Why the USA and not Brazil?

[TonyA]

Sorry for the douple post.



Let me summon this on one single phrase: Income redistribution.

While Brazil is a rich country, this is unquestionable, the richest parts of São Paulo, Rio and most of the states capital have the standart of living of european countries, those remain just some small spots in the brazilian map. The brazilian income inequality is so high that you can see scenes like this:

If Brazil had a population of 500 million people, this would be unsustainable because most of them would be awfully poor while a tiny minority would have all the profit. We did tried to change that during the populist era (1930-1964), and the result was the US SPONSORED 1964 coup that stopped the base reforms of president João Goulart, the reforms included a land reform.

That was a scary time for many in the US...we saw Commies everywhere! To make things worse, the USSR was attempting to insinuate itself in every political movement outside of the Iron Curtain, usually with some success, although not as much as we thought or they pretended. All in all, the US wasn't too smart those days,, and you can argue we've gotten dumber. But, no nukes fell, anywhere...then...

 

[Gukpard]

That was a scary time for many in the US...we saw Commies everywhere! To make things worse, the USSR was attempting to insinuate itself in every political movement outside of the Iron Curtain, usually with some success, although not as much as we thought or they pretended. All in all, the US wasn't too smart those days,, and you can argue we've gotten dumber. But, no nukes fell, anywhere...then...

João Goulart was a christian nationalist president, he was the political sucessor of Getúlio Vargas who was known for being the most nationalist president in Brazil history, there is no historical or political basis to call him a communist, and still this was pushed on.

The US supported the coup because the social changes promoted by Goulart and his Independent Foreign policy would remove Brazil from the position of "america little brother", the result was a 21 year old US sponsored dictatorship that worsened every single social and economical problem we had, fifty three years after the coup we still didn't made the land reform neither his other social policies. to quote the most impacting part of the article I posted above:

"The White House recognised the new government in Brazil with indecent haste, on 2 April 1964. By historical coincidence, the Civil Rights Act, the result of years of mobilisation by African Americans and their allies, arrived in the US Senate on 26 March 1964, five days before the coup in Brazil. In a week when millions of African Americans were finally having their rights of citizenship recognised by the US government, Brazilians were losing theirs."

Edit: Going further, here a video about the coup:

 

[TonyA]

João Goulart was a christian nationalist president, he was the political sucessor of Getúlio Vargas who was known for being the most nationalist president in Brazil history, there is no historical or political basis to call him a communist, and still this was pushed on.

The US supported the coup because the social changes promoted by Goulart and his Independent Foreign policy would remove Brazil from the position of "america little brother", the result was a 21 year old US sponsored dictatorship that worsened every single social and economical problem we had, fifty three years after the coup we still didn't made the land reform neither his other social policies. to quote the most impacting part of the article I posted above:



Edit: Going further, here a video about the coup:

Didn't say there were Commies everywhere...said we saw them everywhere. Goulart didn't bother me, but I wasn't running things. I'll bet we ruined the lives of many fine people over the years, all over the globe, but, again, no nukes.

 

[Gukpard]

Didn't say there were Commies everywhere...said we saw them everywhere. Goulart didn't bother me, but I wasn't running things. I'll bet we ruined the lives of many fine people over the years, all over the globe, but, again, no nukes.

Yes, millions, the USA used the excuse to "fight communism" to keep satellite states all over latim america and asia.

Another thing to be considered: On 1894, in a resonse for the dictatorship of Floriano Peixoto (known as the Sword republic in Brazil), the brazilian navy blockaded the capital asking him to resign. The US government, fearing that a new government could switch the brazilian influence from the US back to the UK (the main trade partner of the brazilian empire was the UK) sent a fleet all the way to rio, Attacked the brazilian navy WITHOUT a declaration of war and claimed that it was on self defence, Brazil did had it's own USS Maine incident. Heck, the first flag of the brazilian republic was this one:

Spoiler

 

[Admiral A. Kolchak]

Yes, millions, the USA used the excuse to "fight communism" to keep satellite states all over latim america and asia.

