BootsnAll Travel Community

Question:
I travelled to Bogota, Colombia in 2002. I had a fantastic time. Colombians are extremely friendly. I was a stranger and they would give me the shirt off of their backs. Bogota is a very safe place aswell. A very modern and economical city. Definetly not considered " third world" by any standard. As far as the women go, there are classic beauties over there. The gospel of Jesus Christ is spreading down there. A beautiful thing to see.
However, I felt out of place many times because there were very few black people in Bogota. I'm not sure why because Colombia on a whole has about 40% black representation.
Well, maybe I'll have to go to Cartagena next time.
Que Dios los bendiga a todos.

elcaballero

Choices:
WHY?

 

Colombia's black population lives mainly in the coastal areas. Although statistically a racially diverse country, there are definitely racial pockets. For example, Medellin is the whitest Hispanic city I've ever seen, but the Caribbean coast, which is not too far away, has a very high percentage of black people living there. This goes back to the slave trade when the Caribbean port cities were also major slave trading sites.

The pattern is much the same in Ecuador as well.

Cracker: When were you there again? Interesting (and accurate) point on sea coast Caribbean port cities...

I was there the summer before last. Spent a decent amount of time working toward my Beach Bum certification while there.

Good to hear the GOOD NEWS, el caballero, if you know what I mean (about the Gospel). More than that, how was Columbia. It seems like so many people are scared to go there. I find it captivating. Anywho, peace!

quote:

Originally posted by elcaballero:
The gospel of Jesus Christ is spreading down there. A beautiful thing to see.

Really? It's just now spreading? Huh. I was under the impression that Colombia had been settled since 1538 by Catholic Spaniards and has been devoutly Christian for over 400 years.

My mistake.

--Jessicah

Why bring religion into this topic?

Lines such as this "The gospel of Jesus Christ is spreading down there. A beautiful thing to see." and "Good to hear the GOOD NEWS, el caballero, if you know what I mean (about the Gospel)." seem a very strange and unneccessary point to put in. I personally don't like the idea of religion and think it is outdated( I hold similar views to Bill Hicks on the subject) but unless I had read this topic I would never have thought to mention it.
I don't really know why I bothered to comment but when I read comments like I read in previous posts it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It is about the travelling . Not religion.

Jim

Ouch. But ditto just the same.

I think what also worries me is the pe-existing problems with missionary work in these areas anyway. Until very recently, it was a bit of a carrot & stick conversion with the locals. If you want development projects, you need our religion. Development projects? Food? Religion...?

Sorry - I come from a family that has half a dozen former missionaries in it. All of them worked in this area (Columbia, Ecuador, Bolivia & northern Argentina) and their perspective on the region and the way they approached their time there is really disturbing to me.

With no disrespect meant to anyone's beliefs, I just don't think this is the place...

I totally agree, and I apologize if it was MY post that "left a bad taste" in your mouth - it should have been the initial post that did that. Mine was merely pointing out the absolute absurdity of bringing the topic of religion into the original post to begin with.

Look, South America is a very Christian region, has been for a long time, and it just rankles me to hear someone go, "Oh, well, they're FINALLY hearing the Gospel down there!" I've known many a devout South American Catholic who would be absolutely horrified and offended by such a comment as was made in the OP. In their defense, I said what I said. I'm not religious at all, but one thing I can't stand is people refusing to be open-minded, and the OP appears to convey a less than open-minded point of view, which offends me on the behalf of many religious South Americans.

I completely concur with Kwon on the point that some of the missionaries I have met while in South America are a bit disturbing. Some of the work they do is certainly laudable, but in exchange for shoving dogma down peoples' throats? I just don't know. I'm sure there are many missionaries who accept the peoples' beliefs and work peaceably side-by-side with them, but the vast majority of missionary groups I have seen in Latin America - interestingly enough, all of them from the United States - hold a very disturbing "we vs. them" mentality regarding the people they are trying to help. Hopefully, this is starting to change.

I will also say to Jim that you can't separate religion from travelling. It is ludicrous to make a comment like, "It's about the travelling. Not the religion." Try travelling in an Arab country and see if you could made such a similar statement. Religion is a part of culture, and culture surrounds you when you travel. People travel not just to experience beautiful scenery, but also different cultures. Completely ignoring religion while travelling means not taking into account the complete picture of the area you are in, which for me, would be a very regrettable thing to do as a traveller.

--Jessicah

I have a ton of latin/south american catholic friends (in the US), and their families are in the region still. I made a lame post because this site is really about travel, not religion. If people want to debate that, go to somewhere like beliefnet.com. However, religion is one of the defining principles of a culture (be it atheism, catholicism, islam, or whatever)

quote:

Originally posted by Jessicah:

quote:

Originally posted by elcaballero:
The gospel of Jesus Christ is spreading down there. A beautiful thing to see.

Really? It's just now spreading? Huh. I was under the impression that Colombia had been settled since 1538 by Catholic Spaniards and has been devoutly Christian for over 400 years.

My mistake.

