I love hicks - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

User avatar
By Citizen J
#14890323
Tainari88 wrote:About 80% of all of the Latin American nations' citizens' are living in cities.
But that's the case in most wet tropical climes. It has more to do with the jungle being very unforgiving than economics. Even natives with minimal contact with civilization form villages, rather than spread out within the jungle. Villagers form economics, not the other way around.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#14890329
Citizen J wrote:But that's the case in most wet tropical climes. It has more to do with the jungle being very unforgiving than economics. Even natives with minimal contact with civilization form villages, rather than spread out within the jungle. Villagers form economics, not the other way around.


Latin America has a diverse geography Citizen J. Jungles are some of the geography, but there are steppes, plains, mountains, snow, temperate climates, deserts. It is about the economic structures of modern society. Study Harari "Homo Sapiens". It explains it very well.
User avatar
By Citizen J
#14890339
Ah, you're thinking the entire south american continent, and not just central america. But I still have some problem with that figure. Much of the mountains and deserts and the tundra bound southern tip also have villages because of the unforgiving climate more than for any economic reasons. I'm willing to bet that once you get out into the temperate plains of southern Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, you'll find a lot of people spread out across the countryside. In fact, a simple look on google Earth confirms this. The entire area is mottled with farms, fields, and rural roads. Even the Patagonian desert is well populated throughout. Very much like Illinois or Wyoming. My point is still: climate and terrain determines population distribution far more than economics. Economics doesn't really become the main driving force until an urban population becomes quite significant, measured in tens of thousands or more, imho.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14890676
Ah, you're thinking the entire south american continent, and not just central america. But I still have some problem with that figure. Much of the mountains and deserts and the tundra bound southern tip also have villages because of the unforgiving climate more than for any economic reasons. I'm willing to bet that once you get out into the temperate plains of southern Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, you'll find a lot of people spread out across the countryside. In fact, a simple look on google Earth confirms this. The entire area is mottled with farms, fields, and rural roads. Even the Patagonian desert is well populated throughout. Very much like Illinois or Wyoming. My point is still: climate and terrain determines population distribution far more than economics. Economics doesn't really become the main driving force until an urban population becomes quite significant, measured in tens of thousands or more, imho.

If that were true, then surely the peoples of Latin America should always have been 80% urban? Yet this is not the case, historically speaking. For example, the Maya civilisation collapsed in the 9th or 10th century AD, and most Maya went back to living in small villages rather than major urban centres. How was this even physically possible, if what you say is true?
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14890681
Citizen J wrote:Ah, you're thinking the entire south american continent, and not just central america. But I still have some problem with that figure. Much of the mountains and deserts and the tundra bound southern tip also have villages because of the unforgiving climate more than for any economic reasons. I'm willing to bet that once you get out into the temperate plains of southern Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, you'll find a lot of people spread out across the countryside. In fact, a simple look on google Earth confirms this. The entire area is mottled with farms, fields, and rural roads. Even the Patagonian desert is well populated throughout. Very much like Illinois or Wyoming. My point is still: climate and terrain determines population distribution far more than economics. Economics doesn't really become the main driving force until an urban population becomes quite significant, measured in tens of thousands or more, imho.


This definitely seems to be true of desert states in the U.S. Hmmmmm.

Definitely a chin-stroker.
By layman
#14890997
This is factually incorrect.


You have tried to make this point before but it is futile. The power of identity i guess.


Tainari88 wrote:Everyone should read Homo Sapiens by Harari. The Israeli historian. It explains with a lot of detail how agricultural societies emerged in human history and what role they play in economics and how cities evolved with agricultural evolution. It is very interesting how human beings were finally 'domesticated' by having to babysit crops and store grains and vegetables, fruits, etc in large quantities instead of being hunter gatherers and foragers as their ancestors once were. How cities came from the division of labor.

All this hick vs urban makes sense when one sees how economic superstructures emerge and why they are reinforced or destroyed. Fascinating.

The reality is that most of Latin America for example is urban now. About 80% of all of the Latin American nations' citizens' are living in cities.

Why? Mostly how the economy is changing and has changed over time. It is interesting.

I like Q talking about how urban needs forms people's beliefs, habits and how they are fed 'messages'. It is the reality. For people to believe in urban living as the way to go and the best life? It has to be sold to them. Most human beings are lovers of open air, freedom, nature. Yet how they adapt to urban realities? It is very interesting.


sapiens is a great book. I wonder how you received his open question on gender and social ranking. He seemed skeptical on feminist theory.

Anyway, in th context of this thread, it’s interesting how far we fell in the first phase of agriculture in terms of life expectancy and life quality.

Both hunter gatherers and modern man have a decent case for themselves. Everything in between sounds pretty awful.
Last edited by layman on 22 Feb 2018 18:34, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14890999
I am actually a life-long hick from the Rural rustbelt (Pennsylvania)

Born and raised on 42 acres amidst several hundred acres with a population that was 98% white and all identified as Christian. All working class, rarely education beyond high-school. average income is $20,000 a year. My wife was raised on a 500 acre farm....

I feel like we are being discussed like a new species in a zoological forum.

