Maybe I get flack for this.

goin_south says on Feb 17, 2008, 12:44:

sometimes I get confused... if .. Violence is the price of freedom....
...
......never mind ;-(

Where do we go from here?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Feb 17, 2008, 15:58:

I remember the old Bud Dry commercials from 1989. "Why ask why, Drink Bud Dry" Who knows? 50 years is pretty young compared to some nations. In present day Israel, they have been going at it for 1500 years.

BEWARE of gold diggers.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Alma del Norte says on Feb 17, 2008, 16:04:

I think it goes way back even before the founding of Colombia, the brutal repression by the conquistadores, followed by the oppression of the Colombian-born upper classes to gain autonomy or any control over their own country, a country with such disproportionate natural resources to make it worth fighting over. Investing in that conflict was worth the trouble, investment which continues today. Historically, once the Republic was born, it almost immediately fractured and then the argument between the Federalists and Centralists, (backed by the Catholic Church), eventually led, (I think), to polarisation of the Liberal and Conservative parties manifesting itself eventually in, as you say, the Violencia.

Add to this massive disparities in wealth, (today 80% being in the hands of 5% of the population), topography in which it is very easy to evade the State, and maybe you have a start in answering your question. I do not believe that any country in Latin America has the same motivation for, and consistency in its troubles. I do not however believe that there is anything in the psyche, per se, of a Colombian that means they are any more violent than say, for example, an Argentino or a Guatemalteco. “La Necesidad" is usually the cause.

Sorry for my "crude", useless comment on your other post. I am just sick of listening to apologists for the Paracos, and I ain’t going to get involved anymore!

Disclaimer: I am not a politician or a historian. This is just stuff that I’ve picked up on whilst living and travelling in Latin America, so feel free to correct me.

La vida es una rutina

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on Feb 17, 2008, 16:13:

80% in the hands of 5%? Can you source this please? It seems that today I read that 60% of the income was earned by 20%. I agree that there is a massive imbalance, but let's not make it any worse than it is.

It would be interesting to compare these numbers for the G-8(7) and Latin America. I'm too lazy to Google.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Alma del Norte says on Feb 17, 2008, 16:38:

Ooh, you got me rattled now tomtom. In truth, I don't know where it came from, but I'll do my damndest to find out. Meanwhile, Wikipedia says this:

"An estimated 5% of the population owns and controls over 90% of the property in the country. Over 60.1% of Colombian homes are below the poverty threshold."

Source: Tras el velo de la pobreza: La pobreza rural en Colombia, Alcides Gómez J , Martha Alicia Duque G

I guess it doesn't relate to earned income necessarily, but I guess there's more than one way to calculate "wealth".

La vida es una rutina

0 funny, 0 helpful.

durito says on Feb 17, 2008, 16:48:

Colombia has a GINI Coefficient of approx .538 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient which puts it towards the very top of the list of most unequal income distribution in the world.

That compares with between 0.24 and 0.36 in Europe and .4 in the USA. Brazil is at .567

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lowell says on Feb 17, 2008, 16:54:

Some of it starts at home when kids are young. I hate all the times I have to hear "Voy a pegar".

Alfred E. Newman. "What. Me Worry?"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Alma del Norte says on Feb 17, 2008, 17:28:

"Some of it starts at home when kids are young. I hate all the times I have to hear "Voy a pegar"'

Ja ja - you should just beat it out of them!.

La vida es una rutina

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 17, 2008, 17:45:

Now again- I'm not trying to preach. I'm truly trying to learn.

What's different about what you guys have told me versus other countries with similar colonial backgrounds, similar wealth disparities- but absent the profound history of violence?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Alma del Norte says on Feb 17, 2008, 17:51:

As I said, (IMHO), Opportunity, Motivation & Precedent.

La vida es una rutina

0 funny, 0 helpful.

durito says on Feb 17, 2008, 18:01:

Many of those other Latin American countries (brazil, guatemala for example) at the bottom of that list have a long history of violence as well. Both have higher murder rates than Colombia today.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Feb 17, 2008, 18:09:

Hey Slyguy,

You're directing this question at a bunch of Non-Colombians? 'Cause in case you didn't know, most Colombians don't read/write English! I mean, this question should be directed at real Colombians.


P.S. Worry about your own people and leave mine alone!

"Tu vas a ver, llegaras a mi edad y veras que Colombia seguira igual"-----Simon Sr.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 17, 2008, 18:10:

durito, I'm more curious about the mindset that than about current statistics. I lived in brasil for a couple years.....and while there are terrible crime problems there, there is NOT the LONG history of violence, and the tolerance of murder, the expectation of murders every day throughout the country, that permeates colombian society, in my view.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 17, 2008, 18:44:

simon, you know me better. you speak english, don't you? You don't see how you're diminishing the capacity of your beloved countrymen, to tell me speaking in english makes them incapable of answering? teach me something besides your flagwaving, simon.

I'm not being critical of anyone. Honestly. I'm trying to learn. I thought I made that pretty clear. I could just say "goddamn, what a friggin violent place" and never care enough to ask why, couldn't I?

Nobody's picking on anyone. You never seem to "get" that acknowledging problems doesn't diminish anyone- but ignoring/denying them always does.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Alma del Norte says on Feb 17, 2008, 18:45:

Quote: "Hey Slyguy, You're directing this question at a bunch of Non-Colombians? 'Cause in case you didn't know, most Colombians don't read/write English! I mean, this question should be directed at real Colombians.

P.S. Worry about your own people and leave mine alone!"


Simon: So mind your own business then, it's for "Non-Colombians" only.

La vida es una rutina

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Feb 17, 2008, 19:51:

Slyguy - I get you - and I don't know why the others above don't.

To the native Colombian crowd.
The guy is giving an open invitation for real Colombians to spill their guts and tell their stories and give their opinions .... and a few responders have done nothing but take the topic the wrong way, decided to be offended, and squander a good opportunity to articulate their opinions of why such violence remains prevalent in Colombia to this day. Us gringos are ignorant - teach us damn-it.

BEWARE of gold diggers.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 17, 2008, 20:19:

ADN- thanks for the input. don't worry about Simon- he's the Don Quixote of PBH, always tilting at the windmills. but I dig his pride, his passion for his country. if he hadn't jumped me in this thread, I'd have worried about his health. ;)

RJ - maybe the whole idea was unfair. Maybe the stuff I'm trying to learn isn't stuff that can be articulated. Maybe the line's too fine between the required objectivity, and the personal experience?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 17, 2008, 20:41:

Slgy: I am feeling a bit frisky tonight. Flack, flack, flack, flack, flack, flack, flack, flack.

