Was there a chance that Brazil or any of the countries here could have had any semblance of stability

They're all stable, with strong institutions, the only fucked up one is Venezuela.

Brazil is a biggest shithole than Mexico figuratively and literally

We get lots of immigrants from other Latin American countries youtu.be/Hnr31BERyqk

With the US pulling the strings. No!

Not even close. I live in Brazil, yet would never live in your yellowish shithole.

ok, tecatito.

What a sounding argument, retard

No, there never was.

Attached: brazil-topography-1474.jpg (420x405, 61K)

instagram.com/alex._.sweeto/
Lmao Chilean "men"

your point being?

That's it's significantly harder to do anything in brazil. Development is hard as fuck.

Our shitholes are pretty much the same

not hard as fuck, but definitely harder than in N. Europe or the Eastern US.
Most people forget that like, 1/3 of Brazil are the semi-arid shitholes of the Cerrado and Caatinga, where there is only thirst, hunger and homicidal mestizos.
It's like the Western US, but if you never left the 19th century.

I don't think it has much to do with topography though. If anything, european countries have harsher climate condition than ours, and prospered.

I'm convinced the problem is related to our lack of national identity. Basically we never identified ourselves as a people, the first colonizers never intended to make this a country, rather a financial enterprise; families that migrated basically made their living on their own, with no bonds between eachother. So it's understandable why social cohesion is lacking in our history, despite gargantuous efforts of central government to change that. Ever since José Bonifácio (our independence patron) we brazilians strived to create this sense of national unity, with various degrees of success. Luckily the effort is paying off, as brazilians nowadays are more than ever conscious of their (our) identity and are starting to recognize themselves as such. This will eventually bring solidarity between brazilians, and allowing Brazil to live to its full potential.

Can't say about the rest of LatAm though as I don't know them, but I think this can be extended to them too.

bullshit. our problem is the people. just nuke everything and rebuild it. making sure that everyone is from the same race and culture.

And why have you never identified as a united people? because your geography divides you into separate and smaller regions. America had a shit ton of Europeans from different cultures come immigrate in, and they've all largely assimilated.

> America had a shit ton of Europeans from different cultures come immigrate in
so do we. but add asians, niggers, arabs and remanescent indians.

> and they've all largely assimilated
really? does the US live in peace with all of its diversity?

If we collapse in a few years Uruguay will too

maybe so... it may have something to do with topography, that's true. I remember Juscelino Kubitschek in his book Why I Built Brasilia saying that before Brasilia was built it took a full 3 months for a person to travel from Goiás to the capital in Rio. Brasilia was built to integrate brazilian territory, which by then was confined to the shores.

But there's also what I said, about people venturing here being independent of eachother. Basically each property was a feudal realm where the landlord could do whatever he liked with minimal intervention from the Portuguese. That strategy worked to some extent (Brazil is fuckhuge after all and thats a big accomplishment), but there were drawbacks like the one I mentioned.

Also the US was intended to be a nation from the start, anglo colonists wanted to make a home out of the new territory, rather than just grab what they could and return to the metropolis. European immigrants that arrived later just bought into that already established idea. That's just my impression though, you're the united statian here.

Now that I think about it you guys are quite lucky you didn't end up like Hispanic American countries that disintegrated after independence.I've always wanted to see how strong Gran Colombia/Peru-Bolivia/Rio del Plata is

Attached: 1200px-Flag_of_the_Peru-Bolivian_Confederation.svg.png (1200x800, 163K)

It was "lucky" in the sense that if Pedro I hadn't stayed in Brazil after independence (of which he was convinced to by José Bonifácio) we probably would have desintegrated, yes. But it also took a considerable amount of bloodshed to supress separatist revolt. We have Duke of Caxias to thank for that, aka the Iron Duke.

I know about how the South tried to secede yea
Honestly the more I see Brazil the more I see a country that lost every chance it had at being stable since the monarchy ended
You guys deserve power status but God knows yall will just abuse it and Brazil will devolve into a dictatorship again
Also you know any books about Brazil's history since its independence?

