What would Brazil look like if it had been a colony of Britian?

[Taunay]

Its hard to say where they'd go as Northeast was similar to the American deep South insofar as it attracted few immigrants after the 18th century. In 1900 Brazil's foreign-born population was just under 7% of the total for the country, but was very unevenly distributed. In Guanabara State (today part of Rio de Janeiro) foreign-born were 24% of the population and in São Paulo State they were 21% of the total. Only Paraná, Espírito Santo, Mato Grosso, Santa Catarina and Rio de Janeiro states had more than 5% of their population born outside of Brazil in 1900.

In contrast according to the 1900 census, 13.6% of the U.S. population had been born in another country. This ranged from 35.4% in North Dakota to 0.2% in North Carolina. However, the foreign-born population in the U.S. was much more spread out with most states having at least 5% born abroad.

The more densely populated northeast of Brazil shares some important parallels with the American deep south. In 1900, the foreign-born were only 0.4% of population in the states of Pernambuco and Bahia's, 0.1% in Ceará and less than that in Paraiba and Piauí. In Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia less than 1% of the population was foreign-born in 1900. Like the Brazilian northeast, this region would see heavy out-migration to the more prosperous and industrialised regions of the country during the following decades.

Those extra migrants could settle the Southeast, Center-West and South regions. It may surprise some but taking into account the history of Brazil and the Geography of the region, they don't have as many people as they could sustain. I can easily see those combined regions having over 180 million people and being able to sustain them. We would need to change some things about agriculture (Earlier Embrapa, more familiar agriculture, less monocultures etc) but those regions could sustain this population

 

[Fulano]

My impression is that compared to the US, Argentina, Canada, Cuba, Australia, Chile, Uruguay and some others, Brazil received a smaller share of migrants relative to its total population.

OTL is a screw for Brazil when it comes to immigration.

Still way better in comparison with all of the Hispanic countries north of Colombia, that sometimes didn't even receive 1% of their total population. They barely had migrants there.

 

[Taunay]

Still way better in comparison with all of the Hispanic countries north of Colombia, that sometimes didn't even receive 1% of their total population. They barely had migrants there.

Because the climate wasn't really conducive to immigrants from Europe. Argentina, Canada, the US and Brazil had the biggest areas that were prime for European settlement

 

[Viriato]

Still way better in comparison with all of the Hispanic countries north of Colombia, that sometimes didn't even receive 1% of their total population. They barely had migrants there.

The only countries to receive huge numbers of European immigrants in the Americas during the pre-World War I period were the Canada, the United States, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. Chile received some, but at their peak in 1907 were only 2% of the population. Venezuela would receive a large number of European immigrants after World War II until the 1970s.

In Emigration From Europe 1815-1930 by Dudley Baines, he compares the fate of immigrants in North and South America. Importantly he brings up the recruitment of immigrants to Sao Paulo.

"Another well known example of assisted emigration is the Sao
Paulo scheme. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
the government of Sao Paulo recruited workers under contract to
work in the coffee plantations; 806,000 were assisted, or a half of all
immigration into Sao Paulo province. The scheme was expensive for
the provincial government and the cost was not borne by the main
beneficiaries - the landowners - because they paid little taxation
[Gould, 1980b, 279-80]. Two-thirds of the immigrants were Italians.
Conditions on the coffee plantations were so bad that in 1907 the
Italian government, by the Pirinetti decrees, banned the activities of
recruiting agencies. Emigration to Brazil fell immediately, and
returns to Italy increased. Consequently, the Brazilian agents began
to recruit in Japan" - Page 51

There is also a mention of immigration to Argentina where though wages were lower than in New York for unskilled workers, semi-skilled Italian workers had a greater chance of economic advancement. The same was true for Spaniards and Portuguese who overwhelmingly migrated to their former colonies than to the United States.

 

[unprincipled peter]

In contrast according to the 1900 census, 13.6% of the U.S. population had been born in another country.

In the decades prior to 1900, the US was seen to be THE place to go for jobs and land. And it was stable. Stability and jobs are the top attractions for immigrants.