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Feb 17, 2008, 20:47:

Slyguy - I am too stupid to even know what you said - but it sounded good. So I feel good. What else is important?

BEWARE of gold diggers.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 17, 2008, 21:33:

I'll drink to that!

Where do we go from here?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Feb 17, 2008, 23:54:

I just had to give you some flack, you know me Slguy. Now, to answer your original question, why are we so damn violent? I don't consider myself that violent, at least not anymore, sure back in 'Nam I used to entertain myself by chopping off gook ears and making necklaces out of them to wear, but I mellowed out once I returned to the world, that was until some "kingshit" sheriff drew first blood and I went haywire again, and ended up taking out a whole redneck town in the process... with a couple of dogs too! Then they lock me up but set me free to go rescue some smelly gringo POW's back in 'Nam and I ended up taking out half of that pathetic, guerilla infested, war-torn country (sound familiar?), and with some pinko Russkies included! Then as if that wasn't enough, I had to go to Afghanistan to rescue my old mentor and fight alongside Osama and his desert warriors against the commies once again! Well,there went half of fokin' Afghanistan! So to answer your question, we're only violent when we're pushed, so don't fok with us! Now I have one last mission, to find those FARC bastards and make 'em pay for all the bloodshed they're caused my countrymen ...........OYE, TIROFIJO, HP....I'M COMIN' TO GET YOU!!!!!

"Tu vas a ver, llegaras a mi edad y veras que Colombia seguira igual"-----Simon Sr.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Feb 18, 2008, 01:11:

I agree with RJ's post. yea there is violence in Colombia but there is violence in many areas of the world. african tribes have been fighting each other for centuries, and look at the middle east...what a centuries old mess that is, look at India and Pakastan enemies for many years they have nukes pointed at each other.
Hell look at the Red Socks and the Yankees, they hate each other

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

huskie says on Feb 18, 2008, 04:33:

The Most Violent Area in the Americas
By Néfer Muñoz, IPS, 31 July 2000
SAN JOSE, Jul 31 (IPS) - Central America is the most violent region in the Americas, and one of the most dangerous in the world, according to international bodies, whose findings are corroborated daily by the headlines in local papers.

The violence is on such a scale that it has reduced the life expectancy of the people of this region of 35 million. Lynching and other forms of murder, violent assault, kidnapping and robbery are all on the rise, especially in El Salvador and Guatemala, which are listed by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) among the five most violent countries in the world.

The average murder rate in Central America stands at 58 per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to an average of 30 per 100,000 among 20 other countries on the American continent studied by the IDB.

More than two million firearms are in the hands of civilians who, given the failure of authorities to restore law and order, often decide to take justice into their own hands.

"Insecurity and violence are devastating Central America," Laura Chinchilla, former Costa Rican minister of security and an adviser to the United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP) regional project on justice, told IPS.

Chinchilla said that while the region had carried out reforms and made some progress in terms of public safety, integral policies for combatting crime and violence were still lacking.

The situation is critical in El Salvador and Guatemala. "The insecurity is so alarming and the lack of action by the justice system so glaring that in towns in the interior (of Guatemala) the phenomenon of lynching has become frequent," Emilia Garc¡a, with the Mutual Support Group (GAM), a Guatemalan human rights organisation, told IPS.

GAM estimates that 257 murders were committed in Guatemala in the first half of the year, including 26 lynchings of alleged criminals.

"In these executions, it was never proven whether the accused were really guilty," said Garc¡a. "Many were beaten to death or burnt alive after being doused with gasoline."

Surveys indicate that one in three families in El Salvador, meanwhile, have purchased a gun for self-defence purposes.

But "this ends up becoming a factor contributing to the insecurity, not only for the people who have a gun, but for those around them," said Miguel Cruz, with the Jos‚ Sime¢n Ca¤as Central American University in El Salvador.

Cruz stressed that the greater the number of firearms in the hands of civilians, the higher the levels of crime and common violence, as seen in El Salvador and Guatemala.

The experts in public safety consulted by IPS pointed to several factors that have driven up the levels of violence in Central America, especially the civil wars of the 1980s, which left behind patterns of aggressive behaviour.

Theft and bank robberies have forced many companies to step up security measures, sometimes to an exaggerated extent according to people like Manuel Rodr¡guez in Guatemala, who complained after cashing a check in a bank.

"The guards now treat everyone with suspicion, as if we were criminals," said Rodr¡guez, who pointed out that those entering banks were submitted to strict controls, and were not even allowed in with certain objects.

Some companies in Guatemala use lie detectors when hiring new employees, for fear of infiltration by criminal elements. The use of such apparatuses has increased in recent months, and specialised companies offer the service for 150 dollars.

The violence is closely linked to the widespread poverty in the region and the presence of thousands of former guerrilla fighters and paramilitaries, many of whom, with no means of making a living, have joined criminal bands.

"Globalisation has brought the spirit of consumerism to Central America, but the problem is that a large segment of the population does not have economic resources, and crime offers a form of quick access to money," Costa Rican sociologist Jorge Hidalgo told IPS.

A UNDP study, "Violence in Costa Rica: the View from Public Health", by Guido Miranda and Luis del Valle points out that even in peaceful Costa Rica, violence has reduced the life expectancy of males by nearly four months, and that in the six years taken into account, violent deaths led to the loss of an estimated 24,000 years of life.

Kidnappings are also on the rise in Central America, with El Salvador and Guatemala again leading the pack.

Although no reliable statistics are available, Guatemala is one of the world leaders in kidnappings, second only to Colombia, where 1,739 cases were documented in 1997, according to the Free Country Foundation of Colombia.

In Guatemala, the best-known face of kidnapping is that of Elver Gabriel Alvarado, better known as "Lito", the head of the criminal band "Los Pasaco". Due to death threats from Lito's band, Guatemalan President Alfonso Portillo sent his family to Canada.

"We are defenseless, that is the feeling on the street, because if the president, who has the entire police and military apparatus at his service, is afraid of the kidnappers, how are the rest of us supposed to feel?" Guatemalan political scientist Carmen Padilla said in a conversation with IPS.

Last week, several judges in El Salvador, backed by local business associations, urged Congress to authorise wiretapping as a tool against crime.

Some analysts say the spiral of violence was triggered by de facto military regimes that aggravated the already widespread impoverishment.