Another thing to be considered: On 1894, in a resonse for the dictatorship of Floriano Peixoto (known as the Sword republic in Brazil), the brazilian navy blockaded the capital asking him to resign. The US government, fearing that a new government could switch the brazilian influence from the US back to the UK (the main trade partner of the brazilian empire was the UK) sent a fleet all the way to rio, Attacked the brazilian navy WITHOUT a declaration of war and claimed that it was on self defence, Brazil did had it's own USS Maine incident. Heck, the first flag of the brazilian republic was this one:

Spoiler

Cool. I think it was also originally called the United Sates of Brazil when the emperor was deposed. I might not be right though.

 

[TonyA]

Ah, 19th Century gunboat diplomacy, not exactly what I was referring to. Pretty routine shit for colonial powers in those days and the logical outgrowth of US policy that enshrined the right of big business to make obscene profits at the expense of anyone and everyone, specially if they weren't the same color and spoke some "furren" language in some "heathen" land. They did name a class of DD's after the Admiral. In fairness to the US, all the world's governments pretty much sucked the big one at this time. If you were weaker, you were going to get pushed around, and you'd damn well better say, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"

 

[marathag]

I mean much of the American South coughs Arizona coughs would have been uninhabitable without AC...

AZ is a dry Heat.

Gulf Coast?

That's nasty wet Heat

 

[Deleted member 92121]

Just some things: Brazil was very stable during the Empire, with the exception of the 1830's. It was a functioning democratic nation with a balance and separation of power's, a prosperous economy, and (not to sound like a monarchist) probably the best monarch of the 19th century. Saying that people migrated to the U.S. over Brazil due to stability, specially when you think of some certain events that took place there during the 19th century, is not correct.
Next, saying that the "heat" scared people off, is just stupid. I mean, if you are fleeing Europe due to war, or famine, or persecution, you're not going to avoid Brazil because it's hot. I mean, if anything, the place where you can plant all year and not DIE from cold seems quite nice.
In short: The U.S. had the Homestead act(as arleady pointed out), it was much closer, and it had a reputation. It offered real opportunity. Brazil was ruled by the Agrarian Elite (it partially still is), and so real bigtime immigration didn't attract a lot of interest.
THAT BEING SAID, there were some very big movements for immigration in certain periods, in a attempt to Whiten the population. Many ended in cities like Sao Paulo and Rio, or the South. If you travel to the South of Brazil, it's pretty much Germany, from the culture to the architectural style. The same with Italians. Before Garibaldi discovered that turning Italy into one nation could be cool, he fought for the independence of the South of Brazil in the aforementioned 1830's. During the First Republic, the urban immigrants were essential in establishing the worker's movement, as well as spreading anarchism and socialism as ideologies. So immigration is a BIG factor in the history of brazil.

 

[fasquardon]

The US was created by Britain, an extremely wealthy stable place, while Brazil was created by Portugal which was very poor in comparison.

At the time Portugal started colonizing Brazil, it was far richer and more stable than England was when it started colonizing what became the USA. And this wasn't some transient gap - Portugal had been wealthier and more technologically advanced for some considerable time before (though the sheer heights of Portugal during the 15th and 16th Centuries were unusual).

The US and Britain simply had more favourable geography for industrialization than Brazil and Portugal, so the latter pair became relatively poor as coal-powered technology shifted the relative advantages of the regions.

Had Brazil had been as rich as the US in coal and had that coal placed so near to water transport as in the US, the odds are that Brazil would be considerably more wealthy and populous.

fasquardon

 

[Legofan4]

At the time Portugal started colonizing Brazil, it was far richer and more stable than England was when it started colonizing what became the USA. And this wasn't some transient gap - Portugal had been wealthier and more technologically advanced for some considerable time before (though the sheer heights of Portugal during the 15th and 16th Centuries were unusual).

The US and Britain simply had more favourable geography for industrialization than Brazil and Portugal, so the latter pair became relatively poor as coal-powered technology shifted the relative advantages of the regions.

Had Brazil had been as rich as the US in coal and had that coal placed so near to water transport as in the US, the odds are that Brazil would be considerably more wealthy and populous.

fasquardon

The coal situation is something that can't be changed. Same with the disease situation. So something else needs to be changed for anything to be different.

