MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Bolsonaro promotes a demonstration criticized by the Legislative and Judiciary
Brazil's far-right president Jair Bolsonaro called on his backers to take to the streets next weekend to show their support for him, even as critics said such a demonstration would be anti-democratic. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment ruleshttps://preview.redd.it/ty0n08u4opl41.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=6b853650dda148a7887ca6d7bdadd6b0e1806dd1
Mar 11th, 2020 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DT
Mar 14th, 2020 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(Cont “Reedition of Kirchner's aggr policy..”)
Probably Pedro I only thought abt independence after his father (João VI) returned to Portugal, when it became clear the latter was determined to keep on exploiting Brazil.
Being 8 when he arrived, he identified more with Brazil than the Portuguese court.
Sure, Cochrane had a strong personality ‘n didn’t condone corruption, so more times than not, he was at loggerheads with corrupt officials - becomes very clear fm dozens of letters in his “Narrative of Services in the Liberation of Chili, Peru, & Brazil, from Spanish and Portuguese Domination”…wasn’t paranoia, ‘n his suspicions were well founded.
His personality didn’t change after being framed in 1814 (with the help of his uncle, in the Admiralty), just made him more determined. The names of two of his sons are dead giveaways.
Borders in the Amazon region are virtually no-man’s land, quite lawless ‘n dangerous. The “bandeirantes” went west looking for gold, silver ‘n precious stones, so once there, why not claim the land ?
Wars over territorial disputes were far greater in the south, where the “prizes” of war were far more obvious, ‘n where Spain’s ex-colonies were out to grab what they could.
Rgdng Africa 'n it’s 100s of tribes, same tribes on opposite sides of a border are less likely to cause trouble than different tribes within the same border. It’s much the same in the middle east, where the various Muslim sects never agree on anything.
“Seems to work better in the US & other countries formed by immigrants” ;
W/O a doubt, people striving for the same ideals, will integrate better. Florida (US) is a good example : despite a majority of “Latinos”, they have embraced the American ‘way-of-life’.
Perhaps the nationalist movements within the Austro-Hungarian empire contributed to their defeat 1918, 'n the ‘not-so-different’ cultures made post-war easier to deal with.
In Africa, the colonizers couldn’t have been more different to those they colonized.
“Being 8 when he arrived, he identified more with Brazil than the Portuguese court.”
Mar 15th, 2020 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Makes sense. And Brazil was already bigger and had a huge potential to grow. He ended up having to return to Portugal though, didn't he?
Re Cochrane, shame those countries were already so corrupt right from the beginning. I thought it was quite cool he gave his sons the names of the independence leaders of Chile and Brazil, though.
Not surprised the Amazon borders are lawless, some of them look almost impossible to get to. Did the bandeirantes find what they were looking for? By wars in the south, do you mean the one with Argentina over Uruguay, and the Paraguayan war?
In the Middle East I think peoples being split between countries also causes problems. Eg Turkey attacking the Kurds in Syria because of the Kurdish separatists in Turkey, although both were opposed to IS and Assad.
D'you think Brazil is better at integrating people than Europe? It certainly seems to have less of a problem with Muslim citizens going off the Middle East and joining IS, or carrying out terrorist attacks at home.
“Perhaps the nationalist movements within the Austro-Hungarian empire contributed to their defeat 1918”
I'd say they definitely did. And so did the Arab Revolt contribute to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. But the Arabs perhaps were still thinking of themselves more as separate tribes than as a nation, and anyway the attitude of the winning allies made a big difference afterwards; whether they believed a people deserved independence/self rule or not. They were all much influenced by racism at that time, since they used it as a justification for keeping their colonies.
Can't reply on the other story; the comments have closed.
DT
Mar 16th, 2020 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pedro I returned to POR in 1831, to fight the liberals (who wanted to substitute the absolute monarchical system for a Constitutional Monarchy), to defend the right of his daughter, D.Maria II, to be crowned.
When he left, he abdicated the Brazilian throne in favor of his son Pedro II (who was only crowned in 1840, when 15 years old, and was Emperor ‘til 1889 (Republic proclaimed).
The unrest in POR had started 1820 (Porto uprising), and got worse after Pedro I’s father (D.João VI), died 1826.
The “bandeirantes” found gold and diamonds in the MG region.
“Wars in south”, yes - the main one being the Paraguayan war (Triple Alliance) which destroyed Pguay.
With the exception of India/Bangladesh in the 70s, what countries today would be willing to accept border modifications, in order to eliminate the separation of ethnic groups ? would be one way to mitigate differences, to end the domination of one group over others.
“Brazil is better at integrating people than Europe?”…Brazil is a relatively ‘new’ country, formed mainly by immigrants over the last 200 years, whereas European countries have had a longer / more defined national identity, so I’d say there is far less resistance in Brazil.
