

I'd like to point you to a particular study that addresses the class difference aspect of cultural differentation that you mentioned which appeared some years ago in the Journal of Sociological Analysis.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-0210(196524)26%3A4%3C217%3AAICCOV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A. Unfortunately, I'm too cheap to pay the $14 for the full archived copy but the abstract goes like this: What that says in english is that, at the lowest levels of society, culture is universal or all poor people are essentially the same regardless of nationality or ethnicity. It is only as one climbs the social ladder that different ethnicity gets increasing significance. So actually these cultural differences that we are talking about may be greater between us as rich gringos and the poor chicas as the result of our socio-economic position rather than nationality and we may have even greater differences between ourselves and the latino elites. at least if you accept the results of that particular study.

That study supports this statement at least as it relates to economics. However, I would maintain that all of these things (language, religion and economics) have their roots in the historical path that different groups took to get where they are today. BTW, I encourage you and others to check out the links I gave above particularly the last one for the pdf version of Chignoli powerpoint presentation which has one slide on cultural differences regarding views of time and history.

Professor, forgive my ignorance but what is TOTM?

BTW, you may be right about the degree of mixed blood in the US, but IMHO most of us still look much more like our European forefathers than most Latinos look like true Castillians. This is hardly scientific either but for whatever it is worth, with the exception of a few places like CR, which did not have a significant native population, nor slave population until the late 18th century (and which was actually barred from the population centers in the central highlands until fairly recently), most latino americans look more like mestizos than european spanish, particularly among the lower classes that make up the bulk of the populations.

And I'll throw out one other reason why I think there is less african or indigenous blood mixed into the american tapestry. Unlike Central and South America, which had its initial settlement 400-500 years ago and since then has developed largely on its own. The US has a had a pretty much continuous infusion of fresh immigrants, which right up until the middle of the last century was overwhelmingly European. The vast bulk of our population came from immigrants who entered the US after the civil war until the Red Scare of the 1920's and again after WWII. There just hasn't been as much time for those groups to intermarry, particularly far outside their own racial or cultural backgrounds., Furthermore, those who identify themselves as Black in the US account for only 13.4% of the entire population and true Native Americans make-up less than 1% (though recently claiming obscure links to native blood in ones family histories seems to have become trendy). Contrast that to Latin America where only 34% identify themselves as white (including, I'm sure, many who have even more reasons to want to try to "pass" in their stratified societies than we have in ours) and the rest are pure mestizo (27%), mullato (15%), amerindian (11%), black (5%) and the rest other mixes or other (13%) (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America#Racial_groups). Even if some of us are really closet octoroons, we have a long way to go to catch up with most of the rest of the Americas/

If you had the hard statistics to further substantiate your opinions on this topic it would be more acceptable.

I am the product of a South American and an American parent. The twist is that both of my parents are darker skinned peple with my mother being more mulatto and my father being black or dark skinned.

Saying that to say this.

One of my observations during the reading of your comments was one comment in particular.



This is contradictory.

Sometimes they brought. Sometimes they arranged. A lot of the time they made do with whomever was available; ie Indians, African slaves, Mexicans, Indigenous peoples of the locale in which they were discovering, conquering, or liberating!

The spanish were explorers and conquerors. Not builders. Spaniards built nothing in the Americas and stole everything valueable to take back to their countries!

The versions of Latin American History, American History, and World History that I have read, studied, and researched during my college years differ somewhat from yours.

The Spanish historians say they discovered, conquered, and liberated indigenous peoples throughout Northern , Southern, and Latin America.

You can not discover a geographical location that already exists?

The European historians say they found a newly discovered home in North America after fleeing religous persecution.

Africans and people of African decent and origions did not find themselves in North, South, and Latin America by immigrating. In 90% percent of the cases they were slaves.

My 1st point.

Spaniards, Europeans, Indians (Aztec, Mestizo, Mayan). All have intermingled with peoples of African decent as well as Aborigional indigenous peoples in the Americas and elsewhere in the World.