 

[Deleted member 92121]

Cool. I think it was also originally called the United Sates of Brazil when the emperor was deposed. I might not be right though.

The First Republic, more commonly called the Old Republic (long before Star Wars stole it!) was officialy named the "United States of Brazil", from 1889 to 1930. The Flag, pretty much a copy of the American one(but much much uglier), was proposed by the Sao Paulo Landowner's(one of the most powerfull faction's in the country). Their main adversaries were the Military, wich was heavily influenced by Positivism. The Military won the conflict, and the Brazillian Flag became the one we all know today, with the Positivist motto: Order and Progress. Eventually the military lost power during the First Republic, and the Oligarchies took over, but the flag remained the same.

 

[HaroldGodwinson]

We also should recall that the North American climate was more like Europe, and therefor more compatible for European immigration as the vast majority of Europeans who have left Europe over the last three centuries and settled in North America can attest.

 

[marathag]

That was a scary time for many in the US...we saw Commies everywhere! To make things worse, the USSR was attempting to insinuate itself in every political movement outside of the Iron Curtain, usually with some success,

Why would have the US thought that, when after the Wall came down, found that the KGB was funding a lot of the Unions and anti-Nuke groups

 

[samcster94]

The First Republic, more commonly called the Old Republic (long before Star Wars stole it!) was officialy named the "United States of Brazil", from 1889 to 1930. The Flag, pretty much a copy of the American one(but much much uglier), was proposed by the Sao Paulo Landowner's(one of the most powerfull faction's in the country). Their main adversaries were the Military, wich was heavily influenced by Positivism. The Military won the conflict, and the Brazillian Flag became the one we all know today, with the Positivist motto: Order and Progress. Eventually the military lost power during the First Republic, and the Oligarchies took over, but the flag remained the same.

Yup, the Portuguese language phrase Ordem e Progreso is still there today. They also put stars on their flag for each state, which is at 26.

 

[fasquardon]

The coal situation is something that can't be changed. Same with the disease situation. So something else needs to be changed for anything to be different.

We have never had a first-rate great power or a superpower that did not have plentiful and cheap coal. Britain, Germany, the Soviet Union, China and the USA all have (or had, at least) plentiful and cheap coal.

As such, I am dubious that Brazil could be greater than the USA with anything like its OTL geology.

fasquardon

 

[Gukpard]

At the time Portugal started colonizing Brazil, it was far richer and more stable than England was when it started colonizing what became the USA. And this wasn't some transient gap - Portugal had been wealthier and more technologically advanced for some considerable time before (though the sheer heights of Portugal during the 15th and 16th Centuries were unusual).

The US and Britain simply had more favourable geography for industrialization than Brazil and Portugal, so the latter pair became relatively poor as coal-powered technology shifted the relative advantages of the regions.

Had Brazil had been as rich as the US in coal and had that coal placed so near to water transport as in the US, the odds are that Brazil would be considerably more wealthy and populous.

fasquardon

Fasquardon always having the best argument.

To complement what he said, I gonna put a explanation made by professor Macedo, a portuguese researcher:

Basically Brazil is very hot apart from it's southern regions, the brazilian climate (that is most of it's areas resemble the southern US) is good for a agrarian colonization, for huge land proprierties and for the monoculture, and so this is the kind of colonization that kept the brazilian economy running all the way to 1930, the north produced sugar and the south produced coffe and a bit of rice, beans and cattle. At the same time, in the southernmost region of Brazil we did had some industrialization, before the 1920s the most industrialized states of Brazil were Rio grande do sul, the southern most state, and Rio de Janeiro (it was the capital so it is expected). This theory is the same present on "História econômica do Brasil" of Caio Prado Junior.

What professor Macedo says is that it simple doesn't matter who colonized Brazil, it would be the same. had the british or the dutch landed in Brazil, they still would cultivate sugar, coffe or other agricutulral goods, as it was on southern US were the climate made it easier to produce cotton and cattle, while in the northern states of the US you got the rusty belt. Why? Because it is colder, it favours a more urban and industrial colonization.

