North VS South Italians

[alexandrian]

Buddyrydell said:

Yes that's true about the cultural differences. When I visited Italy, I found the North to be much more "hustle bustle" and industrialized, and just generally more well-off and modernized (with more tourists lol). I detected more of an "Americanizing" influence if you will. The people were very nice.

In the South, the people were also very friendly and hospitable, though one could tell that it was somewhat more traditional, slower-paced, and characterized by greater poverty. I hope to go back someday, especially to Sicily to search for some distant relatives.

The culinary differences were also very evident. The North seemed to have a lot of wine and cream sauces, whereas the South was heedy with garlic, basil, and tomato sauces (just like my grandmother's cooking lol).

I honestly think you're just exemplifying the differences with this description. It sounds like the North is simply like any other part of Western Europe, with German industrialization and effiency. The South seems to be more in line with general Mediterranean ways, not European ones in that there is greater poverty, more hopsitality, time is slow, and things are less organized. Definitely a proper characterization of every single country on the Mediterranean, except for France.

[buddyrydell]

Alexandrian said:

I honestly think you're just exemplifying the differences with this description. It sounds like the North is simply like any other part of Western Europe, with German industrialization and effiency. The South seems to be more in line with general Mediterranean ways, not European ones in that there is greater poverty, more hopsitality, time is slow, and things are less organized. Definitely a proper characterization of every single country on the Mediterranean, except for France.

Yes, the CULTURAL differences that Nock stated, not genetic differences.

[mike2]

No rush to keep up with the times. People just want to live and eat good Mediterranean food.

[alexandrian]

Buddyrydell said:

Yes, the CULTURAL differences that Nock stated, not genetic differences.

Of course. This does however bring up an interesting point- what is it about the South that makes it underdeveloped and poorer compared to the North in any country? The South in America is poorer, Look at North v. South trends in France, Italy, Egypt, Iraq, Mexico, China, the United States, Greece (islands vs. mainland), the Philippines, I mean the list just keeps going on and on... and the same results come up- the northern portion of the country is more industrialized and developed and prosperous whereas the southern portion is more laid-back, rural, and underdeveloped.

[mike2]

Isn't it obvious? Darkies can't take care of themselves.


But have no fear! SUPER-KEMP SHALL SAVE US FROM THE MEDINEGRO MENACE!

[nockwasright]

Alexandrian said:

Of course. This does however bring up an interesting point- what is it about the South that makes it underdeveloped and poorer compared to the North in any country? The South in America is poorer, Look at North v. South trends in France, Italy, Egypt, Iraq, Mexico, China, the United States, Greece (islands vs. mainland), the Philippines, I mean the list just keeps going on and on... and the same results come up- the northern portion of the country is more industrialized and developed and prosperous whereas the southern portion is more laid-back, rural, and underdeveloped.

I think your ground assumption is wrong.
As Henerte pointed out, in England the South is richer. Same goes with Germany (actually the Northern Italy/ Switzerland/ Southern Germany area is an economic continuum). Same goes with Japan. We are talking about the most important nations on heart.
Then it is not true that in the USA the North is richer: California and Texas are much more Southern than Nebraska or Wayoming. In Brazil the Norte Este is the poorest area of the country. And in many of this cases it is not a climate/related fact.
I think the reason lies mainly in the ethnicity and cultural capital of the population involved, plus geografic ties with other areas and when extreme climate. Obviously this factor may favor the North the South the East or West varying from country to country.

[Salvador]

I think three factors should be considered .
Climate, geography and population density.

Southern Italy: lower population density, warmer climate no neighbouring countries.

Northern Italy: high population desity, cooler climate, neighbouring highly developed economical countries.

in antiquity, since the world was less developed a warmer climate was favourable for developement. Today, since the foundations are allready there, a cooler climate is more favourable.

Today people work productive from 5 C to 22 C.