Experts warn that violence is tearing apart the social fabric in Central America, a region of just 523,000 square kms, where most of the population -- 80 percent in Guatemala and Honduras, and as high as 90 percent in Nicaragua -- lives in poverty.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another Article

David C. Stolinsky, MD



Is America the most violent nation on earth? Those who blame this country for most of the ills of the world would have us believe so. They frequently refer to high rates of homicide and suicide, though they rarely cite actual data. But before fear impels us to shred the Bill of Rights, we should determine whether our fear has a factual basis.

The accompanying table (Table 1) gives suicide and homicide rates for all 86 nations for which data are available. Rates are per 100,000 population and come from the United Nations 1996 Demographic Yearbook published in 1998.(1) Note that the latest U.S. suicide rate (for 1997) is 11.4, slightly below the 11.9 listed, while the 1997 U.S. homicide rate is 7.3, far below the 9.4 listed here. Figures exceeding published U.S. figures are starred, while those exceeding only the most recent (1997) U.S. figures are doubly starred. For a more contemporaneous comparison, the singly starred figures should be stressed.

Accuracy of the figures varies. Suicide may not be reported to spare the family. Thus Egypt claims a suicide rate of zero. On the other hand, Japan lists murder-suicides as suicides; if a man kills his family and himself, all are listed as suicides. The thousands of patients "euthanized" by doctors each year in the Netherlands are listed as dying from disease. There are 185 UN members, so over half of all nations, including the former Soviet Union and many African and Asian nations, reported no data at all.

Regarding suicide, the U.S. is in the middle of the pack, with 35 of the 86 nations having higher rates (38 using the most recent U.S. figure). Compared to the U.S. rate of 11.9, Russia has a rate of 41.2, Hungary 32.9, Denmark 22.3, Switzerland 21.4, France 20.8, and Japan 16.7. In general, Northern and Eastern European and Asian nations tend to have high suicide rates, while countries in Southern Europe and Latin America tend to have low rates.

Is there a relation between suicide and strictness of gun-control laws? Northern European and Asian nations tend to have high rates and strict laws, while Latin American nations tend to have low rates and more lax laws. Hence one could make a spurious claim that strict gun laws "cause" suicides. Such a claim would ignore many relevant facts. For example, Latin countries are mainly Catholic, with severe social pressures against suicide. Still, it makes as much (or as little) sense to say that gun laws "cause" suicides as that they "prevent" homicides.

The U.S. suicide rate has fluctuated between 10 and 17 for a century, with peaks in 1908 and 1932, and shows no relation to gun laws or gun availability. The current rate is below the midpoint and falling slightly. Recently suicides in the young increased. Advocates of gun laws blame the availability of guns. But suicides in older Americans decreased. The advocates ignore this fact. If something bad happens, they blame guns; if something good happens, they ignore it. And this is called "research."

Is there a correlation between suicide and homicide rates? Statistical analysis(2) shows none (r = 0.08). Nations with low suicide rates may have low (Greece) or high (Mexico) homicide rates. Nations with high suicide rates may have low (Switzerland) or high (Russia) homicide rates. Since suicide and homicide rates are not correlated, it is difficult to see how a single factor, such as gun laws, could cause major reductions in both of them.

Moving to the homicide data, we recall that America is often said to have the highest homicide rate of any "civilized," "Western," "industrialized," or "advanced" nation. Do those who make such claims believe that Mexico is uncivilized, Brazil is not in the Western Hemisphere, Russia is not industrialized, or Ukraine is retarded?

Looking at the homicide figures, we again wonder about accuracy. Are "political" killings (by the government or rebels) in Northern Ireland, Egypt, Israel, Guatemala, Peru, China, and elsewhere listed as homicides, listed separately, or concealed? We must admit that the U.S. has a higher homicide rate than any Western European nation. Still, 23 nations admit to higher rates: Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Sao Tome, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Using the 1997 U.S. homicide rate of 7.3, Azerbaijan and Cuba also have higher rates. Nine nations (ten using the 1997 figures) including Russia have both higher suicide and higher homicide rates.

There may be a lesson here. Perhaps the more we resemble Colombia with its drug wars, and Eastern Europe with its ethnic strife, the more our homicide rate will rise. In fact, homicide rates in some central cities, including Washington, D.C. with its "crack" wars, are already as high as that of Colombia. This is not an encouraging thought.

The changes in the U.S. homicide rate over time are interesting. In 1900 there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the homicide rate was 1.2, about one-sixth of what it is today. The homicide rate peaked in 1933, during the Depression, and then fell. It was low during and after World War II, but began to rise in the 1960s and 1970s, and reached its high for this century, 10.7, in 1980. It then fell to 8.3 in 1985, a fall of 22 percent. This welcome news was virtually ignored by the media, which emphasize rises in violence but downplay decreases. Homicide rose again in the late 1980s, but not to its 1980 high. The homicide rate continued to rise following the Gun Control Act of 1968, while the fall in the early 1980s occurred when anti-crime laws but no new anti-gun laws were passed.

From 1991 to 1997 the U.S. homicide rate fell 30 percent. Liberals credit a strong economy and low unemployment; conservatives point to three-strikes laws and increasing use of the death penalty. We are uncertain which factors to credit. The portion of the population made up by males aged 15 to 24, the most crime-prone group, fell by 5 percent, so this can account for only a fraction of the 30 percent fall in homicide. In any case, the fall began in 1992, while the Brady Act (waiting period for handgun buyers) and the assault-weapons ban went into effect in 1994. Clearly, these laws cannot be credited for a fall in homicide that had begun two years earlier. Violence is often like an Rorschach test --- what we read into it depends more on us than on it. This subjectivity must be avoided.

Will extremely harsh anti-gun and anti-crime laws be more effective than conventional laws? Figures for East and West Germany, the last before the Wall came down, reveal a unique "experiment." In 1945 a uniform population was split in two. After four decades of dictatorial rule, the homicide rate in the Communist East was 0.7, hardly lower than that in the free West, 1.0. But the suicide rate in the East was 25.8, much higher than 15.8 in the West. That is, even the harshest regime prevented few homicides, but at the cost of many suicides --- hardly a fair exchange. Overly severe laws may be counterproductive as well as oppressive.