There is a very generic argument that some people like to use in Brazil that is "If the UK had colonized us, we would be a first world power", this argument is a fruit of a treaty signed between the brazilian ministery of education and the United States Agency for International Development on june of 1966, two years after the US supported coup, that replace our educational system with the american one (just google "MEC-USAID accords"), it went so far the that US sponsored junta called "American assessors" to rewrite our education on american standarts, promoting the british anglo saxon as the perfect colonization model, and placing the portuguese one as a debile one.

Edit: The pression made by the brazilian civil society was so big that the junta had to make some concessions, but most of the MEC-USAID accordings passed, Brazil came close to replace the "Father of flight" from Santos Dumont to the Wright Brothers.

 

[samcster94]

Fasquardon always having the best argument.

To complement what he said, I gonna put a explanation made by professor Macedo, a portuguese researcher:

Basically Brazil is very hot apart from it's southern regions, the brazilian climate (that is most of it's areas resemble the southern US) is good for a agrarian colonization, for huge land proprierties and for the monoculture, and so this is the kind of colonization that kept the brazilian economy running all the way to 1930, the north produced sugar and the south produced coffe and a bit of rice, beans and cattle. At the same time, in the southernmost region of Brazil we did had some industrialization, before the 1920s the most industrialized states of Brazil were Rio grande do sul, the southern most state, and Rio de Janeiro (it was the capital so it is expected). This theory is the same present on "História econômica do Brasil" of Caio Prado Junior.

What professor Macedo says is that it simple doesn't matter who colonized Brazil, it would be the same. had the british or the dutch landed in Brazil, they still would cultivate sugar, coffe or other agricutulral goods, as it was on southern US were the climate made it easier to produce cotton and cattle, while in the northern states of the US you got the rusty belt. Why? Because it is colder, it favours a more urban and industrial colonization.

There is a very generic argument that some people like to use in Brazil that is "If the UK had colonized us, we would be a first world power", this argument is a fruit of a treaty signed between the brazilian ministery of education and the United States Agency for International Development on june of 1966, two years after the US supported coup, that replace our educational system with the american one (just google "MEC-USAID accords"), it went so far the that US sponsored junta called "American assessors" to rewrite our education on american standarts, promoting the british anglo saxon as the perfect colonization model, and placing the portuguese one as a debile one.

Edit: The pression made by the brazilian civil society was so big that the junta had to make some concessions, but most of the MEC-USAID accordings passed, Brazil came close to replace the "Father of flight" from Santos Dumont to the Wright Brothers.

Also, I prefer them speaking Portuguese if the are successful anyway. They like Portuguese as much as the Australians like speaking English.

 

[TonyA]

Why would have the US thought that, when after the Wall came down, found that the KGB was funding a lot of the Unions and anti-Nuke groups

I do believe I said "every" when describing the USSR's actions. They were notorious scattergunners...

 

[wtw]

Actually, the peak of immigration to Brazil was during the Republic - 1 million alone during the 1904-13 period. There's a lot of reasons for the reduced immigration compared to the USA, some of them even mentioned here:

- It was cheaper to immigrate to the US: not only due to the distance; some countries(Germany mainly, in the 1860-70's, but also Italy from 1903 on) only allowed unsponsored immigration(that is, the immigrants had to pay for their passage) to Brazil. This was,at least in Germany, due to (true)reports of mistreatment of the immigrants who were sponsored by Brazilian landowners(who were used to dealing with slave labour) in the 1840's and 50's. The Imperial government later offered other incentives for German immigration that didn't fall on the sponsored immigration category, but German immigration never quite recovered;

- It was easier to acquire land on the US: while the USA had the Homestead Act, which ensured cheap, or even free, land for immigrants, the Brazilian Lei de Terras(1850) stated that from then on, with the exception of a strip 10 leagues(66 km) wide from the Brazilian border, land could only be purchased. This meant that land ownership was beyond most immigrants. While there were people who acquired land on auction, divided them in terrain lots, and sold to immigrants, most immigrants who came to Brazil did so as labour for landowners(the Lei de Terras was approved 2 weeks after the law which forbade slave trafficking, and was designed to ensure immigrants wouldn't mostly become homesteaders);