Brazil, in comparison, was limited in industry, and jobs were agricultural. Land for small holders was limited. Portions of the country were poverty stricken with limited infrastructure.

In this TTL, the situations of North and South Americas are likely to be quite different. One simply cannot apply OTL migration patterns onto TTL.

 

[Viriato]

E place to go for jobs and land. And it was stable. Stability and jobs are the top attractions for immigrants.

Brazil, in comparison, was limited in industry, and jobs were agricultural. Land for small holders was limited. Portions of the country were poverty stricken with limited infrastructure.

In this TTL, the situations of North and South Americas are likely to be quite different. One simply cannot apply OTL migration patterns onto TTL.

The issue here is there really is no well developed timeline to extrapolate what could have happened. An early English Brazil would alter the course of history and make it likely that there is no Glorious Revolution which led to England's Financial Revolution. Likely the ways in the which the world would have developed by the late nineteenth century would make it unrecognisable.

Additionally, Argentina really was the country that attracted the largest amount of immigrants per capita during the period with 5.9 million between 1871 and 1914. By 1914, 30% of Argentina's population was foreign-born, with that number rising to 49.4% in the city of Buenos Aires. Even as late as 1947 15.3% of Argentina's population was foreign-born along with 27.5% of Buenos Aires population.

 

[FleetMac]

I initially thought like Guyana, but even then, I realized it wasn't accurate given how the British got Guyana from the Dutch.

If Brazil was the British from the getgo… hard to say since we don’t have much of an example to go by. I imagine in a colony where disease didn’t crack the indigenous population, there would be more mixing of the two groups, but beyond that… hard to say.

I found odd how most people chose Guyana, a small country there's virtually no Europeans, no farmland.

OTL Brazil got millions of European immigrants and there's no reason for this ALT Brazil got the same or even more as Britain was bigger than Portugal. It was also way wealthier, which probably would reflect on a much better railway infrastructure in Brazil, speeding up European settlement far from the coast.

This.

The two countries are vastly different in terms of geography/potential. Maybe I'm giving Guyana short thrift, but I don't understand why TTL Brazil should end up less than OTL Brazil...SNIP

I guess that's more a sign of how little knowledge people have about Brazil, even in a forum dedicated to History where people are way better informed than the average person.

For one thing, no one who picked up Guyana elaborated their reasoning here on the thread. People just checked without giving much thought.

I had originally multi-selected Guyana and 'neither' (mostly by determining in the poll what Anglo-Brazil would not be rather than what it would) but decided to change it. My reasoning was three-fold and admittedly quite shallow;

1. Mentally picturing the 'closest' geographical equivalent to the OP insofar as an Anglophone (by and by) nation in South America and layering that into my overall thoughts. I confess that this might only capture how English settlement in the Amazon region would look, as the bulk of Brazil's population lies in the Atlantic Forest, cerrado, and highlands between them in the Southeast and coastal Northeast, down to the Southern pampas, and west to the Center-West cerrado and Pantanal (and for good reasons that IMO wouldn't change in the OP). Those regions already have terrain kinda-sorta-equivalents elsewhere that are less challenging to mentally swap for conceptual purposes.

Incidentally, much of the Sertão is pretty similar to South Texas geographically/climatically, which I live in so no issues with mental picturing there. And arguably more importantly,

2. A feeling that OTL West Indian accents would contribute to how Anglo-Brazilian dialect(s) would shape up at least in part, based on A) a 16th-to-early-17th Century settlement timeframe, and B) an example of contemporary English dialects evolving and being spoken in the American tropics. For all the comparisons to the Southron U.S. in terms of how Anglo-not!-Brazil would look (which I concur with), I don't think a modern concept of a Southron accent would resemble that of Anglo-Brazil's except maybe south of the Paraná and/or the central uplands.

Dialectally for Anglo-Brazil I think Caribbean accents would play a role in the North region, along with the Charleston accent in the Northeast and New Orleans 'Yat' accent in the (specifically urban) Southeast, partially by development trend comparison, and personal Rule-of-Cool in boosting OTL obscure dialects that share some features (and thus being feasible as 'endpoints' of a naturalistic dialectal continuum). Lastly but least importantly,

3. A sneaking suspicion that Indigenous peoples in the Amazon might be less integrated/assimilated, with rural Amazonia fairly underdeveloped and disconnected even compared to OTL and thus looking like the Guyanese backcountry. This is a pretty big assumption though, especially since the OTL rubber boom was a big cash-flow source, so I really discount it as having any merit.