Thus the term "mulatto" exist throughout South America and Latin America.

My 2nd point.

Latin men do not own a monopoly on "Machismo". Machismo in various forms exists across cultural and geographical lines. I have observed various forms of machismo within all of the races.

I am no scholar. By any means. I do not claim to have all of the answers on thi subject. These are my points and observations on the subject matters which you have placed before us.

Good subject.

Actually, when I said the Spanish came to the New World to "build" wealth that was either a typo or a poor choice of words. I actually COMPLETELY agree with your clarification. You'll notice I prefaced my remark with the comment that English settlers came over to build LIVES, ie to stay and make something of their new home. I was trying to contrast that with the Spanish settlement strategy which was to "build" wealth which they could then ship home. I didn't mean "build wealth" in the literal sense that they were creating anything themselves. Rather, I meant that the Spanish in the New World sought to enrich themselves by all the means you described. IMHO, it is because of that poor foundation that the former Spanish territories have struggled so much more than the US (proving what I said earlier about history having big implications on the present in terms of social stratification, and other cultural values). For those of us with a US (ie primarily northern and eastern European) orientation, it seems merely foreign and academic, but to those who actually are living with the consequences it is much more personal. I'm sorry if I offended.

I feel this is the best way that one can see what the true differences are in the different cultures. I noticed there was a distinct difference in this area of family values that really appealed to me in the Latin cultures. I don't think cultures are so different based on race but more based on how they perceive themselves & their values which religious teachings do have an affect.

It seems to me that the more value people place on materialism the less truly happy they become while the higher value put on family & simplicity (to a point) the more content they are. Modernizations with advanced communications has lead to marketing techniques of praying on peoples inherent weaknesses which markets items by teaching discontent with what one has. This inevitably leads the weaker people to being controlled by their own laziness & ignorance causing them to be less happy about being alive IMHO.

Differences in climate also effect cultures. Many Latinos are not in front of a boob tube being spoon fed as much. Many of them are at outdoor events like soccer & family picnics etc. This added exercise keeps many trim feeling better about themselves. A cultures diet has a large impact!!!!! Look how large so many Gringas are now! Lean healthier diets with more exercise leads to less depression in any race.

The largest percent of people are sheepish IMHO . I rather be around a happy flock of sheep than a miserable confused flock but that is just me .

It has been interesting in my travels about the subject of religion. As you get to know people deeper from other cultures it usually will come up. I try to avoid this but…. It happens where they ask “what religion are you???” I do not like labels. I have always responded probably the same as yours, I believe in trying to be good while not hurting others & trying to help those that I can.

_________________
"Run silent, run deep"
Spunk glazed Chicas are the building blocks of the universe!

I'm pleased to see this brought up as its own topic, and I feel the need to clarify a few points.

It seems that my post was read by some to say "Christians are good and don't lie. The truth is good." This could not be further from the truth. The main point I was trying to make in that post was Machoism is a cultural condition more prevalent in Latin than North America and those people generally of western European Christian ancestry are more likely to value truth.

Somewhere along the line, my position was taken to mean that Christians have it right when it comes to values.

Second, I think the Moorish influence I mentioned is a valid point to consider - perhaps not on lying but on the culture in general. Sure the Moors were expelled prior to the Spanish settling the new world however, it would stand to reason that the Spanish would have been influenced heavily by the Moors - perhaps not in residual cultural traits but if nothing else, isn't it reasonable to believe that the Moorish influence plays a part in the way the Spanish colonized - the pillage and plunder attitudes already discussed. Bad things happened to the local populations all over the Americas when the Europeans came but I think the Spanish were the worst - they left entire civilizations is ruin and milked whatever they could. It is conceivable that this attitude was influenced by the Moors and that the results of these historical ativities are alive to this day.