- Brazilian climate(and the diseases associated with it) was hard on Europeans: not only for those who went on to the interior of the country; Rio de Janeiro had the charming nickname of "graveyard of the Europeans". It was better to immigrate to the US, or Argentina and Uruguai, than to a country where conditions had similarities to India and subsaharian Africa;

- There isn't that much fertile land in Brazil: this is a minor factor, because when immigration was at its apex, the frontier was where there was fertile land for planting(the "terra roxa" volcanic soil on western São Paulo and parts of Paraná State). Even then, a lot of Brazil was left sparsely settled until the 1970's, when EMBRAPA figured out how to deal with the acidic soils of the Center-West region. Until then, while there were some agricultural colonies in the 1930-40's, and Brasília was founded in 1960, most of that area was suitable only for extensive cattle-raising, and therefore not suitable for colonizing.

these, with an emphasis on the disease factor still being an issue today for a good chunk of tropical South America without proper meds you will die period

 

[Guilherme Loureiro]

Cool. I think it was also originally called the United Sates of Brazil when the emperor was deposed. I might not be right though.

The Brazilian Republic official name was United States of Brazil until somewhat recently(IIRC, it was changed during the military regime...*checks*... yup, first Constitution to adopt the name Brazilian Federative Republic was the 1967 one)

Just some things: Brazil was very stable during the Empire, with the exception of the 1830's. It was a functioning democratic nation with a balance and separation of power's, a prosperous economy, and (not to sound like a monarchist) probably the best monarch of the 19th century. Saying that people migrated to the U.S. over Brazil due to stability, specially when you think of some certain events that took place there during the 19th century, is not correct.
Next, saying that the "heat" scared people off, is just stupid. I mean, if you are fleeing Europe due to war, or famine, or persecution, you're not going to avoid Brazil because it's hot. I mean, if anything, the place where you can plant all year and not DIE from cold seems quite nice.
In short: The U.S. had the Homestead act(as arleady pointed out), it was much closer, and it had a reputation. It offered real opportunity. Brazil was ruled by the Agrarian Elite (it partially still is), and so real bigtime immigration didn't attract a lot of interest.
THAT BEING SAID, there were some very big movements for immigration in certain periods, in a attempt to Whiten the population. Many ended in cities like Sao Paulo and Rio, or the South. If you travel to the South of Brazil, it's pretty much Germany, from the culture to the architectural style. The same with Italians. Before Garibaldi discovered that turning Italy into one nation could be cool, he fought for the independence of the South of Brazil in the aforementioned 1830's. During the First Republic, the urban immigrants were essential in establishing the worker's movement, as well as spreading anarchism and socialism as ideologies. So immigration is a BIG factor in the history of brazil.

Saying Brazil was "very" stable during the Empire, with the exception of the Regency Era, is a bit of an overstatement; the instability of the 1830's was only ended after the Praieira Revolution(1848), even though in the 1840's the chaos was reduced to some hot spots, instead of the widespread unrest of the 1830's. Saying it was a functioning democratic nation with balance and separation of powers... not exactly, although it was better than the First Republic in this aspect.

The problem wasn't that Brazil was hot; it was that Brazil had plenty of Malaria, Yellow Fever, Chagas' Disease and other nice welcoming presents to the immigrants - no point fleeing War and Famine only to be killed by Pestilence. Just take a look at how many settlers sought to live in Florida in the 19th century.

You're right there were periods immigration was encouraged(and the effort in whitening the population), but the problem was there were better prospects around, and most of the prospective immigrants knew it. Even then, immigration played an important role in Brazilian history, as you said.

EDIT: Forgot to answer this:

We have never had a first-rate great power or a superpower that did not have plentiful and cheap coal. Britain, Germany, the Soviet Union, China and the USA all have (or had, at least) plentiful and cheap coal.

As such, I am dubious that Brazil could be greater than the USA with anything like its OTL geology.

Actually, Brazil has plenty of coal(around 1% of world reserves, IIRC). It is poor quality coal, though.