AH Challenge: Brazil is a superower

[MrHola]

Brazil's problem is the same more or less as that of India's in ever becoming a future superpower. Both countries have seemingly large populations and territory and people therefore expect them to become superpowers *any
time now* (now never happens).

What people are missing is the sad fact that only a minority in each country (rich European whites in Brazil, Rich Upper Caste Hindus in India) can be considered presently able to adequately run an industrialized first world economy.

The majority of the population in each nation lives in conditions more akin to Black Africa than London or Paris. To get Brazil to be a superpower, I would need a POD that accomplished one of these:

1) A POD where a 19th century Brazilian government educates its black population and brings their standard of living up to 1st World conditions by 2007.

0r

2) A POD where a Brazilian government double or even quadruples the incoming European immigration into Brazil so that Brazil in 2007 has almost as many whites as the US. Either one IMO could produce a Brazilian superpower.

But what are your thoughts?

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Er, just for the record India and Brazil are apples and oranges when it comes to comparing them. Brazil has close to 190 million people today; India has 1.12 billion. Brazil has major problems that much of its territory is jungle that is not productive, and makes very bad farming land when cut down. Brazil doesn't have nearly as much good land as India. Being big on a map isn't enough; you need good applicable resources.

 

[Faeelin]

But what are your thoughts?

I'm guessing you're a fan of Kipling?

 

[Faeelin]

Er, just for the record India and Brazil are apples and oranges when it comes to comparing them. Brazil has close to 190 million people today; India has 1.12 billion. Brazil has major problems that much of its territory is jungle that is not productive, and makes very bad farming land when cut down. Brazil doesn't have nearly as much good land as India. Being big on a map isn't enough; you need good applicable resources.

Meh, Brazil has some good land; it grows coffee, sugar, soy, and was once a major site for rubber extraction.

But it was reliant, and still is to an extent, on the commodities roulette.

 

[Tyr]

Er, just for the record India and Brazil are apples and oranges when it comes to comparing them. Brazil has close to 190 million people today; India has 1.12 billion. Brazil has major problems that much of its territory is jungle that is not productive, and makes very bad farming land when cut down. Brazil doesn't have nearly as much good land as India. Being big on a map isn't enough; you need good applicable resources.

Indeed.
This is the worst thing that comes about because of the strategy game effect IMO.
People just automatically think bigger is better.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

#1 won't work - there isn't enough time to overcome all that baggage.

#2 is easy. Just have greater political stability in Brazil. Maybe the circumstances of the establishment of the Empire are different and lead to a lasting political stability and security, which leads to better and more consistent diplomacy which leads to less destructive warfare. Immigration is much greater, leading to more successdul outcomes in wars when they do occur that are less of a drain on the polity.

Brazil has some big assets - it produces a lot of cash crops cheaply, like sugar, coffee, and rubber. Brazil is also decent in resources like iron and even some coal, so it's possible to set up some industry.

A better Brazil might hold onto Uruguay.

Brazil actually does have a great deal of good land. The Amazon basin is not terribly useful, but that's just half the country, and half of Brazil is still a whole lot of good land. The climate in that half is decent for European habitation, so I don't see any reason why a large population can't be developed.

For a long time, Brazil had a much larger fleet than the United States - it's not that hard to imagine a TL with a powerful Brazil.

These challenges ask too often for "superpowers". I think we need to drop that - it's not that interesting, because it's not really possible. But you could have a major power Brazil.

Brazil's problem is the same more or less as that of India's in ever becoming a future superpower. Both countries have seemingly large populations and territory and people therefore expect them to become superpowers *any
time now* (now never happens).

What people are missing is the sad fact that only a minority in each country (rich European whites in Brazil, Rich Upper Caste Hindus in India) can be considered presently able to adequately run an industrialized first world economy.

The majority of the population in each nation lives in conditions more akin to Black Africa than London or Paris. To get Brazil to be a superpower, I would need a POD that accomplished one of these:

1) A POD where a 19th century Brazilian government educates its black population and brings their standard of living up to 1st World conditions by 2007.