Mainly) Lebanese, and Syrians, started arriving circa 1880, and according to the last census, their descendants number 7 to 10 million. They are well integrated and terrorism doesn’t seem to interest them.
In order allow you to reply to the continuation of “Frustrating Brazilian Economic Growth in 2019” have posted a line under “Coronavirus: Argentina closes borders for 15 days” of today, Monday 16th.
I though Brazil had a constitutional monarchy after independence, so why would Pedro I object to the same in Portugal? Very odd. Leaving Brazil with a 6 year old king must have been awkward, too. I guess he did try to split the thrones by giving Portugal to his daughter and Brazil to his son, which makes sense, but in the end both became republics.
Mar 16th, 2020 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It amazes me the Paraguayan/Triple Alliance war is so unknown outside the countries concerned. It was so big and bloody and really not that long ago. Paraguay is obviously still a mess, too. I think they've had more coups than all the other countries in South America put together.
Even India and Bangladesh weren't trying to fix separation of ethnic groups but just tidy up the border gore - all those enclaves and counter-enclaves (and counter-counter-enclaves) were pointless and a nightmare to administer. It's pretty damn rare for any country to give up territory willingly, even the UK gov only agreed to the referendum in Scotland because they were convinced they'd vote no. (And then the result turned out far too close for comfort, and they failed to learn anything and went ahead with the EU referendum anyway).
“I’d say there is far less resistance in Brazil.”
Makes sense, and there's a BIG difference between people whose ancestors arrived in 1880 and those whose parents immigrated in the 1960s. Maybe in some ways being the first generation born in a country is the hardest, because your stuck between two cultures and didn't get to make a choice yourself.
In latest coronavirus news, our office is closing from tomorrow and everyone must work from home, the government has said anyone with symptoms of cough or fever - plus everyone they live with - must self-isolate for 14 days, and all over 70s must prepare to stay home alone for 4 months. They still haven't shut down schools though.
DT
Mar 17th, 2020 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pedro I, although considered a ‘playboy’ in his day, was authoritarian, which got the Brazilian elite pissed-off - another reason for leaving Brazil in 1831.
Not sure, but believe he only acceded to a Constitutional monarchy in Brazil, because he saw it as a way to survive.
D.João VI died in March 1826, but just b4 his death he had named Isabel de Bragança (family member) as temporary regent (until his granddaughter Maria - Pedro’s daughter - was old enough to be crowned).
In 1826, right after his father’s death, Pedro I went to POR, to be crowned Pedro IV of POR, but as the Brazln Constitution of 1824 did not allow him to be king of both countries, he abdicated the POR crown in favour of his daughter (Maria) who was then only 7.
But D. Miguel (3rd son of D.João VI, ‘n Pedro I’s younger brother), a liberal, was already vying for power…he had already rebelled against D.Joao VI, who had exiled him.
Not sure how long Pedro remained in POR before returning to Brazil – but in 1828 he named his bother Miguel (who had by then returned from exile) as regent (in substitution of Isabel de Bragança, who acted as regent until 1828), and Pedro promised him his daughter’s hand (when she became of age) to keep him in check…but Miguel and his faction wanted more, so in 1828, D.Miguel (based on some obscure Laws of the Kingdom, which stated Maria had lost her rights the moment Pedro had chosen Brazil over Portugal) acclaimed himself king (family matters could get quite complicated back then), thus initiating the Portuguese Civil War (known as the War of the Two Brothers, which lasted until 1834).
So Pedro really had little choice : he had to return, join the absolutists if he wanted to guarantee his daughter’s right to the throne ; he returned definitively to POR in 1831, eventually defeating Miguel and the liberals ; Miguel was then exiled, again.
To reply to the rest, the Paraguayan War etc, need space…
So Brazil's war for independence was led by an authoritarian. Perhaps goes some way to explaining how Brazil developed later... or maybe it's the other way around?
Mar 17th, 2020 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 01828 was pretty late to try to maintain an absolute monarchy, though. The UK had been a constitutional monarchy since 1688, France had had their revolution, the US had been a republic for 40 years and most of the colonies in the Americas were already independent. It does make me think though; it was William III defeating James II and needing support from the elite to take the throne that allowed England to limit the powers of the king. Possibly something similar was going on with D. Miguel; I wonder if Portugal would have been better off if he'd won the civil war?
Eeeew to Maria and Miguel marrying, though. Weren't they uncle and niece? You'd think Pedro would have known better after seeing what happened to the Spanish royal family: https://allthatsinteresting.com/charles-ii-of-spain
DT
Mar 18th, 2020 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Paraguayan deaths numbered about 300,000, estimates putting that at 20/ 30% of the population (some higher); being mostly men, explains Paraguay's slow development.