Israel and Switzerland, where most adult males keep military-type guns at home, have low homicide rates, so easy access to guns cannot be the key factor in homicide. Some nations with strict anti-gun laws also have low homicide rates, but is this cause and effect? The low homicide rate in the United Kingdom holds for both gun and non-gun homicides; strict gun laws cannot account for a low rate of fatal beatings. Japan has harsh anti-gun and anti-crime laws and a low homicide rate, but Japanese-Americans, who live under our laws and have access to guns, also have a low homicide rate. Japanese immigrants bring something with them that inhibits homicide and is transmitted to their children and grandchildren. It may be self-control or love of education, but it has nothing to do with laws. Cultural factors are clearly important. To study the effect of gun laws, statisticians would first have to correct for all the cultural differences between various nations. Not enough is known to do this. The best we can do is observing what happens when new gun laws are passed in the U.S. and Germany, or when Japanese live in the U.S. In these cases, little effect of gun laws is seen.

In telling Americans, especially young ones, that they live in the most violent nation on earth, we are slandering our country. In addition, we may be inadvertently increasing the violence. Studies reveal that children whose teachers believe they will do well actually do better in school. Children may sense their teachers' expectations and live up to them. It seems likely that children raised to believe that they come from the most violent people on earth will act accordingly. The violence-prone minority will be more violent, believing that they must strike before others attack them, while the nonviolent majority will lapse into hopeless passivity. This is not helpful to a free country.

It really comes down to what we prefer as a basis for our opinions --- facts or myths. Myths may be comforting, but they rarely lead to effective action. Myths tell us that nations with strict anti-gun laws have low rates of suicide and homicide, so the answer is easy --- pass more laws. And if the laws don't work, pass still more. Facts, on the other hand, may be disturbing. They rarely provide easy answers for complex problems.

Without the deceptive comfort of myths, we are forced to confront reality. Liberals must face the fact that despite billions spent on social programs, changes to make the justice system more "fair," and new gun-control laws, the homicide rate doubled since the 1960s. Conservatives must face the fact that despite continuing family breakup, fatherless boys, decaying schools, and loss of respect for human life, the homicide rate fell by one-third in the 1990s. Advocates of drug legalization must face the fact that this fall in homicide occurred as the "war" on drugs continued. Opponents of violent films and video games must face the fact that as these increased, homicide as well as school violence fell, despite highly publicized shootings. Conversely, liberals must admit that the recent fall in homicide was associated with three-strikes laws and increasing use of the death penalty, while conservatives must admit that the fall in homicide was associated with low unemployment and a strong economy.

In short, we all must admit that we have much to learn about the causes of violence. This requires more effort and intellectual honesty than looking to the government to pass yet another law. America is hardly the most violent nation, and our homicide rate has fallen recently, but we are more violent than we used to be --- and than we should be.



References


1. 1996 Demographic Yearbook. New York, United Nations, 1998.
2. Stolinsky SA, Stolinsky DC. Suicide and homicide rates do not covary. J Trauma 2000; 48:1168-1169.



Dr. Stolinsky is a retired medical oncologist and co-author of Firearms: A Handbook for Health Professionals, published by The Claremont Institute. His e-mail is stolinsky at prodigy.net.

Cheers

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds-"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

huskie says on Feb 18, 2008, 04:52:

COLOMBIA'S VIOLENCE

The war began in 1948 with a brutal conflict between the two main political parties that transformed into a guerrilla war in the mid-1960s. In the 1980s, right wing paramilitaries entered the war and are responsible for most of the worst human rights violations. The guerrillas profess to be fighting a war of social justice, opposed to the extreme inequalities in Colombian society - yet the rural poor, the intended beneficiaries of the struggle, have always been its major victims.

1,500,000 people have been displaced from their homes by violence since 1985. Over half are children. (Codhes, 1999)

In 1998, the rate of displacement rose by 20 percent over 1997 figures; 8 households were displaced by violence every hour. (Codhes,1999)

Sixty percent of displaced children drop out of school. (Truyol, 1999)

There have been over 5,000 kidnappings since 1995. (El Espectador 1999, Reuters 1999)

Child soldiers include about 2,000 under the age of 15 in guerrilla and paramilitary forces, some as young as 8 years old. (Defensoria del Pueblo, 1997)

In Colombia, 6,000 people are killed every year as a result of war. 25,000 people are murdered every year in street, domestic, or other criminal violence. Homicide is the leading cause of death among adults over the age of 15. (Policia 1998)

Murders of children under 18 rose over 40 percent from 2,508 in 1994 to 4,322 in 1996. (Defensoría del Pueblo, 1997)

Impunity is widespread. Out of more than 3,600 murders in Bogota in 1996, police arrested fewer than a 100 people. (Defensoría del Pueblo, 1997)

Political Homicide in Colombia, 1992
Source: Castano, 1994
RESOURCES
Background | Children's Mandate For Peace | The Children Speak
Colombia's Violence | Decision Making Chart | The Hague Appeal
Human Rights Ballot | Nobel Peace Prize | Timeline of Children's Movement for Peace
Additional Resources
Cheers
http://www.turnerlearning.com/cnn/soldiers/images/pie_chart.gif

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds-"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

huskie says on Feb 18, 2008, 05:04:

And a bit of more History.....

Colombia, plagued by social and economic problems, was also embroiled in a political feud between the country's two traditional parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, when Jorge Eliecer Gaitan (1902-48), popular left-wing Liberal leader, was assassinated on April 9, 1948, while a Pan-American conference was being held in Bogota, the Colombian capital. Immediately, riots and vandalism occurred throughout the country (this sudden outbreak of violence seems to have been the result of longtime pent-up frustration by the public over numerous local and national issues). Columbia was thrown into a constant state of insurrection and criminality from 1948 to 1958 (called "La Violencia"), a period during which more than 200,000 persons lost their lives and more than a billion dollars of perperty damage was done. Laureano Eleuterio Gomez (1889-1965), an archconservative, served as Columbia's president from 1950 until his ouster in 1953 in a coup led by Army Chief of Staff General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla (1900-75), who ruled as a dictatorial president until his corrupt, brutal regime was deposted (1957) by a military junta supported by both Liberals and Conservatives. In 1958, democracy returned to Columbia upon the formation of a Liberal-Conservative coalition government (the National Front) under newly elected president Alberto Lleras Camargo (1906-90), who slowly stabilized the country's faltering economy and instituted agrarian reform.

