Latest Realisation: Why catholics are disadvantaged

I took this photo a couple of years ago in the Templo de Santa Prisca, a colonial church that dates from 1758, in Taxco (Guerrero, Mexico). The image of a skull of a high priest (probably buried there) skillfully worked on golden wood, surprised my old fascination for the catholic iconography of fear. In my visits to catholic churches in both Mexico and some european countries, I've never come across this kind of work. There were other similar carvings in that same church.

Having the knowledge of the basic division between the catholic and the protestant churches never prepared me to understand the basic real difference between people living under such worldviews. As of this instant, I think that because of that division, catholics would lack behind in "social Darwinism" terms. I'm saying this because catholics live their lives with deeply embedded -unfounded- fear. Protestants live their lives believing without fear. In the basic religious level, the latter need no fear ex-communion; need no fear hell/satan; neither the wrath of god. They believe in god, they believe in themselves, they work hard to get what they ought to get. That's all that matter. The catholic lives in fear of going to hell, so she confesses; leaves in fear of being ex-communicated so it remains married / or pretends not to care if gets divorced or gets together with a divorceé, etcetera. The catholic, does and does not do things out of irrational fear, and relies that god will help her to overcome. Her achievements take place with the help of god. The catholic was a king in France because god chose him; the protestant was a king in England because s/he was the heir to the throne or earned/defended it through war.

I've been aware of the unfounded fear, however I didn't share a thought about those living without the fear. Reading Weber back in the day, didn't made me understand that either. It was not the time for me to see that I guess. And not that it's clear to me, what do i make of it? I make the idea that due to fear, the people with this worldview may not have the ability to overcome the current troubles that take place in their lives, neither the issues of the upcoming days. As we know, none of the 'advanced world economies' is catholic, and still in spite of the current financial crises, the market led by capital from those countries furiously devours the rest of the world. If and when the crudest times come where the fittest will be those to survive, those fittest may be the ones that have not fear because they will believe in themselves, they will do what they have to do to 'pursue happiness', to preserve their way of life, not stopping to anything. Just as the alliance G.W. Bush & Blair/Brown & NATO has demonstrated; just as the endemic exploitation / abuse of the poor shows; as 'collecting charity' to save Africa from malaria puts clown make up on it. Indeed, I've known all of this, it's no news to anyone really. What added further understanding in my mind were the few degrees of separation that significantly have affected worldviews between those in some sort of control and the rest.

My very own groundhog day

Recently I realised that X has happened to me since I was a little girl. X has happened to me recently, well sort of recently -I always have troubles with defining the timing of things. I'll try here to sketch my concern so I can move on to understand how i could break the cycle to avoid X from happening again in the future.

X happened when I was 5 years old, lasting until I was 8. It happened again when I was 15 years old. It more or less ended when I was 16. X happened again when I was 19 and it has continued until the present so to speak. But because I'm far away from the causes of X, in a physical manner, it kind of does not affect me, and does not feel so real. Then, X happened again when I was 31, and continues as well. While X is happening in two places where I exist, one is virtual and the other is physical. The virtual one (X1)is easier to handle because it feels far. However, the physical (X2) is here and now, and it feels real.

I don't find necessary to explain what X is all about, because I think that the point is to be clear that the main problem with X is that it is a paradox. And, as we know, there is only one solution to paradoxes. If you participate of them, one way or the other, you are trapped in it. Thus, the opposite has to be done.

Every time that X has happened I have acted similarly. So, I think that I should do something differently. But how could i work this out? Should I schematically look at the characteristics of X? Try to find loops in the history of the components of X? If this is down to Karma, I should try to understand the lesson that I ought to be learning. The most shocking thing for me is that it took me many years to realise that X was happening. I've had so many other things going on in my life, that I never gave enough attention to X. But now that it is barking at my face, I couldn't deny it's recurrence in my life. It is repeating in the same way over and over, and that is not right. I have to wake up one day to see that I've evolved.