Murrifats move there to retire

Attached: nihongo_no_Minami.jpg (760x640, 149K)

I'm just talking about stability when it comes to politics,i mean, their presidents at least terminate their mandates, while in most of latinamerica you have former presidents on jail or on trial.

>a country that lost every chance it had at being stable since the monarchy ended

iktf. But in all fairness, it's not that simple as we still have a very present encroached oligarchy, derived from feudal landlords I mentioned, doing their best to keep the status quo. We had our share of great leaders (Pedro II being the most notorious, but also Getulio Vargas, Juscelino Kubitschek, and - bolsominions forgive me - Lula), but despite their efforts it still wasn't enough to retake control from the petty elite. It will happen in due time, though, hopefully in our lifetime.

And about the books, I'm not sure I have any to recommend. I studied some sociology texts but I doubt they're translated. But you can always look for authors like Gilberto Freyre, Roberto DaMatta, Sergio Buarque de Hollanda, Caio Prado Jr and Jessé Souza (imo the best of all, also the most recent, but I doubt you'll find translations for his texts. The others are classics of brazilian sociology so maybe you'll bump into some, if you look for it)

>jungle mexico is worse than desert brazil
ok kid

Don't wanna start a shitflinging but Lula just got elected at a time where China was buying fucktons of commodities from us, that's why our economy grew a lot in his mandate.
Had him actually invested in stuff for development he might been the greatest President.

Yeah, I thought mentioning Lula would be controversial. I'm too dumb to discuss whether his government's economical decisions were good or bad, I just mentioned him because in spite of everything (from promoting cultural marxism to corruption scandals) I think he was genuinely worried about what was best for his people, in his view, and we improved sensibly during his presidency. He contributed very positively to how brazilians were seen, by themselves and other countries.

Lula had Charisma, which is pretty good for soft-power.

1st thing Lula did when he was elected was the weapons' retrieve program: tons of cucks delivering their weapons to the federal police as a consequence of the 2003 weapons prohibition law.

also, lula was the one to inject artificial credit in our market, resulting on all of our economical problems of today.

SO, no, Lula was a "great leader" due to a decade of massive marketing that sold him as "the Savior" and "our Jesus", appealing to the fucking care-based morality of the masses.
He was the imbecile motherfucker that had the best scenario to improve tremendously our lives, but instead chose to cripple our relations with the most wealthy countries on the world while lending our money to useless low GDP & HDI countries (Cuba, Angola, Haiti, Venezuela and tons of others).

The only good thing that Lula did indeed was the expansion of the Fernando Henrique's Fome Zero program with Bolsa Senpaiília; though still a failure, since it doesn't give the incentive to the parasites to improve their lives ( pic related ), and only increases the welfare spending.

Attached: charity_more_poverty.png (550x1600, 599K)

>Senpaiília
huuhh... idk what happened here. It's "senpaiília"

>I see a country that lost every chance it had at being stable since the monarchy ended
The First Republic (1889-1930) managed to establish some degree of political stability too (although not as much as Pedro II's reign). Coup culture only arose when Vargas deposed Washington Luís in 1930.

>Also you know any books about Brazil's history since its independence?
If you want a general, but quite superficial introduction you should look for Boris Fausto's Concise History of Brazil. The colonial period is included, though.

I'll disagree with my fellow monkey. I think our sense of national unity is one of the few great achievements in our history. A proof of this is that no seccession revolt or crisis has taken place since the 1830s, even when the federal government was weakened (First Republic) or the country heavily divided.

>what is Revolution of 32

The only thing that makes a mutt nation united is trough strengh, military victories to be exact.
Why do you think the US is (or used to be) so united?

The Revolution of 32 had no separatist aims. One group of revolutionaries wanted a liberal democracy while the reactionaries wished a return to the First Republic. Only isolated voices advocated seccession.

What you said makes sense, but I think we're using the same words for different things. Indeed we didn't have as many separatist revolts as a country this big and diverse would suggest, and indeed that was precisely because somehow the feeling of "brazilianness" was stronger to the local identity of the separatists.

