So I found this post on a dead thread from yesterday, and thought to myself that there's no way this could be correct. Brazil is big, but not that big.
And I was right. Brazil falls just short of being half, both population-wise and territory-wise, of SOUTH America. Meanwhile, South America accounts for about two thirds of Latin America, which would also include Mexico, Central America and the Spanish Caribbean.
This got me thinking about how Spain and Portugal got close to equivalent chunks of South America, yet the Spanish portion balkanized while the Portuguese portion didn't. I know distant population centers and geographical barriers played a large role, but has anyone got a more complete explanation?
Say what you will about Brazilians today, but Pedro knew what he was doing.
>During the invasion of Portugal (1807), the Portuguese royal family fled to Brazil, establishing Rio de Janeiro as the de facto capital of Portugal. This had the side effect of creating within Brazil many of the institutions required to exist as an independent state; most importantly, it freed Brazil to trade with other nations at will. After Napoleon's army was finally defeated in 1815, in order to maintain the capital in Brazil and allay Brazilian fears of being returned to colonial status, King John VI of Portugal raised the de jure status of Brazil to an equal, integral part of a United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarves, rather than a mere colony, a status which it enjoyed for the next seven years.
So although there would be further internal unrest, Brazil had the state apparatus (and economy, and hospitable terrain, and metropolitan base) to remain huge.
Alexander Edwards
The Empire held everything together under the figure of the Emperor
Also, see It's a good post
Juan Reyes
Brazil should have Balkanized though. The south would have less niggers.
Colton Rogers
The funny thing (or sad, depending on who you ask) is that Spain was actually trying to do just that even before Napoleon happened, transforming the vice-royalties into equal, independent kingdoms that formed part of the broader Spanish Empire.
But Charles IV, probably one of the most forward thinking monarchs Spain ever had, was somehow unpopular among the Spaniards (probably exactly because he was forward thinking and they were Spaniards) and was deposed in favor of his son Ferdinand VII and later betrayed by his "friend" Napoleon after he removed Ferdinand from the throne to install his own brother.
The opportunistic criollos took the chance to break free from peninsular rule and rebelled, ending up with some of the bloodiest conflicts the New World has seen to this day and barely functional governments that couldn't sustain an economy half as large as the Spanish Empire had been, with the only real "gain" being that said criollos were now independent oligarchies that could exploit the new countries to the maximum benefit of their own pockets, instead of being subservient to a central authority and a coordinated economy.
Hunter Lopez
...
Jackson Sullivan
The real question here is why topics on Latin America tend to be relatively unpopular.
Sebastian Jones
>The south would have less niggers Actually, when the southern Brazilian states managed to secede from the Empire in 1835, they outlawed slavery.
Cooper Scott
>That painting >He can afford a cuirass, a sabre, a horse, and a lance, but no fucking boots
Jaxon Gray
If the freed black slaves fought for the independence of the south, then they have every right to be citizens of the south . It doesn't change the fact that the majority of the black population is located to the north, and seceding would make it more difficult for them to migrate to the south.
Angel Ward
America stayed loyal until the very end when Fernando VII back in throne chimp out. >I AM A ABSOLUTE MONARCHY GET THE FUCK OUT LIBERALS RRRRREEEEEE
Austin Sullivan
The existence of black people in Brazil was sealed the moment Portugal became the first and greatest proponent of the Atlantic slave trade.
But please, pray tell, is that the direction this thread is moving towards? Why must you bring race into everything?
Nolan Evans
Independence movements had already started to crop out during Joseph I's reign, but you're right.
Ferdinand VII was an all around terrible ruler, I don't understand how he was more popular than his father.
Jaxon White
I guess British propaganda during the Spanish War's of Independence, you know, all the "el deseado" stuff.
Camden Morales
>implying he didnt steal them from a dead crackkker
Colton Bennett
I have no say on why the spanish portion balkanized, but about the portuguese part remaining united: As said, after the capital was moved to Rio, the former colony soon had all it took to become a functioning country, something I think most of the spanish counterparts lacked. As to why it didn't turn into a multitude of smaller nations, well. For the most part of its history, Brazil only developed along the coast, something you can see even today. Hell, the cener-west only really began to develop until after the Bandeirantes, who played a major role on the creation of the brazilian state, and even then, those parts were scarsely populated. The "developed" areas hadn't a lot to gain from secceding (Though that dind't stopped them from trying a few times). Also, the figure of the Emperor was, being even greater by the time of Pedro II (greatest leader we ever got btw).
But looking back, I reckon it would be better if some regions seceded. Perhaps not entirely, but at least kept some level of independece.
Easton Campbell
I fucked up on the ending there, I meant to say that the figure of the Emperor was crucial to keep the country united. Even centralized, dare I say.