*****

Although order was restored in Bogotá and Ospina remained in control, the tempo of rural violence quickened to a state of undeclared civil war known as la violencia. La violencia claimed over 200,000 lives during the next eighteen years, with the bloodiest period occurring between 1948 and 1958. La violencia spread throughout the country, especially in the Andes and the llanos (plains), sparing only the southernmost portion of Nariño and parts of the Caribbean coastal area. An extremely complex phenomenon, la violencia was characterized by both partisan political rivalry and sheer rural banditry. The basic cause of this protracted period of internal disorder, however, was the refusal of successive governments to accede to the people's demands for socioeconomic change.

After the Bogotazo, the Ospina government became more repressive. Ospina banned public meetings in March 1949 and fired all Liberal governors in May. In November of that year, Ospina ordered the army to forcibly close Congress. Rural police forces heightened the effort against belligerents and Liberals, and eventually all Liberals, from the ministerial to the local level, resigned their posts in protest.

In the 1949 presidential election, the Liberals refused to present a candidate; as a result, Gómez, the only Conservative candidate, took office in 1950. Gómez, who had opposed the Ospina administration for its initial complicity with the Liberals, was firmly in control of the party. As leader of the reactionary faction, he preferred authority, hierarchy, and order and was contemptuous of universal suffrage and majority rule. Gómez offered a program that combined traditional Conservative republicanism with the European corporatism of the time. A neofascist constitution drafted under his guidance in 1953 would have enhanced the autonomy of the presidency, expanded the powers of departmental governors, and strengthened the official role of the church in the political system.

Gómez acquired broad powers and curtailed civil liberties in an attempt to confront the mounting violence and the possibility that the Liberals might regain power. Pro-labor laws passed in the 1930s were canceled by executive decree, independent labor unions were struck down, congressional elections were held without opposition, the press was censored, courts were controlled by the executive, and freedom of worship was challenged as mobs attacked Protestant chapels. Gómez directed his repression in particular against the Liberal opposition, which he branded as communist. At the height of the violence, the number of deaths reportedly reached 1,000 per month.

Despite the relative prosperity of the economy--owing largely to expansion of the country's export markets and increased levels of foreign investment--Gómez lost support because of protracted violence and his attacks on moderate Conservatives and on the military establishment. Because of illness, in November 1951 Gómez allowed his first presidential designate, Roberto Urdaneta Arbeláez, to become acting president until Gómez could reassume the presidency. Although Urdaneta followed Gómez's policies, he refused to dismiss General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla, whom Gómez suspected of conspiring against the government. When Gómez tried to return to office in June 1953, a coalition consisting of moderate Conservatives who supported Ospina, the PL, and the armed forces deposed him and installed a military government. They viewed such action as the only way to end the violence. Rojas Pinilla, who had led the coup d'état, assumed the presidency.

Initial response to the coup was enthusiastic and widespread; only the elements at the two extremes of the political spectrum protested the action. Rojas Pinilla's first goal was to end the violence, and to that end he offered amnesty and government aid to those belligerents who would lay down their arms. Thousands complied with the offer, and there was relative calm for several months after the coup. Other immediate steps taken by Rojas Pinilla included the transfer of the National Police to the armed forces in an effort to depoliticize the police, relaxation of press censorship, and release of political prisoners.

The government also started an extensive series of public works projects to construct transportation networks and hospitals and improved the system of credit for small farmers. Rojas Pinilla attempted to respond to demands for social reform through populist measures patterned after the policies of General Juan Domingo Perón (1946-55) in Argentina. The National Social Welfare Service, under the direction of his daughter María Eugenia Rojas de Moreno Díaz, was created to meet the most pressing needs of the poor, and the public works projects began to provide jobs for the masses of urban unemployed. The tax system was restructured to place more of the burden on the elite. Poorly administered, however, these reform programs met with little success. Rojas Pinilla was unable to restructure Colombian society.

Rojas Pinilla attempted to recruit political support from nontraditional sources. He courted the military by raising salaries and constructing lavish officers' clubs, and he counted the church by espousing a "Christian" doctrine as the foundation of his government. Through the creation of a "third force," Rojas Pinilla attempted to fuse the masses of peasants and urban workers into a movement that would counter the elite's traditional domination of the country's politics; however, this served more to anger the elite than to create a populist political base.

Support for the Rojas Pinilla regime faded within the first year. Toward the end of 1953, rural violence was renewed, and Rojas Pinilla undertook strict measures to counter it. Following a substantial increase in police and military budgets, the government assumed a dictatorial and demagogic character. The government reversed its initial social reform measures and relied instead on repression. It tightened press censorship and closed a number of the country's leading newspapers, both Liberal and Conservative. Under a new law, anyone who spoke disrespectfully of the president could be jailed or fined. Many were killed or wounded at the socalled Bull Ring Massacre in February 1956 for failing to cheer Rojas Pinilla sufficiently. The administration became increasingly corrupt, and graft in government circles was rampant. In addition, economic deterioration, triggered by a drop in coffee prices and exacerbated by inflationary government policies, seriously threatened the gains made since World War II. Efforts of government troops to suppress the widespread violence degenerated into an enforcement of the president's tenuous hold on power, and their methods became more brutal. Scorched-earth policies were introduced to confront the 20,000 belligerents estimated to be active in rural areas.

Rojas Pinilla tried to provide a legal facade for his dictatorship. A new constitution (the Constitution of 1886 was abolished in 1954) created a Legislative Assembly composed of fifty-nine Conservatives and thirty-three Liberals, twenty of whom were nominated by the president. The assembly elected Rojas Pinilla to the presidency in 1954 for four years; in 1957 it confirmed him as president until 1962, an action that consolidated mounting opposition to Rojas Pinilla and precipitated his subsequent fall from power.

By early 1957, most organized groups opposed Rojas Pinilla. Liberal and Conservative elites, to whom the populist and demagogic Rojas Pinilla had become a greater threat than their traditional party adversaries, decided to stop feuding and to join forces against the president under the banner of the National Front. Conservative and Liberal leaders had been negotiating an alliance since early 1956. In July 1956, Gómez--in exile in Spain--and Lleras Camargo signed the Declaration of Benidorm, a document that laid the foundation for the future institutionalization of a coalition government. The moderate Conservatives, supporting Rojas Pinilla until 1957, did not join in negotiations with the Liberals until that time.