--Jessicah

i second that emotion.

quote:

Originally posted by Jessicah:
I totally agree, and I apologize if it was MY post that "left a bad taste" in your mouth - it should have been the initial post that did that. Mine was merely pointing out the absolute absurdity of bringing the topic of religion into the original post to begin with.

Completely ignoring religion while travelling means not taking into account the complete picture of the area you are in, which for me, would be a very regrettable thing to do as a traveller.

--Jessicah

Jessicah.

It was not your post that left a taste in my mouth but the initial one as you thought.
When I made the statement “It's about the travelling. Not the religion” I did not mean to imply that I am totally ignorant to other peoples beliefs when I travel. In fact, before I visit any country I make myself aware of the customs and beliefs of that country so I can conduct myself in an appropriate way. I have travelled quite a bit in India and Thailand where religion plays a big part in daily life and although I accept it I also believe that if there was no organised religion then the world would be a much better place. There would still be culture without religion wouldn’t there?
Religion breeds intolerance (“we vs. them mentality”) and is often used to control people and I find it particularly disturbing that a lot of religions expect monetary donations despite the fact that many of their members are earning very little money. What do they get for it? In my opinion they get nothing that they could not get on their own if they used the strength of their minds.
Anyone who looks at the history of organised religion can see how many lives have been lost because of it. Money and Power corrupt everything and religion is one of the biggest examples of where this has happened my opinion.
I love the fact the different countries have different cultures but why does organised religion have to be a part of it. I acknowledge that it is but it does not mean I am happy with the situation. It also means that I do not ignore religion when I travel as I realise that unfortunately it is impossible to do so as you correctly pointed out.

I realise now that I am fueling a debate on something that I complained about in the beginning so I appologise.

Jim

Some Christians came up to Bill Hicks after a stand up show and said to him, "We don't like what you said about Christianity ". So Bill says, “So forgive me”.

quote:

Originally posted by jimbobbill:
Religion breeds intolerance

By saying that, you are guilty of at least one logical fallacy.

First: Hasty Generalization.
Have you heard of the Episcopalian/Anglican Church? They elected a homosexual man to be a bishop, and women to be priests, and soon bishops.

Buddhism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity teaches to deny yourself and place everyone else above you.

Don't you dare say it's us-vs-them when they say "we're all sinners in need of grace."

Second: Ad Hominem.
By saying "Religion breeds intolerance," you are essentially saying that religious people are more intolerant than the rest of society, so we should pay no heed to them.


Do some research before you make such broad comments.

Remember, religion doesn't mean a belief in a god. Religion is a belief-system of why we are here, and what is the purpose of life.

Atheism is a religion.

quote:

Originally posted by jimbobbill:
Jessicah.
When I made the statement “It's about the travelling. Not the religion” I did not mean to imply that I am totally ignorant to other peoples beliefs when I travel.

Understood - just wanted to make sure!

quote:

There would still be culture without religion wouldn’t there?

That's a good question. I can't really think of any culture that has had a complete absence of any religion. I could be wrong, but I think there's some sort of religion or at least spiritual guideline for every world culture, at some point in its history, so...I don't know. History shows us that culture is inextricably linked to religion of some form, so I guess that's a question we can't yet answer.

To ModernEhud: This is not really the place for the debate. But in Jim's defense, some of the most intolerant people I've known have also been the most religious. And how many years did it take the Anglican church to elect women and homosexuals? Quite a few. But this is a topic that's going to produce a lot of flaming, so let's just drop it or take it to PMs, eh?

--Jessicah

I agree with dropping it. I was simply trying to defend myself and others like me from being called intolerant when there is no basis for it. I know it was a general statement, not a personal attack, but it's a personal subject.


Which is why I agree 100% with not continuing this subject.

Just to (finally) address the original concern, the explanation that the Caribbean has a large black population just because of the ports for the slave trade is not entirely accurate. For instance, it doesn't explain why the Pacific coast is over 80% black, a much larger percentage than the Caribbean coast. Of course, there was no Panama canal back then, so it was very hard to reach by ship from Europe. The explanation for me comes not from what happened when slaves first arrived, but from what happened once they regained their freedom. And it is that they chose to emigrate to the coasts, both Pacific and Caribbean, and in the case of the Pacific, they were the only ethnic group to do so en masse. The Caribbean saw a much more diversified migration pattern, as it kept receiving an influx of foreigners even after colonial times. For instance, the Caribbean region has a much larger population of people from Arab descent than any other; Shakira (the artist) is a well-known representative of that group.

Now, regarding the percentage of black population in Colombia, 40% is probably an exaggeration; to get that figure, you'd need to consider black anyone who is at least 1/8 black, and then you'd start sounding like a Nazi. The truth is that Colombia is essentially a country of racially mixed people, so black/white distinctions are not easy to do. The most accurate classification would have the country dominated by mestizos (mix of white and indian) at ~50%, followed by mulattos (mix of white and black) at ~20%. "Pure" whites are about 20%, "pure" blacks 4% and "pure" indians 2%. Leave the remaining 4% to all other combinations. So, even if you considered mulattos and all black+other combinations to be black, 40% is still probably too much.