Furthermore, like I said it was mostly selection by negation. Namely, I thought a Guyana comparison was less-inappropriate compared to Options 1 and 3. For Option One, I can see Brazil in general (both OTL and in AH settings) being a first-world country conceptually, but I am very hung up on any direct comparisons to Canada or the ANZAC countries outside of being Anglophone and possibly a Dominion, assuming such a thing evolves, which I am rather dubious of (still re-selected this option for that 'first-world' status component as a reasonable outcome).

For Option Three, I doubt Brazil in general would be a global superpower, if only because I consider the 'global superpower' concept very unique to OTL at all and imagine the POD would make our notion of the 'U.S.A.' less likely to appear in the Anglosphere in general. For all the talk of how much more successful Brazil might be through more integration in the British economic sphere, I don't think Britain itself would be as inherently successful/better off in the long run; if anything, Dutch disease and wealth from early resource retrieval in Brazil might set England/Britain up for an Edwardian/Victorian-era equivalent of mediocrity to hard luck and outright failure IMO.

 

[Gloss]

I had originally multi-selected Guyana and 'other' (mostly by determining in the poll what Anglo-Brazil would not be rather than what it would) but decided to change it. My reasoning was two-fold and admittedly quite shallow;

1. Mentally picturing the 'closest' geographical equivalent to the OP insofar as an Anglophone (by and by) nation in South America and layering that into my overall thoughts. I confess that this might only capture how English settlement in the Amazon region would look, as the bulk of Brazil's population lies in the Atlantic Forest, cerrado, and highlands between them in the Southeast and coastal Northeast, down to the Southern pampas, and west to the Center-West cerrado and Pantanal. Those regions already have terrain kinda-sorta-equivalents elsewhere that are less challenging to mentally swap for conceptual purposes. Incidentally, much of the Sertão is pretty similar to South Texas geographically/climatically, which I live in so no issues with mental picturing there. And arguably more importantly,
2. A feeling that West Indian accents would contribute to how Anglo-Brazilian dialect(s) would shape up at least in part, based on A) a 16th-to-early-17th Century settlement timeframe, and B) an example of contemporary English dialects evolving and being spoken in the American tropics. For all the comparisons to the Southron U.S. in terms of how Anglo-not!-Brazil would look (which I concur with), I don't think a modern concept of a Southron accent would resemble that of Anglo-Brazil's except maybe south of the Paraná and/or the central uplands. Dialectally for Anglo-Brazil I think Caribbean accents would play a role in the Amazon, along with the Charleston and New Orleans 'Yat' accents in the Northeast and urban Southeast respectively, partially by development trend comparison, and personal Rule-of-Cool in boosting OTL obscure dialects that share some features.

Furthermore, like I said it was mostly selection by negation. Namely, I thought a Guyana comparison was less-inappropriate compared to Options 1 and 3. For Option One, I can see Brazil in general (both OTL and in AH settings) being a first-world country conceptually, but I am very hung up on any direct comparisons to Canada or the ANZAC countries outside of being Anglophone and possibly a Dominion, assuming such a thing evolves, which I am rather dubious of (still re-selected this option for that 'first-world' status component as a reasonable outcome).

For Option Two, I doubt Brazil in general would be a global superpower, if only because I consider the 'global superpower' concept very unique to OTL at all and imagine the POD would make our notion of the 'U.S.A.' less likely to appear in the Anglosphere in general. For all the talk of how much more successful Brazil might be through more integration in the British economic sphere, I don't think Britain itself would be as inherently successful/better off in the long run; if anything, Dutch disease and wealth from early resource retrieval in Brazil would set England/Britain up for an Edwardian/Victorian-era equivalent of mediocrity to hard luck and outright failure IMO.