I should have made my original post simpler "some cultures think lying is the ultimate evil and some don't mind it a bit"

I have found this to be a very good discussion and believe I have learned a lot.

Crooked,

I understood you didn't mean to suggest that one way of dealing with others is right or wrong, but it is very hard for any of us to discuss such issues without our own ethnocentric biases creeping into the language. The professor did it when he spoke of positive and negative attributes and I also did it when I categorically stated the English approach to colonization was superior to that of the Spanish because North America has had greater material and political success than the south. First of all, while the Spanish methods of conquest were certainly brutal, one could argue (and I'm surprised no one else brought it up) that what transpired in the north in terms of our treatment of Native Americans and the importation of African slaves left us with more than our own share of guilt. Secondly, in terms of the present day outcomes of those 2 colonization paths, it is certainly true about our greater material and political successes but, as Zippy pointed out, those may not be the only or even best ways to measure a culture.

Zippy,
I'm not sure that I'd agree that differing family values are at the root of the differing degrees of consumerism between anglo and latino cultures, but I definitely agree with what you say about such consumerism not being a guarantor of true happiness or even standing in the way of it. I'd like to direct you some information that you might already be aware of. It's called the "simplicity movement" or "voluntary simplicity". If you google it you'll find a ton of info on it. I just did that to see if I could find 1 particular link to send you to. Here is just one site that I think has particularly good info: http://www.zcportal.com/2002/1118/simplicity.asp, but there are many others.

What this philosophy entails can be summarized fairly simply. In a consumerist society we're always being marketed something newer and better. As a result we never have enough, always want more and thus are never truly satisfied. In fact, we don't even realize that in our pursuit of more things, we give up a lot of the intangibles that might make us truly happy. We work harder to buy that bigger house to keep all our toys in, and then we have less time and energy to even enjoy them, less time and energy to spend with our families and more time worrying about losing all the things we've accumulated.

The article I listed posits this movement as being in part a feminist reaction to modern society, but I don't completely buy that. For one thing its roots go back further than feminism and can be seen in the works of such existentialists as Henry David Thoreau who lived in a shack he built for $25 and who once wrote "simplify, simplify, simplify". Now I don't think I'd ever want to go quite so far as HDT. I've been watching TV commercials my whole life and I don't think I could ever give up ALL my toys. But I do think we could all work somewhere in that direction to partially counter the effects that consumerism has had on our lives.

Modern simplicity is also inextricably linked to another modern phenomenon, the environmental movement. One seriously dangerous aspect of mass consumerism is that we're using up (and often wasting) the earth's limited resources and ruining the environment in the process. The US, the worlds greatest consumerist society, represents just 5% of the world total and yet we emit 25% of the world greenhouse gas emissions. What will happen as the rest of the developing world strives to adopt the US model of consumption? We're already seeing this in China and India which a generation ago were just blips on the horizon in terms of energy usage per capita but which today each stand poised to rocket past the US in terms of total greenhouse gas emissions. Unless we want to forcibly relegate all of the 3rd world to continue living in abject poverty or voluntarily scale down our own lifestyles, the world will quickly reach the limits of consumptionism (actually I see other potential solutions that I won't go into here).

This is also a very interesting topic to me and we can explore this area more if you wish but this sort of takes us off track from the original thread topic of cultural differences.

All statements on this topic so far hold a lot of credibilty.

We know from some research(ZORRO) and personal experience,
the Spanish Royalty sent to the new world noblemen that were titled Dons. These men were given large plots of land to develop
and then pay a tribute or taxes back to Spain.

These fair haired Dons whos descendents still control much of latin america were not the type to actually soil their hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicente_Fox

I believe like england sent convicts to Austalia, the spaniards sent some of THESE men who possibly hold moorish blood
by force to work as a sort of middleman between the dons and slaves .

http://www.gipsykings.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gipsy_Kings

Notice the similarities in the appearance of many latin american men to these guys and these are in no way Mestizo or american Indian men . These are unquestionably Western european men.
In fact the so called mestizo look possibly came from them being that many north american indians were killed by european diseases ???