The way politics (re borders etc) is conducted today, versus 150 years ago, may differ in form, but the underlying aversion to agreeing to anything prejudicial (even if morally correct), is much the same. Public pressure also has more weight than it did 100 years ago.
Reasons for the immigration waves to Brazil 150 years ago, are different to those of (relatively) recent immigration…150 years ago, they came in big groups (many times promoted by govts of origin), used to be more supportive of each other, ‘n I think the young kids (‘n 1st generation born here) probably had far less difficulty in integrating than their parents.
Precautions to be taken with regards to the coronavirus make sense…it’s all about blocking the transmission.
We have quite a few residential condos near us, ‘n in the evening was normal for no more than 20% be lit up…these last few days, those lit up are over 90%. Isolation’s the name of the game.
Believe Pedro was authoritarian because when young, he was a spoiled brat, ‘n wasn’t used to being told what to do. How Brazil developed later is due to the culture in the Portuguese Court, welcomed by the elite.
Portugal was probably more backward than other European powers, likely reason why absolutism lasted longer.
Don’t think Miguel was acting selflessly, more like saw a way to stay king by joining the liberals (who didn’t want D.Maria II as Queen).
Portugal better off (?), don’t know, different perhaps…just presuming that they were all capable of betraying each other for the sake of power.
As for Miguel & Maria getting married, definitely a ‘no-no’ by today’s customs, but back then, just another political arrangement which prevailed over morals. But in the end, with Miguel’s exile, presume the marriage never happened.
Charles II ? his ugliness was the least of it.
Don't really know why such a high death rate would lead to more dictators and coups. Paraguay never had been democratic, though.
Mar 19th, 2020 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”the underlying aversion to agreeing to anything prejudicial (even if morally correct), is much the same.”
True.
Re coronavirus, it's only sensible for people to stay at home now. Will they stick to it, though, or get bored and go out?
They are finally closing the schools here, which will be inconvenient for parents. And they've cancelled all the exams this summer; they're not expecting it to be a short term measure. Also shutting dozens of tube stations in London. I really hope our house sale goes through okay. We can't afford to keep paying two lots of bills and no one is going to be viewing homes for a good long while now.
Lol at Pedro being a spoiled brat. That's hardly a good way to bring up a king - dunno what his parents were thinking, unless they were just the same. Can easily believe Portugal was more backward, it was a dictatorship for much longer than Brazil in the 20th century, though it's doing better now.
I don't think Miguel was acting selflessly, either, but then neither was William of Orange. He just wanted to be king of England, and was willing to sign the Bill of Rights to get parliament to support him. We don't know if Miguel would have stuck to the bargain, though; he might have returned to absolutism once he was in power.
As for the marriage, you'd think the Catholic church would have objected, but they seem pretty willing to ignore morals when it suits them. Charles II's ugliness was definitely the least of it, just shows you what too much inbreeding does. Apparently his mother and father were even more closely related than average full siblings. This is Charles' perfectly normal half brother, whose mother was unrelated to his father:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Austria_the_Younger
It's just a pity people from some cultures still like to marry their cousins, and it's their kids who suffer for it.
DT
Mar 19th, 2020 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Don't really know why such a high death rate would lead to more dictators and coups”…Because most people don’t learn anything from history (?), and always think it’s going to be different with them (?)…power tends to obliterate people’s better senses.
We have built up our food ‘n water stocks (enough to last at least a month), and we only leave the apartment if absolutely necessary. So I reckon that finally I’ll have the time to put all indoor chores up to date. If people disregard the isolation they are idiots.
At the moment the Governor of SP has only “recommended” the closure of shopping malls, but has ordered the closing of theatres, museums, cinemas, nightclubs, bars, schools, parks, gyms etc, or anywhere that people normally agglomerate. Even the club has closed, so without much to do outside home, why leave ? Hospitals etc, drugstores and supermarkets remain open, with employees wearing masks.
Our Health minister (Luis Mandetta) has shown he knows what has to be done, and is doing it. Even travel between States (by plane or bus) has restrictions.
In the old days, the parents had little contact with their kids upbringing. They left that to others, who didn’t want to upset the ‘royal’ kiddies.
Also, in medieval times, up to 18th century, jealousy and treachery were quite common in royal families. It’s more than likely Miguel used the liberals to try to get to power, and had he managed, probably would’ve killed off his enemies.
The RCC was all about money…kings ‘n queens would buy the Pope’s good will, so what's a little incest here ’n there ?
Looks like John the Younger was normal, thanks to his mother. “…some cultures still like to marry their cousins…”. Several cultures have abominable customs (by our standards), even today….arranged marriages, young girls marrying old farts, turn a blind eye to rape, having several wives/ dozens of kids, treating women as 3rd class citizens etc…
a lot has to change, but won’t anytime soon... if at all.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!