I think Dutch disease is a very convenient explanation but fails to account for the fact that Northern Europe started diverging from Iberia or southern Europe in ways not explainable by global trade patterns and imperialism, literacy rates soared rapidly in England and surroundings, England started using coal even before the industrialization since the early 17th century, London became a huge city fairly on in the early colonial adventures.

To argue that a colonial empire where there is some amount of gold extraction and similar amounts of slavery as the Caribbean is going to ruin all of that strikes me as unlikely. Resource curse is not inevitable nor necessarily a likely consequence of having precious metals or easy labor.
While some people actually think British colonialism in Bengal actually worked against early industrialization I don't think it's fair to extend the same mentality indiscriminately plus its effect also shouldn't be over-stated when present, in fact as I said OTL's British Caribbeans and Southern US were pretty massive and basically the biggest or equally as big as Portugal's throughout the entire 18th century and even late 17th century.

 

[FleetMac]

I think Dutch disease is a very convenient explanation but fails to account for the fact that Northern Europe started diverging from Iberia or southern Europe in ways not explainable by global trade patterns and imperialism, literacy rates soared rapidly in England and surroundings, England started using coal even before the industrialization since the early 17th century, London became a huge city fairly on in the early colonial adventures.

To argue that a colonial empire where there is some amount of gold extraction and similar amounts of slavery as the Caribbean is going to ruin all of that strikes me as unlikely. Resource curse is not inevitable nor necessarily a likely consequence of having precious metals or easy labor.
While some people actually think British colonialism in Bengal actually worked against early industrialization I don't think it's fair to extend the same mentality indiscriminately plus its effect also shouldn't be over-stated when present, in fact as I said OTL's British Caribbeans and Southern US were pretty massive and basically the biggest or equally as big as Portugal's throughout the entire 18th century and even late 17th century.

Like I said, I'm an Occam's Razor advocate so I do tend towards reasonable convenient explanations. That being said, you do make good points especially about applying broad-brush statements to forecast-able outcomes. I think it's less that Britain would inevitably end up screwed long-term (edited my statement for clarity's sake), and more that the butterflies from the OP would make later developments foggier to predict. I feel that defaulting to 'Britain is a big success' is a leap in logic to assume automatically, though in fairness so is assuming a downfall from colonial ventures early on in South America. Again, I think the devil is in the details rather than in broad concept (FREX literacy rates likely wouldn't change either way even with the POD, that trend traces back AIUI to the 15th Century roughly).

 

[JohnBull]

I had originally multi-selected Guyana and 'other' (mostly by determining in the poll what Anglo-Brazil would not be rather than what it would) but decided to change it. My reasoning was three-fold and admittedly quite shallow;

1. Mentally picturing the 'closest' geographical equivalent to the OP insofar as an Anglophone (by and by) nation in South America and layering that into my overall thoughts. I confess that this might only capture how English settlement in the Amazon region would look, as the bulk of Brazil's population lies in the Atlantic Forest, cerrado, and highlands between them in the Southeast and coastal Northeast, down to the Southern pampas, and west to the Center-West cerrado and Pantanal (and for good reasons that IMO wouldn't change in the OP). Those regions already have terrain kinda-sorta-equivalents elsewhere that are less challenging to mentally swap for conceptual purposes. Incidentally, much of the Sertão is pretty similar to South Texas geographically/climatically, which I live in so no issues with mental picturing there. And arguably more importantly,
2. A feeling that OTL West Indian accents would contribute to how Anglo-Brazilian dialect(s) would shape up at least in part, based on A) a 16th-to-early-17th Century settlement timeframe, and B) an example of contemporary English dialects evolving and being spoken in the American tropics. For all the comparisons to the Southron U.S. in terms of how Anglo-not!-Brazil would look (which I concur with), I don't think a modern concept of a Southron accent would resemble that of Anglo-Brazil's except maybe south of the Paraná and/or the central uplands. Dialectally for Anglo-Brazil I think Caribbean accents would play a role in the North region, along with the Charleston and New Orleans 'Yat' accents in the Northeast and urban Southeast respectively, partially by development trend comparison, and personal Rule-of-Cool in boosting OTL obscure dialects that share some features (and thus being feasible as 'endpoints' of a naturalistic dialectal continuum). Lastly but least importantly,
3. A sneaking suspicion that Indigenous peoples in the Amazon might be less integrated/assimilated, with rural Amazonia fairly underdeveloped and disconnected even compared to OTL and thus looking like the Guyanese backcountry. This is a pretty big assumption though, especially since the OTL rubber boom was a big cash-flow source, so I really discount it as having any merit.

