I'm afraid there will be a militar coup on my country

Post Reply New Topic

Not inherently, but supporters of the so-called 'dark enlightenment' aren't exactly known for appreciating the values that have defined western civilization for the past couple of hundred years. An enemy of the Enlightenment can fairly be described as an enemy of western civilization, even if it's not very politically correct to label reactionaries as such.

Let hope brazil doesn't go back to that 80s and before under military rule. I lived in Brasilia then but was quite young at the time.

Corruption is an issue in Brazil, it is difficult to know if this impeachment was a genuine attempt to address it or more opertunism. However impeachment process is a necessary evil in a democratic country.

The whole point of an impeachment process it to prevent the need to for coups, however it has to be we structures in in way that is democratic.

This is pretty typical for south American politics unfortunately.

The great irony is that South America was very stable until 1492. When the Spaniards left not only had they destroyed the stable cultural institutions of the natives, they also didn't replace those institutions. From that point until ~1800 the only institution allowed in South America was the Spanish crown (the crown propped up the Catholic missionaries, hence the reason I don't include Catholicism as an institution here), when the Crown vacated there was nothing left and this created a giant power vacuum that 200 years later South America is still trying to sort out.

Except that fifty percent of the landmass of South America was NOT colonized by Spain, but by Portugal. And that fifty percent is now the one ginormous country- the country the OP lives in- which is Brazil! Lol!

Read your quote, you said South America, that's what I covered, no not Brazil specifically. Also of note, the Portuguese ran their colonial systems as a clone of the Spanish, as they've done through most of their history. And if we're going to wade into the semantics of correctness there's also a significant Dutch influence in South America, as well as a heavy German influence (although that came much later). So no, I still stand by my point, if you want complete accuracy here: the Iberian peninsula nations destroyed the stability of South America and didn't give two craps about it when they left it in disarray.

I think it's true to think that the colonial system where quite similar on spanish and portuguese colonies, but I think the independence process was different, which impact our recent histories.

I don't think it was exactly stable before the europeans came.

The Mayan (central America), Incan, and Aztec empires all existed for 400+ years, that's pretty stable compared to the 40-50 year reigns most of South/Central American countries have experienced since Iberian withdrawal ~200 years ago. You can argue that their culture was backwater or their technology wasn't impressive, but as far as governmental stability was concerned they were very stable pre-1492.

The independence process you speak of does have a lingering impact, some countries had to fight a revolution, some were granted independence, but in almost all cases the Iberians left the region in more political chaos than which they found it. Basically the crown establishments pissed and s**t on the people there and when it was no longer beneficial they just cut, ran, and took no responsibility for the messes they'd created. Contrast that to the French and English in N.America (and some Dutch again to be accurate), while those groups certainly had problems they left behind stable political systems that exist to this day. Basically the French and English initially viewed the New World as an investment and treated it as such: thinking long term and strategically. The Iberians on the other hand viewed it much as a child and a piggy bank: smash it, take the money, and let someone else clean the pieces up.

As someone who is part south American, you have have somewhat romantic view of the pre-columbian era.

Yes they did have some great cultures but they were not that peaceful. The only thing that limited their internal conflicts was the technology. It was mostly stone and wooden weapons.

Portugal wasn't a clone of the Spanish model. They had their own model, in fact the Portuguese were much larger in the transatlantic slave trade than the Spaniards.

The Portuguese rivaled only the British in the slave trade.

That said Pizarro was and out bloodthirsty s**t.

Lol, as I said you can attack their culture, or their technology, but they were POLITICALLY stable. That's not romanticizing anything, I'm not a fan of human sacrifice for the deity of the century, nor am I for slave systems which all three empires were built upon. My only point is that the region was stable pre-1492, and it's been anything but since.

Define stable.

Cohesive government, culture, and system of law over a long period of time.

edit: *that would be my idea of stability at least. Yes it doesn't include the human condition or how people were treated, because if it were then we'd have to go back and re-clarify stability in western history as well, such as Babylon, Egypt, and especially Rome.

I think this stability came because we have a superficial view on those empires. Anyway, there was smaller societies who where conquered, dissolved etc, and in Brazil the organization were quite different from those empires. I think to put all fault of Latin America's instability on the colonization is a bit romantic, although partially correct.

Corruption is an important thing to deal with.

High level corruption relies on low level corruption.

It is not just about chains. You may not have unbroken chains, it about he capability which allows people to avoid justice. It is a lubricant for criminal activity.

People think that the small low level bribe doesn't matter but it does.

Having said that I think Brazil will be ok..hopefully.

Dude- your point is pointless because you cant even compare pre Columbian South America to any part of the world today (politically stable, or otherwise).

Am neither admiring nor putting down the native culture. It was just different.

South America (all of the Americas in fact) were comparable to the Old World in circa 3000 BC when the later was at the cusp of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age. In the old world there were small pockets where advanced civilizations were emerging (Egypt, Sumer, Indus Valley, for example). And basically the rest of Eurasia was a bunch of illiterate barbarian tribes (including my own ancestors in northern Europe).

Similarly south America in 1500 AD had a remarkable civilization that stretched along the Andes and the North west coast. A civilization that was even politically united under the Incan empire (comparable to the Roman Empire). But that was just one small slice of South America. The rest of the continent was inhabited by a bunch of stone age hunter-gatherer bands. Comparable to Cro Magnon Europe, or to the Eskimos of a century ago, but not to any time or place with political states.

You might claim that Ecuador, and Peru, were "run" more efficiently by the Incas than by the modern republics of today. But for the 95 percent rest of the continent folks lived in feuding tribal bands of a few hundred population each. Not exactly "order", or "political stability" as we know it. You cant even apply the term "political stability" to stone age hunter-gatherers.

I have family ties to Peru.

The Inca "nation" was not a nation in the modern sense. It was not a fixed territory, but an empire formed of loose alliances which had a less or greater degree of volatility.

The Inca culture was influential on the territories it spaned but maybe not to the same degree as the roman empire.

You reminded me of this article
https://stateofmind13.com/2016/05/13/th ... liticians/