This makes Africa, large territories of Asia and South America a hard place to work. In summer, southern Europe also is too hot.
On the other hand, territories of Siberia northern Scandinavia, Canada and the whole of antarctica ara also too cold.

[Ilmatar]

Salvador said:

Today people work productive from 5 C to 22 C.

This makes Africa, large territories of Asia and South America a hard place to work. In summer, southern Europe also is too hot.
On the other hand, territories of Siberia northern Scandinavia, Canada and the whole of antarctica ara also too cold.

Considering two Nations topping the International Competitivity Polls year after year, Finland and Singapore, hardly ever enjoy these temperatures ( it was +4 degrees here when I headed to work tomorrow, and it seemed very warm after all the mornings spent waiting for the bus with below zero temperatures) , your claim does not make much sense. In the modern world factors making an economy productive and competive are far more complexed than these...

[gwydion]

Northerners and southerners still share the same essential Paleolithic/Neolithic ancestry that binds all of Italy together though, with the Paleolithic ancestry contributing in the Alpine types and later Med types resulting from the Neolithic, and the mix of the two has resulted in many stabilized Dinarics throughout Italy. I realize that in some regions there may be much more of one element than the other, and the example of the Celts would have yielded more Alpine influence there, whereas greater Neolithic and Greek settlements in the south resulted in a higher Med component, but basically Italians only differ regionally in the degree of how much Paleolithic or Neolithic ancestry is present, something that may still vary with the individual.
.[/quote]





No, Buddy. I understand your explaination and your reasonment, though you're wrong on the "proportion" of your analysis ; it's undubtely true that cultural differences increase the intesity of genetic gap, but on the other side, in the same way, you're minimizing this last (genetic) difference. I repeat, the difference between the NORTH and the SOUTH is really notable : native populations of Venice, Milan and Turin, are distinctly different from populations from Neaples, Rome, or Sardinia. I've visited many regions of Italy, and i know this very well ; Germain influence is very small this is true, but Celtic influence (continental Celtic or Gaul ) is strong in several areas of northern regions, while in southern regions is dominant the genetic influx of ancient greeks or neolithic elements from mediterranean area. To be really precise 'id say that North-Italy is substantially undistingushable from central-France (on the western side. Turin for example) and from Austria (on the eastern side. Milan-Venice ). The southern populations (south from Neaples) , i 'd say, are almost identical to Greece and Albania. Central Italy is effectively a strange mix of Dinarid (independent race, remember well) with Alpine and with Mediterranean.

NOTE : to be really exact the "DINARIC" type is not the result of a fusion between Mediterranean and Alpine types, like many erroneusly think. I've read this on some site and this left me astonished. It's an explaination without the minimal scientific base. In NO logic way the dinarid type could be the result of a similar fusion. Dinaric type has an independent origin from alpine and Med. It could be "original" in Europe exactly like Nordid, Alpinid, and Mediterranean type (i've studied anthropology to university, and i strongly dubt that all types are the result of various blend between the major three) Remember that C. Coon is heavly outdated in some of his writs.


In conclusion, like i've read here on some thread, the dinarid type is very rapresented in Italy, but the heart of the problem, is that Dinarid type itself is not "typical" or "classical" neither of northern, neither of southern Europe in his real origin (Dinarid is Central European substantially) : i mean, it becomes more northern or more southern dependently from the other elements mixed or fusioned with it. In Italy Dinaric element is heavly mixed with mediterranean in the south, so the "dinaricized" mediterranean, and dinaric-med is the final result. Differently, the dinaric type in the north, is mixed with other elements like Nordic or Upper-paleolithical (Borreby very often) and the result is notable different (we have types like "Noric", "Borreby-Dinarid", "Padanian" "Alpine-Dinarid" and some others.

[NuSapiens]

I've heard Northern Italians describe Southerners as nicer, friendlier, warmer.

I have never heard in person the negative stereotypes often discussed on websites or in American media.