Although factionalism between moderates and reactionaries slowed the process, all concerned parties signed a final agreement in San Carlos in 1957. Based on the Sitges Agreement signed between the reactionaries and the Liberals in Sitges, Spain, in 1957, the San Carlos Agreement stipulated that a Conservative, either moderate or reactionary, would be the first president under a National Front and that he would be elected by a National Congress previously elected by popular vote. The Sitges and San Carlos agreements, which sought to reduce interparty tensions and provide a basis for power-sharing between the parties, also called for the following: restoration of the Constitution of 1886, which had been abolished by Rojas Pinilla; the alternation of the presidency between the two parties every four years; parity between parties in all legislative bodies; a required two-thirds majority vote for the passage of legislation; the establishment of an administrative career service of neutral parties not subject to partisan appointment; women's suffrage and equal political rights for women; and the devotion of at least 10 percent of the national budget to education.

As the party leaders laid the basis for a coalition government, the tides of discontent turned against Rojas Pinilla. When Rojas Pinilla ordered the arrest of Guillermo León Valencia, a Conservative leader involved in the formation of the National Front, Rojas Pinilla was confronted with student demonstrations, massive strikes, riots, and finally the declared opposition of the church and the defection of top-ranking military officers. In May 1957, faced with a multitude of protesters and top military leaders requesting his resignation, Rojas Pinilla resigned and went into temporary exile in Spain. Power reverted to a five-man junta led by General Gabriel París, who promised the free election of a civilian president in August 1958.

In December 1957, Colombians voted overwhelmingly in a national plebiscite to approve the Sitges and San Carlos agreements as amendments to the Constitution of 1886. Congressional elections were held soon thereafter, with the result that the reactionary Conservatives emerged as the largest faction of the Conservative half of Congress. Gómez vetoed the proposed presidential candidacy of Valencia, who until then had been the strongest Conservative candidate. As a result of this division within the PC, faction leaders agreed to allow a Liberal to be the first president under the National Front and to extend the provision of the coalition government from twelve to sixteen years. These agreements were ratified by Congress as constitutional amendments in 1958. In August of that year, Lleras Camargo, a Liberal, was elected as the first president under the National Front.

Source: Armed Conflict Events Database (ACED)
Cheers

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds-"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

caligula says on Feb 18, 2008, 10:40:

Great stats.. Thanx.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Catfish35 says on Feb 18, 2008, 10:55:

Yes but what about the elephant in the room?
All the statistics and history about other countries are all good as stated above. However, I just cannot compare Colombia to Guatemala, El Salvador, Nica, etc..
I think better of Colombia. I have spent a lot of time hanging around the border with Guat/Mexico(Chiapas), El Sal, Nica. These countries lack the basics that Colombia has.
Again, I would like to think better of Colombia. There is something about Colombia and its people that make me think they are far more intelligent, compassionate, and generally evolved than say, your typical Nicaraguan!
Shall I dare say....that we almost expect unrest in some of those other countries?
But there is something different about Colombia! But the question is still there.
Why can't they beat this violence? It seems to know Colombia and its people is to love Colombia.
On the surface it appear that Colombia should and could beat this violence that has plagued them for far too long.
Has the country just accepted its struggle? It appears to me that the time is ripe. The country is gaining power and momentum in the right direction with what could be one of the best leaders it has had (I know he has ?). I agree that other countries have had their struggles including Venezuela. I believe the time is now for Colombia, the people, to stand and finish off its proverbial monkey clinging to its back!
The question still remains...why or when can they do it?

"So many guns, and so few brains". sam spade

0 funny, 0 helpful.

gatogris says on Feb 18, 2008, 11:24:

There are three great deterministic arguments for the persistence and pervasivesness of violence in Colombia, all of which have been touched on here already. At the risk of redundancy:

1) Historical/ideological causation. The core of this argument is that basic historical conflicts between ideologies continue to drive the violence. This pov begins with the founding myth of Bolivar vs Santander, continues through the party driven war of 1000 days and the 'Violencia,' and arrives at the present day of claims of the Polo and the Farc vs. the paras and the 'Furibistas.' We all know how attractive this scenario is to some of our posters here on pbh. It makes good finger-pointing.

2) The material/social inequality combined with 'weak state' argument. This argument claims that conflicts over resources (in particular, land) took a particular form in Colombia that led to the development of deep incentives for the use of violence. Although many other countries also suffered from profound inequity in destribution of wealth, in Colombia, political and geographic fragmentation and a weak federal state led to the impossibility of a particular faction gaining a definitive upper hand in the contest for wealth and power. Ergo, illegal armed groups became very difficult to co-opt or destroy, and violence persisted.

3) The cultural argument. Particularly persuasive for Colombian 'violenceologists,' this argument claims that Colombian individualism, combined with a tendency to be scofflaws, as well as a historically acceptable pov that allows for violence as a key problem solving tool, has created a fundamentally different perspective towards violence among Colombians than in many countries with a comparable level of development. Rather than see violence as anathema to civilization, violence is understood by Colombians as a tool of civilization, seen as permissable or even advisable in specific circumstances.

Now of course you can cheat and say all three have elements of truth, but where would be the fun in that? Better to stick to one, and defend it violently against all comers, like a good Colombian would!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 11:54:

Now that Rambo has 'splained it all.......I'm done. ;)

You said pretty much what I've been thinking, catfish. I wonder if Colombians are just so...accustomed to the violence, the VERY gradual diminishment is enough? Plainly, gradual at some speed is the only solution.....but for example, I think the popularity of Uribe, despite all the anti-Uribists here, speaks to the colombian people's desire for more peace. from ALL the violence, not just FARC, or paras, or....street crime. The recent march, while limited in it's scope to FARC, was REALLY encouraging.

Is it possible that the people can DEMAND of their goverment systemic change, and receive it? Can the polls be used as a tool for the government to be told that NONE of the violent groups are acceptable? Can the mayors of the cities be made to grasp that the business-as-usual street crime, especially murders, are unacceptable? I have no idea. But - the widespread participation in the march is reason for hope, it seems.....

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on Feb 18, 2008, 12:01:

The average Colombiano must have a respect for the law and a desire to comply with it before any demands will be made. I have not seen any desire to do so yet.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Man Tequila says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:55:

Opportunity, motive, precedent. Alma summed things up quite well.

I wondered about this at length. I met so many pleasant Colombians, as well as a somewhat greater than average number of people who tried to rip me off admittedly by small amounts. The culture of papaya will indeed interfere with tourism in the country. And its history is well known.

Myself, I think Colombians have a passive aggressive streak which contributes to the above synopsis. The average person does not respect the law until the elites in society do. If the wealthy cheat it does not send a positive message to other groups.