Feel free to ask questions if you want to know about us.....the real us., cause i'm reading a lot of dumb shit on this thread.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
By Citizen J
#14891209
Oh, I got you beat. (as if this were a competition). Look up Sanilac county Michigan. 97% white, 70% Republican, 100% Christian, and a per capita income of only $19,671 with a mere 16% under the poverty line.
Very poor, very conservative, very rural, and very Christian. Oh, the stories I can tell you of things that happened while growing up there. One farmer adopted a slave. Some of the girls I grew up with were basically taught that they had no value beyond wife/mother (by their own parents). The FBI busted a judge, a PO and a couple of cops for getting all kinds of free labor, money, and stuff from parolees. Southern baptists arranging marriages between their kids. Farmers drove the EPA agent out of the area with threats and violence. Wife and child beating, rape, and incest. And these were just in the time I was there. I moved out when I was 18 and never looked back.
By Decky
#14891230
Sounds like any place in the US to me. I am glad we kicked out all of our mental Presbyterians so they could form a shithole Mad Max society on another continent.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14891264
Citizen J wrote:I moved out when I was 18 and never looked back.


I moved back to the country from the shit-hole city when I was 27, and never looked back.

I prefer the rare and occasional bursts of town gossip over shit like you mention to the steady stream of violence and corruption on the cities.

Whats wrong with arranged marriages? :eh:

Traitor.

As someone raised here, who wants to be here, and didn't bail in their formative early-adult years....I think I could do a better job representing the rural rust belt for questioning. Just sayin'

Decky wrote:Sounds like any place in the US to me. I am glad we kicked out all of our mental Presbyterians so they could form a shithole Mad Max society on another continent.


Whats wrong with Mad Max? That movie is fucking boss.

besides.....

Image
User avatar
By Crantag
#14891291
Well, I've been to some places like rural Texas, where people look at you strange if it seems like you don't go to church.

In Oregon where I am from, it is sort of just the opposite. I rarely hear people talk about god or church in Oregon. So the link between rural and religious fundamentalism doesn't hold for all regions, i.e. the West Coast.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14891384
The Left Coast.......The least American part of America.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#14891389
Citizen J wrote:Oh, I got you beat. (as if this were a competition). Look up Sanilac county Michigan. 97% white, 70% Republican, 100% Christian, and a per capita income of only $19,671 with a mere 16% under the poverty line.
Very poor, very conservative, very rural, and very Christian. Oh, the stories I can tell you of things that happened while growing up there. One farmer adopted a slave. Some of the girls I grew up with were basically taught that they had no value beyond wife/mother (by their own parents). The FBI busted a judge, a PO and a couple of cops for getting all kinds of free labor, money, and stuff from parolees. Southern baptists arranging marriages between their kids. Farmers drove the EPA agent out of the area with threats and violence. Wife and child beating, rape, and incest. And these were just in the time I was there. I moved out when I was 18 and never looked back.


Yes Citizen J quite right. That last line I highlighted in yellow. I hear about those 'types' and their fake Christianity and so on....and I think, "Yes, wife beaters, incest, rapists'. I really detest those. But they exist. They start in on how they believe in arranged marriages and how their daughters are less important than their sons and how this or that unequal thing is right....and I think, next step, incest, child molestor. Freak. I stay away from them and don't talk to them. The crap they write lets it be known what they stand for.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14891390
Tainari88 wrote:They start in on how they believe in arranged marriages and how their daughters are less important than their sons and how this or that unequal thing is right....and I think, next step, incest, child molestor


Slippery Slope.....Fallacy.

I know you couldn't possibly be talking about me, so I figured I'd just help ya out. :lol:
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#14894208
Citizen J wrote:...the unforgiving climate ...

Yes, the Big Bad Wolf is the reason for all the metal detectors you have to pass through on your way to grandma's house.

Nature being "evil" is the reason for all civilization. But civilization seems purged to destroy the Big Bad Wolf once and for all, finally killing the dangerous and unChristian thing that is "the environment."

For me, real hicks don't believe in Abrahamic religion. Abrahamic religion is nature-hating, and thus, urban.

The promotion of Abrahamic values among rural folks was a way of making them think like urbanites - in fables and ideology instead of coexisting in respect with nature like real hicks used to.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#15080769
Tainari88 wrote:Yes Citizen J quite right. That last line I highlighted in yellow. I hear about those 'types' and their fake Christianity and so on....and I think, "Yes, wife beaters, incest, rapists'. I really detest those. But they exist. They start in on how they believe in arranged marriages and how their daughters are less important than their sons and how this or that unequal thing is right....and I think, next step, incest, child molestor. Freak. I stay away from them and don't talk to them. The crap they write lets it be known what they stand for.

But as I mentionned earlier, Abrahamic religions were forced onto hicks by ROME, the ultimate city slicker place.

Abrahamic religion - far from being a natural expression of man living in nature - was forced onto rural people in order to force them to serve the city and its hustlers.

So rather than considering these superman-worshipping religions 'hick,' I see them as a damaging influence on real hickdom. Agriculture might be another urban hoax perpetrated in order to get rural people (hicks) to serve big city-slicker interests.
By Sivad
#15080888
hicks are dumb, I'm not a fan of the hick. there's really only a tiny minority who aren't mostly demented and they come from every background there is.

At least 67% of Singapore parliamentarians since 1[…]

I'm not stuck on a two party system. I'm register[…]

Black militia, armed, openly walking through the […]

1. Again, we have no evidence that it decreases b[…]