Furthermore, like I said it was mostly selection by negation. Namely, I thought a Guyana comparison was less-inappropriate compared to Options 1 and 3. For Option One, I can see Brazil in general (both OTL and in AH settings) being a first-world country conceptually, but I am very hung up on any direct comparisons to Canada or the ANZAC countries outside of being Anglophone and possibly a Dominion, assuming such a thing evolves, which I am rather dubious of (still re-selected this option for that 'first-world' status component as a reasonable outcome).

For Option Three, I doubt Brazil in general would be a global superpower, if only because I consider the 'global superpower' concept very unique to OTL at all and imagine the POD would make our notion of the 'U.S.A.' less likely to appear in the Anglosphere in general. For all the talk of how much more successful Brazil might be through more integration in the British economic sphere, I don't think Britain itself would be as inherently successful/better off in the long run; if anything, Dutch disease and wealth from early resource retrieval in Brazil might set England/Britain up for an Edwardian/Victorian-era equivalent of mediocrity to hard luck and outright failure IMO.

I selected "Neither". Brazil would be much more similar to the US, than to the Canada, Australia and New Zealand, who didn't experience slavery and were majority White. South Africa doesn't work as it was always Native-majority.

About superpower, same here. It's a very specific post-war thing, applied to the US-USSR only and it's one of the easiest things to be completely butterflied away. I do think, regarding White/Europeans only, that British institutions and economic success proved to be superior than Portuguese ones. But the difference is not big enough to make this ATL Brazil way more successful than OTL. To put in very plain terms, I'd give a GDP per capita twice as high for this ATL.

I only disagree Guyana would be "less-inappropriate" as I find it incredibly distinct. Despite the harsh climate for European settlements, OTL Amazon did have a strong Portuguese presence. Belém is one of the oldest cities in Brazil and it was bigger than São Paulo till the very end of the 19th century. Guyana is Brazil's neighbour, but it could be as far as Asia for that matter.

 

[unprincipled peter]

I selected superpower, but not with the thought that it would rival USA or USSR, but rather that it could be a member of the World Big Boy club.

Being a super, super power on the level of USA or USSR is pretty rarefied air. How many of such countries have there been? Britain in the 1760s to Napoleon (maybe to WWI or II) and France from Louis XIV to Napoleon (though not continuously). Spain prior to mid 1600s (prior to my area of knowledge). Germany flirted with it. Include it if you want. Point is that this is a very, very limited club. Under this definition, Alt Brazil is a possibility, not a likelihood.

Being a regional power is very likely. Being a world power is very possible.

 

[JohnBull]

I selected superpower, but not with the thought that it would rival USA or USSR, but rather that it could be a member of the World Big Boy club.

Being a super, super power on the level of USA or USSR is pretty rarefied air. How many of such countries have there been? Britain in the 1760s to Napoleon (maybe to WWI or II) and France from Louis XIV to Napoleon (though not continuously). Spain prior to mid 1600s (prior to my area of knowledge). Germany flirted with it. Include it if you want. Point is that this is a very, very limited club. Under this definition, Alt Brazil is a possibility, not a likelihood.

Being a regional power is very likely. Being a world power is very possible.

No countries or empires before have reached the level of post-war US and USSR. They had combined like 90% of world's firepower, over 40% of world's economy and virtually controlled or heavily influenced the whole world.

All the other were Great Powers, Britain/British Empire being the most prominent one from the late 18th century to WWI. I believe British Brazil could be one of those great powers, but not a superpower as that's something very unique on world's history.

 

[holycookie]

No countries or empires before have reached the level of post-war US and USSR. They had combined like 90% of world's firepower, over 40% of world's economy and virtually controlled or heavily influenced the whole world.