Aunque no me creas/ si me lo propongo/ lograre olvidarte/ porque a fin de cuentas/ no soy tan cobarde./ Y termino todo una de estas tardes/ no sera dificil buscar algún sitio donde refugiarme/ donde nunca mas vuelvas a encontrarme. (Polo Montañez)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:14:

So, MT- is a matter of degree, ya think? Sicarios available for $200 because rich people break the law, too? Murders committed, bodies tossed in the trunk of cop cars 10 minutes later, without any real crime scene investigation- because rich folk aren't law-abiding, either?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

dwmte7 says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:54:

it, like so much of latin america--with serious respect--is a land where ya gets what ya pay for.....the golden rule. disputes are handled the old fashion way. years ago, when one of my contractors in colombia (actually in amaga, south of medellin about 30-40 miles) thought he'ld try and screw me outta about $500.00 us, i just told him that he didn't have enough money to fuck with me, but that i had enough to really fuck with him and that if he didn't fulfill the contract, i'd burn his business down. i even surprised myself with my approach/attitude to the issue. the truth, however, was that i was serious. that aspect of how colombians deal with issues had rubbed off on me and was as natural as taking a leak in the a.m. i don't really know if we can attribute the source of this attitude of using violent means to address issues to any specific source at any specific time. i think it's just part of human nature when push comes to shove. after having worked in lots of places all over the world...africa, middle east, europe, india, etc. i feel that the issue is not just in colombia/latin america...it's everywhere. sure, it's slightly reduced in the "developed" world, but certainly present, and more apparent in the so called 'third world'.

dwmte

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:07:

It's all Bill Gates' fault

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pedro says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:11:

Disrespect for the law in Italy is fairly widespread. Corruption also, and the elites often pull off abuses with impunity. They don't seem to have such a big violence problem, though.

que nota!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Frank Rizzo says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:16:

hey...I went to India once.....they took my kidney.......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! jajajajaa

0 funny, 0 helpful.

caligula says on Feb 18, 2008, 18:43:

Dontcha meen slack? whatz flack?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Man Tequila says on Feb 19, 2008, 08:11:

Not a matter of degree. Sicarios exist cheaply in Colombia because of precedent (civil wars and a history of violence make killing acceptable, sicarios have existed for many years) and motive (some people are so desperate for money and employment they are willing to do abhorrent things). Wealthy elites in Colombia have in the past sometimes had few scruples about using violent means.

I don´t think my first post was unclear. Until the rich obey the laws in Colombia what motive do other people have to do so? This sort of example is very important in how a society is structured. Sicarios kill for the money, though probably some are psychologically damaged and enjoy killing. If there is no other source of money, how would you change behaviour?

Aunque no me creas/ si me lo propongo/ lograre olvidarte/ porque a fin de cuentas/ no soy tan cobarde./ Y termino todo una de estas tardes/ no sera dificil buscar algún sitio donde refugiarme/ donde nunca mas vuelvas a encontrarme. (Polo Montañez)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Colombiche says on Feb 19, 2008, 09:13:

I recommend the book "No nacimos Pa' Semilla".

It's a deep look into the social phenomenon of the sicario in Medellin. The interviewer gets up close and personal with people on every side of the law.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Albatross says on Feb 19, 2008, 09:19:

... for me, killing fills that big empty void in my soul that drugs used to fill.

“Democracy - a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H.L. Mencken

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Feb 20, 2008, 00:33:

If you hire somebody to kill somebody in the US, you will get caught. Virtually 100% of the time. Sure, there are exceptions, but that is what they are - exceptions.

In Colombia, you can hire somebody to kill somebody, and virtually 100% of the time you will NOT be caught. Even in the rare case a sicario is caught, the sicarios are known for keeping their mouths shut. Getting caught for hiring a sicario is rare. (I actually can't remember an example)

If you really want to get away with knocking somebody off (in Colombia) - just make sure you are good friends with the police. I hung out with a couple of cops in Villavicencio. They were not corrupt as far as I knew. But, if a guy had messed with me at a club, and he ended up being found on a Sunday morning with a hole in his head, I am pretty sure I wouldn't get as much as a phone call.

BEWARE of gold diggers.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PALEOLITICO says on Apr 10, 2008, 11:42:

Yo siempre he creido que la violencia tiene sus origenes en las profundas desigualdades sociales. En una familia donde son 3, 4, 5 , 6 y hasta mas hijos, en condiciones de extrema pobreza, en donde los únicos ingresos son un salario mínimo (y eso si tienen la suerte de tener un empleo, pues los indices de desempleo en Colombia son muy altos). Se imagina usted sostener una familia compuesta por 7 personas con 460.000 pesos mensuales?. (Eso es lo que muchos ricos gastan en una noche de rumba). Miles de familias en Colombia viven esta situación y muchas de ellas están compuestas unicamente por la madre soltera y sus hijos. Es aquí donde a la gente en semejante estado de pobreza no le queda otra salida que conseguir dinero delinquinquiendo. Salen a las calles a robar, aceptan un "negocito" ilicito con el que les puede entrar algo de plata, las niñas salen a las calles a prostituirse y muchos jóvenes encuentran por ejemplo en los grupos al margen de la ley (como la guerrilla) una esperanza desesperada.

Si no tiene usted comida en su casa, ni una oportunidad de trabajo, si no ha tenido educación, si se enferma y no tiene dinero para comprar medicinas... Creo que seria un santo si puede mantener su estado de ánimo y su caracter en absoluto control y no reaccionar ni proceder de manera violenta.

Sucede entonces que esto es una cadena, como una avalancha que cada vez va creciendo mas y mas. Pues en este estado de miseria y abandono nacen todos los dias decenas de niños en Colombia que lo único que ven desde pequeños es violencia: una madre irritada, desesperada y sin educación que los maltrata, un hermano mayor que maneja armas y consume drogas, un papá que le pega a la mamá, algún pariente que trata de abusarlos. Y mira uno el origen del comportamiento de estas personas y encuentra que cuando niños recibieron el mismo trato y el mismo ejemplo. Todo producto de la falta de oportunidades para estudiar, trabajar, recrearse, descansar sin aguantar hambre, simplemente llevar una vida digna.

Pero cuál es el origen de tanta desigualdad?. Los malos gobiernos tiene la mayor parte de culpa en esto (por no decir que toda). Han sido decadas y decadas de malas administraciones llenas de corrupción en donde los pobres poco han importado y la plata de los impuestos que han debido mejorar enormemente los sistemas de educación, vivienda, salud, etc. han ido a parar a los bolsillos de los corruptos para enriquecerse mas y mas.