0r

2) A POD where a Brazilian government double or even quadruples the incoming European immigration into Brazil so that Brazil in 2007 has almost as many whites as the US. Either one IMO could produce a Brazilian superpower.

But what are your thoughts?

 

[Faeelin]

#2 is easy. Just have greater political stability in Brazil. Maybe the circumstances of the establishment of the Empire are different and lead to a lasting political stability and security, which leads to better and more consistent diplomacy which leads to less destructive warfare. Immigration is much greater, leading to more successdul outcomes in wars when they do occur that are less of a drain on the polity.

Was Brazil really that unstable though?

I'm not sure growing coffee, sugar, and rubber are necessarily assets; you can use slaves for those, and rubber was grown haphazardly in Brazil; plantations were less important there than, say, Indonesia or Liberia.

 

[sphinxeguy]

Rubber was actually VERY important for Brazil- and for the entire world. Brazil entered WWII on the side of the Allies because the US needed its rubber badly and was willing to provide Brazil with capital to increase rubber production. Vargas signed allied with the US because they offered more than the Axis.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Rubber was actually VERY important for Brazil- and for the entire world. Brazil entered WWII on the side of the Allies because the US needed its rubber badly and was willing to provide Brazil with capital to increase rubber production. Vargas signed allied with the US because they offered more than the Axis.

And, of course, the fact that the US was already keeping the Axis out of South America.

 

[Gonzaga]

#1 won't work - there isn't enough time to overcome all that baggage.

#2 is easy. Just have greater political stability in Brazil. Maybe the circumstances of the establishment of the Empire are different and lead to a lasting political stability and security, which leads to better and more consistent diplomacy which leads to less destructive warfare. Immigration is much greater, leading to more successdul outcomes in wars when they do occur that are less of a drain on the polity.

#1 - Agreed. I really can't imagine the Brazilian elite in the 19th century concerned about giving education to people that for them should be working as slaves. Perhaps with an earlier emancipation, but for this we would need a stronger British pressure in the first half of the century.

However, in the beggining of the 20th century, in some cities was happening the rising of an educated black middle class. For example, in 1920, 15% of the teachers working in the schools owned by the municipality of Rio were black. Even the principal of the school that formed teachers was black. But after 1939 these numbers decreased to 2%, as a result of policy of "whitening" the public education. Some teachers even became dressmakers for living.

# 2 - It depends on the time you're talking about. Before 1850 Brazil was unstable, but after this the Empire was quite stable. I think the bigger problems about immigrants were the slavery and the lack of industrialization. Only in South Brazil and in some isolated regions of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Espírito Santo the immigrants were used as settlers. The majority of them came to work as employees in coffee plantations, and even then only in West São Paulo, because in the farms of Rio and Northeast São Paulo the farmers didn't want to give up of using slaves. Only after the emancipation there was a boom of immigrants, that made the first important industries. But then we were already suffering the competition with Argentina for immigrants.
And in the first half of the 19th century, the mentality that work was for slaves was so strong that in some farms immigrants were treated like slaves, being beated with whips.

Also, another major factor that made people avoiding to migrate to Brazil were the diseases. Rio was known in the world as a port infested by yellow fever and malaria. There were ship companies that used to sell tickets to South America stressing the fact that they would not stop at the infested Brazilian ports.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

#1 - Agreed. I really can't imagine the Brazilian elite in the 19th century concerned about giving education to people that for them should be working as slaves. Perhaps with an earlier emancipation, but for this we would need a stronger British pressure in the first half of the century.

However, in the beggining of the 20th century, in some cities was happening the rising of an educated black middle class. For example, in 1920, 15% of the teachers working in the schools owned by the municipality of Rio were black. Even the principal of the school that formed teachers was black. But after 1939 these numbers decreased to 2%, as a result of policy of "whitening" the public education. Some teachers even became dressmakers for living.

# 2 - It depends on the time you're talking about. Before 1850 Brazil was unstable, but after this the Empire was quite stable. I think the bigger problems about immigrants were the slavery and the lack of industrialization. Only in South Brazil and in some isolated regions of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Espírito Santo the immigrants were used as settlers. The majority of them came to work as employees in coffee plantations, and even then only in West São Paulo, because in the farms of Rio and Northeast São Paulo the farmers didn't want to give up of using slaves. Only after the emancipation there was a boom of immigrants, that made the first important industries. But then we were already suffering the competition with Argentina for immigrants.
And in the first half of the 19th century, the mentality that work was for slaves was so strong that in some farms immigrants were treated like slaves, being beated with whips.