Mindset: Relieved?

In my obsessive way of being, I contacted the main author of the scientific article. He kindly emailed me back, forwarding me the article, confirming that the data on 93% of mestizo population was indeed part of the INEGI calculations. Thus, indeed, the way in which the newspaper article was paraphrased was incorrect.

I know, you might think: don't you have anything better to do? Well, obviously I don't...

Interestingly, the author also mentioned about the data collection on ethnicity in Mexico by the INEGI is solely based on linguistic characteristics. This also confirmed that matters with regard to the view on indigenous population have not improved in mainstream Mexico. I could write a bit more about this, but I'll do it at another time. There are, indeed, complex explanations for that statement.

Mindset: Alert

Ok, in response to my previous post. As it was obvious, it was highly contradictory the way in which (as I translated) some of the results from the newspaper on the scientific article, were presented. For instance, whilst they say that 93% of the population was found to be mestizo. Yet, they say that the research found that in Campeche 70-75% of the population is indigenous, and 17.2% of the population in Veracruz has black ancestry. How, from these numbers, did we get to the 93% of mestizos? I know, I'm barking at the wrong tree here.

Right, so unfortunately, I could not access the original journal article because my university does not have access to it, wooooo, i know. Shame on it.

Anyway, at least I read the abstract that states mestizos form 93% of the Mexican population. Well, this makes me wonder about the veracity from the people who wrote the newspaper article (in El Universal), who reported that the research concluded that 93% of the Mexican population is mestizo based on their genetic research. The two sentences I present here are completely different; and the latter, being the one in the Mexican media -reaching most of the people-, is totally misleading! Beware, I'm saying this solely based on reading the abstract to the paper.

So, based on that information i decided to go to the obvious original source, INEGI, the Mexican statistics institute. If i don't remember wrongly, in Mexico the indigenous population is calculated according to self-reporting knowing/speaking an indigenous language. Yes, this is how the Mexican government calculates, and therefore reports, about the indigenous population in the country. Indeed, this is a highly debatable topic; and, in my opinion totally anti-ethical. For example, if I have a mother and father who are Nahua (a current group originated from different ancestries); but, if I was not taught Nahuatl (language), I am not indigenous. Well, well, well...

Anyway, coming back to the main point. The INEGI carried out a population calculation in 2005, and the report shows that indeed, the population that does not speak any indigenous language forms 93%, therefore these are the mestizos. Those who speak an indigenous language form almost 7%, therefore these are the indigenous. This, on such a superficial level, solves my issue of this morning. If you speak Spanish, let me know and I'll send you the file with the INEGI's tables on this subject.

At the end, I am very disappointed at the newspaper article because it is not transparent at all, and unfortunately it influences many people who believe in the mass media.

Mind set: Disconnected

Once again, my usual moaning is becoming (I've got to admit) rather common in me. Is it either the work I'm doing or a combination of stress and confusion in my life?

It has been mentioned in a Mexican newspaper that it's been found, through research on the genetics of the local population, that the majority of the Mexicans are mestizos (by 93%). However, across the newspaper article, it is explained that down south (Campeche, for example) there is a higher percentage of indigenous population (70-75%). Anyway, I would like to understand the conclusion of the 93%. I've been trying to find the original research article to understand the methodology and the sample subjects. However, i cannot find it. Once i do, I'll report back on it to try to understand if it was comprehensive of the indigenous population, who, to my understanding has extensively avoided mixing so overtly with the mestizos in their communities. As presented in the general conclusion in the newspaper report, they cannot be just 7%, it sounds a bit strange. But, hey, i'm not a geneticist! Probably in the real chromosomal combination the majority (even those who may not be aware of it) are more mestizos than the mole**!

**For those who don't know what mole is, it is not the animal that roams around crops... it is a sauce based on a combination of chilies, seeds & grains, fruits & nuts, and spices such as cocoa or herbs/leaves. In its many variations, the sauce is usually eaten with turkey, chicken, pork, and fish.