Nacen entonces las guerrilas quienes se toman el poder por su mano para hacer justicia. Pero sucedió con el pasar de los años que sus ideles politicos y democraticos fueron desapareciendo por completo y de su ideologia original no quedó ni el rastro. Entonces no solamente no pudieron darle solucion a los problemas que querian combatir sino que ellos mismos terminaron convirtiendose en el peor problema que hoy en dia tiene colombia. Y así seguimos con el ciclo que se repite una y otra vez. Una cosa va dando origen a la otra.

Por eso es que yo me "quito el sombrero" y estoy llena de admiración frente a "politicos" como Sergio Fajardo (el pasado Alcalde de Medellin) que tan valiosos como escasos, son capaces de sembrar la esperanza en medio de tanta miseria.

A mi se me agotan las palabras cuando quiero expresar el profundo agradecimiento de corazón que siento frente a un hombre como él. El ejemplo por excelencia de lo que debe ser el trabajo de una persona que maneja un cargo público. Siempre penso en todos aquellos que fueron olvidados una y otra vez por los gobiernos anteriores.

Yo me imagino cómo habria sido Colombia si a lo largo de su historia la mayoria de las personas que han manejado sus cargos públicos, lo hubieran hecho como lo hizo Sergio Fajardo??? Dios!!! slguy seguramente no estaría haciendo hoy esas preguntas.

Bueno, claro que aparte de los gobiernos, cada persona de manera individial aporta a la violencia o a la paz. Esto lo digo porque me acabo de acordar de un anecdota de "Pirry" en la que contaba que en un edificio de Cartagena (creo que era cartagena pero no estoy segura), las empleadas del servicio debian subir y bajar 13 PISOS!! todos los dias varias veces para atender a sus "patrones" pues no les era permitido utilizar el ascensor "de sus jefes"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. y esto a ellos (a los jefes) les tenia sin cuidado. Pero eso si, se gastan enormes cantidades de dinero llevando al psicologo a su perro y haciendole el pedicure.

Pirry preguntaba. COMO NO VA A VER VIOLENCIA CON COSAS COMO ESTAS???. Y yo pregunto: que corazón no se vuelve violento si tienes que subir y bajar trece pisos una y otra vez porque tu patron no tiene sensibilidad para prestarte el ascensor, pero si tiene sensibilidad para llevar su perro al psicólogo????? VA LA MADRE!!

Enseñame a enseñar.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tejasmarcos says on Apr 10, 2008, 12:49:

yeah. what gatogris said ;)

trying to walk a straight line on sour mash and cheap wine...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PALEOLITICO says on Apr 10, 2008, 13:30:

Gatogris?

Enseñame a enseñar.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PALEOLITICO says on Apr 10, 2008, 14:03:

Bueno, me alegra entonces no ser la única que piensa así.

Enseñame a enseñar.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lisa Zee says on Apr 10, 2008, 17:15:

I say the problem stars with religion, and not good education, the pope says women should not use contraceptives, so I blame the church more than politicians o los ricos!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PALEOLITICO says on Apr 10, 2008, 19:13:

Bueno Lis hay muchas causas que empeoran el problema. La que tu dices es una muy cierta. Pero ojalá la gente hoy en dia hiciera caso completo a las leyes de la religión. Te imaginas?? No habrian asesinatos, ni robos, ni mentiras, etc. aunque estuvieramos superpoblados. Pero no Lis, yo creo que los pobres tienen tantos y tantos hijos, mas por ignorancia y falta de educación que por respeto a Dios. Pues digo yo...

Y cómo estás tu??? que bueno saber de ti aunque sea por este medio. por acá está haciendo un frio!, llueve y llueve.

Enseñame a enseñar.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Apr 10, 2008, 20:48:

"Pero ojalá la gente hoy en dia hiciera caso completo a las leyes de la religión,Te imaginas?? No habrian asesinatos, ni robos, ni mentiras, etc."

Empezando con las propias iglesias, no?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PALEOLITICO says on Apr 10, 2008, 21:09:

Rubito: Ojala se diera eso que tu dices, ojala!. De hecho se hace gratis para muchos sectores pobres. Pero es que el problema no es ni siquiera ese. Aunque a muchas personas en Colombia se les brinda este servicio gratis por sus bajos recursos economicos, dentro de programas del gobierno, te aseguro que hay miles de mujeres y millones de hombre que se niegan a hacerse este tipo de procedimientos. Las mujeres porque los maridos no las dejan, por miedo o por falta de información y los hombres por machismo e ignorancia. Es que por eso digo que la ignorancia es lo que mas contribuye al atrazo.

Enseñame a enseñar.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PALEOLITICO says on Apr 10, 2008, 21:10:

billyb: Exacto!! empezando por los mismos que las promulgan.

Enseñame a enseñar.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lisa Zee says on Apr 10, 2008, 22:29:

billyb estas muy perdido, PALEO, que bueno de 'verte' por acá. Mucho frió en Medallo?, que, esta como a 20 grados? jajaja!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PALEOLITICO says on Apr 10, 2008, 22:35:

jajaja yo cada que me quejo del frio en Medellin y digo "noooo que frio el que está haciendo!!" todos se ríen (chica del tropico). Lisssss 20 grados es hielo para mi. jijiji.

Enseñame a enseñar.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lisa Zee says on Apr 10, 2008, 22:38:

Mejor que no este muy calinte, aqui va a estar 'divino' este viernes, como 25, lindo dia de playa. Escribime!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PALEOLITICO says on Apr 11, 2008, 05:24:

jaja Rubito de 20 para abajo?? pero de qué exactamente estamos hablando? =)

La verdad prefiero el calor. O el frio, si es con una buena chimenea y una buena compañia que me de calorcito :)

Enseñame a enseñar.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Apr 11, 2008, 05:59:

Paleolitico is right, it all bolts down to lack of educaction and big families wanting to get more with little money.

Corruption and politicians investing or giving away natural resources to other countries, it is related because if the "money given" were wisely used in education there would be more jobs and education.

...A yo, déjenme queto y no me jodan má! ...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Man Tequila says on Apr 11, 2008, 12:27:

Demasiada informacion, Senor Sudarachorro.

Aunque no me creas/ si me lo propongo/ lograre olvidarte/ porque a fin de cuentas/ no soy tan cobarde./ Y termino todo una de estas tardes/ no sera dificil buscar algún sitio donde refugiarme/ donde nunca mas vuelvas a encontrarme. (Polo Montañez)

0 funny, 0 helpful.