Also, another major factor that made people avoiding to migrate to Brazil were the diseases. Rio was known in the world as a port infested by yellow fever and malaria. There were ship companies that used to sell tickets to South America stressing the fact that they would not stop at the infested Brazilian ports.

I wouldn't call the empire "stable", and the earlier period was the most destructive in the long-run. A stronger Pedro would have abolished slavery, which would have damaged the classes that eventually set up the republic, and abolition of slavery would have greatly encouraged immigration.

Diseases were a problem, but a stronger and more centralized state would have been in a much better position to deal with this through quarantines, health measures, installation of sewage systems, draining swamps near cities, etc.

 

[Gonzaga]

I wouldn't call the empire "stable", and the earlier period was the most destructive in the long-run. A stronger Pedro would have abolished slavery, which would have damaged the classes that eventually set up the republic, and abolition of slavery would have greatly encouraged immigration.

Diseases were a problem, but a stronger and more centralized state would have been in a much better position to deal with this through quarantines, health measures, installation of sewage systems, draining swamps near cities, etc.

Why not stable? At least after 1850 we had 39 years without abrupt changes and coups, something we never had during all the republic. But I agree the earlier period was the most destructive. Between 1831 and 1845 Brazil almost broke completely as the rest of South America.

A stronger state would be good, but more centralized? The Empire was very centralized. All the governors of the provinces were directly pointed by the Emperor, and the provinces themselves didn’t have great autonomy. One of the reason that some politicians supported the republicans was the promise of decentralization. And the first Republic (1889-1930) was so decentralized that we had a civil war within a state without intervention of the federal government (we almost had a war between states without intervention too).

Maybe an earlier abolition wouldn’t make the falling of the Empire, but then you’d need a stronger support of the army to the Emperor. Maybe making the heir not to be Isabel but a man would help. But remember, the commanders of the army, at least before the War of Triple Alliance, were fully supporters of slavery.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Meh. Any country that would get rid of their monarchy doesn't deserve to be a power. Especially when you had an Emperor, not just a mere king.

But seriously, I don't think you can really count Brasil as "very centralized" in the mid-19th c - certainly not to the point where the government had a monopoly on power and could impose reforms on recalcitrant local notables.

Since the monarchy was more or less just tossed aside as unnecessary by the dominant economic class seems to me to indicate that there was a great deal of weight behind those who were against centralization. That must certainly have caused a great deal of political tension in the decades prior to the fall of the monarchy that prevented some progress.

Why not stable? At least after 1850 we had 39 years without abrupt changes and coups, something we never had during all the republic. But I agree the earlier period was the most destructive. Between 1831 and 1845 Brazil almost broke completely as the rest of South America.

A stronger state would be good, but more centralized? The Empire was very centralized. All the governors of the provinces were directly pointed by the Emperor, and the provinces themselves didn’t have great autonomy. One of the reason that some politicians supported the republicans was the promise of decentralization. And the first Republic (1889-1930) was so decentralized that we had a civil war within a state without intervention of the federal government (we almost had a war between states without intervention too).

Maybe an earlier abolition wouldn’t make the falling of the Empire, but then you’d need a stronger support of the army to the Emperor. Maybe making the heir not to be Isabel but a man would help. But remember, the commanders of the army, at least before the War of Triple Alliance, were fully supporters of slavery.

 

[Gonzaga]

Meh. Any country that would get rid of their monarchy doesn't deserve to be a power. Especially when you had an Emperor, not just a mere king.

But seriously, I don't think you can really count Brasil as "very centralized" in the mid-19th c - certainly not to the point where the government had a monopoly on power and could impose reforms on recalcitrant local notables.

Since the monarchy was more or less just tossed aside as unnecessary by the dominant economic class seems to me to indicate that there was a great deal of weight behind those who were against centralization. That must certainly have caused a great deal of political tension in the decades prior to the fall of the monarchy that prevented some progress.