Well, they were the only functional industrialized states. All others had been destroyed. It was a unique situation that I don't think will be repeated on this timeline or ours to be honest (we already see that the world is returning to a multipolar one).

All the other were Great Powers, Britain/British Empire being the most prominent one from the late 18th century to WWI. I believe British Brazil could be one of those great powers, but not a superpower as that's something very unique on world's history.

The level of great power will depend on the control of the Amazon and Plata basin. The country could easily be the 2nd largest in the world after Russia and rank among the 5 largest economies/populations in the world. Or have a scale similar to otl Brazil.

 

[JohnBull]

Well, they were the only functional industrialized states. All others had been destroyed. It was a unique situation that I don't think will be repeated on this timeline or ours to be honest (we already see that the world is returning to a multipolar one).

The level of great power will depend on the control of the Amazon and Plata basin. The country could easily be the 2nd largest in the world after Russia and rank among the 5 largest economies/populations in the world. Or have a scale similar to otl Brazil.

A British Brazil, that's actually "South America east of Andes" would have the potential to be almost as big/wealth/powerful as OTL US, but that doesn't mean superpower per se.

However, if this British Brazil become linked to Britain in some sort of Imperial Federation, than this ALT British Empire could become a "superpower" but in very different circumstances.

 

[unprincipled peter]

No countries or empires before have reached the level of post-war US and USSR. They had combined like 90% of world's firepower, over 40% of world's economy and virtually controlled or heavily influenced the whole world.

All the other were Great Powers, Britain/British Empire being the most prominent one from the late 18th century to WWI. I believe British Brazil could be one of those great powers, but not a superpower as that's something very unique on world's history.

Thanks. I knew there was a term for the Big Boy Club: Great Power.

 

[funnyhat]

I guess that's more a sign of how little knowledge people have about Brazil, even in a forum dedicated to History where people are way better informed than the average person.

For one thing, no one who picked up Guyana elaborated their reasoning here on the thread. People just checked without giving much thought.

My guess is that people interpreted that choice to mean "Similar to OTL Brazil". That would be my choice, but it wasn't an option so I had to pick "Neither".

 

[PGSBHurricane]

Due to the climate of Brazil being very different from Britain, or at least more than Portugal is, I can’t see Brazil attracting many British settlers. Even if that wasn’t the case, Brazil was so massive I can’t imagine Britain claiming all of it. I can see Portugal, however, allowing Britain to take a small part of it to prevent France or the Netherlands from conquering the region and/or Portugal cooperating with Britain to remove the influence from other European countries in the region.

 

[holycookie]

Due to the climate of Brazil being very different from Britain, or at least more than Portugal is, I can’t see Brazil attracting many British settlers.

The climate of Mainland Portugal, according to the Koppen classification, is divided into two regions: one with a temperate climate with rainy winters and hot dry summers, and another with temperate climates with rainy winters and dry, slightly hot summers. Portugal has a temperate climate. England's climate is classified as oceanic temperate.

Brazil was so massive I can’t imagine Britain claiming all of it.

Brazil didn't start massive. It began concentrated in its "tip" in the northeast regiom with the colonizers following the coast of the region.

 

[PGSBHurricane]

The climate of Mainland Portugal, according to the Koppen classification, is divided into two regions: one with a temperate climate with rainy winters and hot dry summers, and another with temperate climates with rainy winters and dry, slightly hot summers. Portugal has a temperate climate. England's climate is classified as oceanic temperate.

Brazil didn't start massive. It began concentrated in its "tip" in the northeast regiom with the colonizers following the coast of the region.

Northern Brazil in particular has a climate that the people of Britain generally aren't accustomed to (certainly less so than Portugal). And in fairness, the OP didn't specify a specific date so it could be as late as the 1800s.

 

[holycookie]

Northern Brazil in particular has a climate that the people of Britain generally aren't accustomed to (certainly less so than Portugal). And in fairness, the OP didn't specify a specific date so it could be as late as the 1800s.

I don't know if tthe uk has the patience to control a Brazil with more than 4 million inhabitants