These gypsy (soft hustle, soft conman, pride in the grift) characteristics seem to exist in a large amount, not all of latin american population. I believe that this is the origination.

Cali
Its a Gypsy culture

Getting this back on track concerning the current state of cross-cultural differences. Here is some more grist for the mill taken from one of those links I supplied above (which most of you probably didn't check out).
--------------------

CONTRASTING PATTERNS IN NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS

GENERAL CULTURE
ANGLO-SAXON
•• Fast changes
•• Less conservative
•• Child’s active attitude
•• Nuclear family
•• Teachers teach how to face reality in life
LATINO
•• Slow changes
•• Very conservative
•• Child’s passive attitude
•• Extended family
•• Teachers overprotect as parents

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
ANGLO-SAXON:
•• Ch*ldren can look directly at other people, but when rebuked, they have to look at the rebuker rebuker’s eyes
•• Physical touch is uncommon, unless the other person is a close friend.
•• Expression of emotions is very limited.
•• Laughing means joy. Crying means sadness.
•• Think logically and get to the point.
•• Can do only one thing at a time.
LATINO:
•• Ch*ldren can look directly at other people, but when rebuked, they have to look down
•• Physical touch is very common. It means friendship or equality
•• Express emotions freely. People who don’’t are perceived as insensitive.
•• Laughing and crying, both can mean the same.
•• Getting directly to the point in considered rude.
•• Can do several things at the same time.

TIME
ANGLO-SAXON:
•• The future is very important.
•• The past is of little importance.
•• Times flies.
LATINO:
•• The past is very important.
•• Forget about the future.
•• Time passes.
ANGLO-SAXON:
•• Punctuality is very important. Someone who is not punctual is rude.
•• To be five minutes late for an appointment is reasonable. More than five is an insult.
•• Appointments and activities are scheduled in advance, sometimes even weeks or months early.
•• Meetings have an agenda
•• Working time is just that.
LATINO:
•• If a person is punctual, he/she is a flatterer.
•• To be twenty minutes late is very reasonable.
•• Sometimes just a few minutes before is enough.
•• Meeting agendas are very flexible.
•• Working time can be used to call friends, make appointments, etc.

CONTRASTING PATTERNS IN VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
ANGLO-SAXON:
• Clocks run.
• I missed the bus.
• I dropped it.
• I lost it.
• I broke it.
• I’ll do my best.
• I forgot to bring it.
LATINO:
• Clocks walk.
• The bus left me.
• It fell from me.
• It lost itself.
• It broke itself.
• If God permits.
• It was left behind.
-----------

I thought the last section concerning how different semantic patterns for saying what seem to be the same things might actually be reflective of greatly different attitudes about those things. The other thing I noticed was that, in terms of the importance of family, this author didn't actually say that family was more important to latinos (although they might be) but rather that the difference was between the relative importance of nuclear vs. extended family ties. What do you think?

Of course these are generaliztions and I believe they somewhat reflect the opinion of the author but in my experience the above is really spot on.

The comment regarding the similarity of poor people is a good one. Going by my limited travel experiences, I would have to agree. Now, I know that this is not science-based, but it looks like you stated.

TOTM is Tica of the month.

The mixed blood thing is a funny North American, read United States, joke. You may remember the one-drop rule that arose during the North American slavery rule. In some places of the world, the rule is fully reversed.

I am with you; hence my reason for originally responding to the comment in the VIP section. Several years ago, I taught an introductory section of African and African-American Studies. In reality, I taught a U.S. history class from an African-American perspective (not the African-American perspective, and included items normally not addressed or pushed into a footnote. I am told that the class was educational but fun, because it was frank, not politically correct, and we made fun of U.S. history as it is often taught. The section on race and sex was most interesting, as we covered myths, facts, and everything between.

I have learned as well. It is a good discussion.