[Ilmatar]

Gwydion, I'm by no means a trained anthropologist, but I think I have quite a good visual sense, which makes it easy for me to distinguish between various eye shapes, hair colour, nose forms etc. Still, having lived in Central Italy for several years and worked in close contact both with the Southern and Northern Italians I can say that many times the only way to tell from which part of Italy people comes from is hear them talking. I'd say it's generally speaking much easier for me to distinguish between an Albanian and a Greek - both of whom I also know and have worked with - than between most Southern and most Northern Italians. This could be partly due to the fact that there has been an extensive internal emigration from Southern Italy to North. However, it is amazing how often I have met Southern Italians I would have never distinguished from the Northern Italians before they introduce themselves with very Southern Italian names and in their dialect.

[courtjester]

Actually, the Lega Nord and Pandians believe they are culturally descendant from Cisapline Celts not Germanic tribes.

They also make dubious comparisons between themselves and the Scottish and the Irish as well as their succesionist movements, and claim that they are historically a repressed people and use revisionist histroy to support this.

For instance rather then the Northern Italian Kingdom of Savoy forcing unification on the rest of Italy, Rome forced unification on them.

Even though the North actually gained from unification at the expense of the South.

[gwydion]

Ilmatar said:

Gwydion, I'm by no means a trained anthropologist, but I think I have quite a good visual sense, which makes it easy for me to distinguish between various eye shapes, hair colour, nose forms etc. Still, having lived in Central Italy for several years and worked in close contact both with the Southern and Northern Italians I can say that many times the only way to tell from which part of Italy people comes from is hear them talking. I'd say it's generally speaking much easier for me to distinguish between an Albanian and a Greek - both of whom I also know and have worked with - than between most Southern and most Northern Italians. This could be partly due to the fact that there has been an extensive internal emigration from Southern Italy to North. However, it is amazing how often I have met Southern Italians I would have never distinguished from the Northern Italians before they introduce themselves with very Southern Italian names and in their dialect.

Internal emigration you have cited, plays a big role of course. Today, many southern italians are born and live in the north. Personally i note the difference between a North-italian(native, not immigrated from south) and a southerner. If not on an individual level, surely on a "general-statistic" level. Central Italy is rather difficult to classify exactly, but about the extremes geographical points of peninsula (Veneto for north and Sicily for south) i still say that the difference is effectively visible (in a "statistic" sense). To summarize i think North Italy being part of Central-Europe (the lower side) togheter with North-Yugoslavia, France, Southern Germany / Austria, Switzerland, in a cultural-phenotypical combination, while south-Italy is part of southern Europe obviously. Central Italy is in the middle between those two tendencies.

[Ilmatar]

gwydion said:

Central Italy is rather difficult to classify exactly.

¨<br>
And being an avid classificator but not a big believer in generalisations that's exactly the reason I love Central Italy, and Italy in general too. The country and its' people are so hard to classify if not by making huge generalisations or by inventing zillions of subcathegories. In some senses Italy is easily one of the most diverse countries in the World.

Therefore a Sicilian village in general doesn't look anything like a Venetian village, one Venetian village might not look at all like the next one, because the other was built on the plain and the other on the montain, and the same would go with the Sicilian village built on sea and the other built inlands. Therefore people speaking in pure Milanese and Naepolitan dialect would not understand each other, but people speaking Milanese and Venetian would experience similar problems, and so would a Naepolitan and a Barese... I could go on for ages with the list. The thing is there are too many realities, also "racial" one (we are talking of the zone which has historically has huge population base compared to other areas of the similar size enabling the diversification), in Italy, in order to for a simple classifications using the 44th latitude (as some die-hard "leghisti" do) or the 42nd latitude (as you say stating that people become prevalently "Neolitic farmers" not so different from Albanians or Greek somewhere near Naples) as the base of the division.

[Tautamo]

The whole north vs south thing is about economics.
its that simple.