Well, what could we do, if our own Emperor said that he would rather be a teacher than an Emperor?

But I agree with you about the centralization in the way you're talking about. Just mind that the "official" government was very centralized, with weak provinces. But it doesn't mean that the locals would respect all the decisions from the central government. However, we had no revolts after 1850, except by one in 1874 in the provinces of Northeast against the metric sistem (the Quebra-Quilo, or Break the Kilo) when the government imposed it, but the revolters were fastly controlled.

The decentralization was an aim of the provincial politicians, that wanted more representation in the Imperial Legislative and more independence in internal matters. But after the Republic it turned to a policy that can be resumed in "who cares about what the federal government wants?". Only Getúlio Vargas broke this extreme decentralization.
Funnily enough, the Emperor had presented to the Legislative a project of reforms in the Empire that would grant more power to the provinces, among other issues. The project should have been voted in January 1890, but in november he was deposed.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Was the abolition of the monarchy directly related to the end of slavery? I thought it was, which was why I was arguing for an earlier abolition of slavery, preferably under British pressure, so it could be blamed on them.

The Ottomans and Zanzibaris managed to deflect all the blame for the economic dislocation caused by the end of slavery on the British...

Well, what could we do, if our own Emperor said that he would rather be a teacher than an Emperor?

But I agree with you about the centralization in the way you're talking about. Just mind that the "official" government was very centralized, with weak provinces. But it doesn't mean that the locals would respect all the decisions from the central government. However, we had no revolts after 1850, except by one in 1874 in the provinces of Northeast against the metric sistem (the Quebra-Quilo, or Break the Kilo) when the government imposed it, but the revolters were fastly controlled.

The decentralization was an aim of the provincial politicians, that wanted more representation in the Imperial Legislative and more independence in internal matters. But after the Republic it turned to a policy that can be resumed in "who cares about what the federal government wants?". Only Getúlio Vargas broke this extreme decentralization.
Funnily enough, the Emperor had presented to the Legislative a project of reforms in the Empire that would grant more power to the provinces, among other issues. The project should have been voted in January 1890, but in november he was deposed.

 

[Gonzaga]

Was the abolition of the monarchy directly related to the end of slavery? I thought it was, which was why I was arguing for an earlier abolition of slavery, preferably under British pressure, so it could be blamed on them.

The Ottomans and Zanzibaris managed to deflect all the blame for the economic dislocation caused by the end of slavery on the British...

Well, the British were blamed. When the slave trade for Brazil was forbidden in 1850, the politicians accused the "foreign interference" in Brazilian issues. But, as an example how things work here, Brazil signed a treaty with England in March 13 1827, declaring that, in exchange for recognition of Brazilian independence, after 03 years of the signature of the treaty (in 1830) the slave trade to Brazil should be considered illegal. But this law never worked. England needed to pass in 1845 the "infamous" Bill Aberdeen, allowing the British Navy to inspect any Brazilian ship in all oceans, to Brazil aprove in 1850 (five years later!) the end of slave trade. In other words, even with a great British pressure the Brazilian authorities were delaying the end of the trade. Imagine how difficult was to end the slavery within the Empire, where foreign pressure just can't work!

About the end of slavery being the reason of the Empire's fall, I would say it was a great reason, but not the only one. In 1888 the Church, the modern sectors of the Army and the coffee farmers from Western São Paulo were against the monarchy. The Empire only had the support of common people, that never counted in Brazilian history, and the farmers of the rest of Brazil. The Emperor was so needed of support that was giving nobility titles to almost every important farmer. And, acording some historians, the farmers knew that the abolition was just a matter of time, but what they really wanted was a financial compensation for freeding the slaves. When Abolition was aproved, in 1888, the law that Princess Isabel signed was very simple:

1) Is declared extinct the slavery in Brazil.
2) All declarations against it are declared nule.

There was nothing about compensation! And the hoax that in the project of reforms that Pedro wanted to pass to the Senate in January 1890 was included a compensation not to the slaveholders, but to the former slaves, didn't help the Emperor.