Jeremiah Harris
I believe that Mexico did a remarkable job of staying more or less united after the triple treat of: a) a war of independence (which Brazil mostly lacked) b) a collapse of the Empire (which would happen in Brazil a lot later in its history) c) a disastrous war against a more powerful neighbor (which only really happened to Paraguay aside from Mexico in the whole New World).
Sure, it lost the northern (Texas and the Guadalupe Hidalgo states) and southern (modern day Central America) regions, but those were mostly frontiers on the far reaches of the Vice-royalty/Empire/Republic, to the point that the Spaniards had been considering the creation of a separate Vice Royalty of Texas to better administer the distant and relatively empty northern regions. Had they gotten the chance to, the map of North America would probably look a lot different nowadays.
What's more, Central Americans (who were autonomous from New Spain in colonial times as part of the Capitania General of Guatemala, and some of which had actually resisted annexation to the Empire from the beginning) were given the choice to stay within the newly created federation or secede in mutual agreement.
As for the rest of the Vice Royalty of New Spain, well, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Rep. and the Philippines stayed with Spain for almost a century longer.
Argentina, on the other hand, actually expanded on the holdings of the Vice-royalty of the Rio de la Plata by colonizing south towards their new frontier, land that was (technically) supposed to be part of Peru/Chile). And while Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay splinted off, the formers were artificially joined into the vice-royalty to begin with (they were culturally closer to Peru proper) and the latter was essentially created as a buffer state between Brazil and Argentina.
The details on why Peru and Chile split up, why Bolivia and Paraguay didn't join Peru, why Gran Colombia split up and why Central America split up, I do not know, however.
Gavin Kelly
>In fact, we even mock the spanish language Don't worry mate, we mock the Portuguese language too.
Ryan Foster
I'll never understand why people who speak Romance languages don't just learn them all and happily make use of the fact that they're all related and easy to learn and that many of them are relevant.
Germanic languages only have two relevant languages, both of which are extremely different and one of which everyone learns by default (and has been widely influenced by Latin and Romance too). Other language families only have one relevant language if they do at all.
Hunter Powell
Balkanization was the result of comercial rivalries between cities and regions, with some british encouragement. For example Montevideo and Buenos Aires were competing ports and customs offices, and that ended in Uruguay being independent
Hudson Myers
I don't know if its the only reason, but what i do know is that the Portuguese were far less aggresive when they colonized, they were much more respectfull of the people than spaniards.
Eli Barnes
Is this bait? The Portuguese dominated the trans Atlantic slave trade more than any other country.
Austin Ortiz
well you´re fucking wrong the portuguese ruined the jesuit missions, the most serious and succesful european colonization effort in south america
Camden Rogers
>the black legend Spain was actually the best colonizer when it came to Amerindians, to the point where the native populations actually fought in favor of the crown during the independence wars, and said independence wars were started by Spaniards born in the continent that wanted more power for themselves, not by "oppressed" populations.
>>Lusotropicalism or Luso-tropicalism was first used by Brazilian sociologist Gilberto Freyre[1] to describe the distinctive character of Portuguese imperialism overseas,[1] proposing that the Portuguese were better colonizers than other European nations.[2]
>>It was believed that because of Portugal's warmer climate, and having been inhabited by Celts, Romans, Visigoths, Moors and several other peoples in pre-modern times, the Portuguese were more humane, friendly, and adaptable to other climates and cultures.[2]
>>In addition, by the early 20th century, Portugal was by far the European colonial power with the oldest territorial presence overseas; in some cases its territories had been continuously settled and ruled by the Portuguese throughout five centuries. Lusotropicalism celebrated both actual and mythological elements of racial democracy and civilizing mission in the Portuguese Empire, encompassing a pro-miscegenation attitude toward the colonies/overseas territories. The ideology is best exemplified in the work of Freyre.[2]
Noah Harris
What's your point?
>It was believed that because of Portugal's warmer climate, and having been inhabited by Celts, Romans, Visigoths, Moors and several other peoples in pre-modern times, the Portuguese were more humane, friendly, and adaptable to other climates and cultures. lol
Logan White
You're the best dad.
Jack King
Could have NOT brought half the population of Africa here!
Isaac Kelly
I have a huge globe in my desk right now, why do you ask?
Gabriel Cook
Mexico lost it's northern territory mostly because they had an expansionist neighbor to the north. That and Santa Anna being a piece of shit.
That said, the balkanization of Gran Colombia was due to the influence of various caudillos, who also had power in more successful states like Argentina. The reason Argentina unified while Gran Colombia split up has to do with Buenos Aires being a regional power center. The existence of one major city allowed federal power to concentrate in one spot, which led to Rosas imposing order on the outer provinces. That, and of course the geography being less mountainous.