What I meant to say when I mentioned we lack national identity is basically people realizing precisely what you just said, that our country is actually pretty good and has quite some accomplishments to be proud of, instead of just spouting the same "omg here sucks so much corruption brazil is a shithole". And I think that is changing, that we are living in a turning point where brazilians are starting to see themselves and their (our) culture under a new, better light.

But it was the only time in our 20th century history where we actually had a civil war.
Brazilians were never united until very recently with Europe's autism over the Amazon.

Sud America is cursed.

this 100%, and add the later immigrations that think they're are better than the rest and isolate themselves (e.g. the japanese) and we have one the lowest trust nations in the world (even between the richer and "whiter" demographics)
very redpilled opinion, lad, it's too easy to blame the africans for our failures

Attached: C4.jpg (478x478, 46K)

Why do hues love to talk so much about themselves?

Brazillian Monarchy

Anyway, most Latin American nations were okay until a few centuries ago.

>ywn shoot pro-Vargas troops with 50. cal machineguns in your armored train

Why live?

Attached: file.png (400x262, 123K)

a new era is dawning, brother.

would you say chileans have a strong sense of national identity?

The US will be annexed by Mexico, Europe will become a caliphate, your country will be annexed by China. I think we're alright.

Bolsonaro's counter culture (actually is all Olavo de Carvalho's fault)

Attached: based.gif (220x124, 799K)

>brazilians nowadays are more than ever conscious of their (our) identity
I don't think there's a "Brazilian" identity per se, we only come to rally under the flag when we want to oust corrupt politicians, which is exactly how a federative republic should be. Each region has its own culture and local identity. We're a union of peoples, not a singular blob of communist sameness.

That's the best way to describe. Brazilian indentity will never be a think, each region is too different "culturally" from each other.

yet at the same time there is something that binds all these peoples together. I agree that each region has it's own unique culture but you can't deny that there is something shared by all of them, which makes it possible to identify them all as Brazilians. That something is our national identity.

The country since imperial times, all the states are too dependant on each other.

each Latin American country had a moment of stability and economic prosperity at some particular time

Attached: 1544464635233.jpg (990x660, 74K)

But brazil and chile are stable
Uruguay kinda is too

Here in brazil only americans and some europeans, but mostly are people from poor latam countries like bolivia

Hard to be stable when there all Mexican jumping beans :)

>Brazilians were never united until very recently with Europe's autism over the Amazon.
Wrong. The first national democratic movement was the abolitionist campaign in the 1880s.

You're more Hispanic than we are.

Attached: Spanish_speakers_in_the_Americas_(orthographic_projection).svg.png (1024x1024, 310K)

>yet at the same time there is something that binds all these peoples together
Meh. The same can be felt in most Latin American countries. I've been to Colombia, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and I feel attached to them as much as I feel attached to Brazil.

I feel little attachment with the spics

>brazilians calling neighbor spics

Why do you people try so hard to imitate americans?
You do know that for them you are also a spic, right?

That's because you're an edgy manchild with no social life who has never been to any of those countries.

Attached: zz.png (468x356, 48K)

Spic = Hispanic. I care very little about what the average American think.

Fuck off, commie. Brazil is no more "latino" than Québec. The Hispanics never considered Brazil as part of their "Latinoamerica" or "Patria Grande" until the 50s, and to this day we're utterly ignored when they discuss this concept.

Stop being such a prostitute

Your life must be fun.

Monkey

Attached: marielle2.jpg (720x847, 52K)

"Spanish America" or "Hispanic America" is literally what you're referring to. You guys are even more included than us when discussing about Latin America. Latin America was also coined by Napoleon III, so you bet Quebec should be just as Latin American.

Latin America is an overused term that has been misused ignorantly by westerners and even people from the supposed region. It should just die already. Instead of contributing to the misusage, try using the terms more appropiate for the cultural heritage each regions have.

You must study your own homeland more.

youtube.com/watch?v=nwWLckQNbe4

>spic
>monkey

You must be special. And I'm not even a leftist but of course a Jow Forumsack incel would throw a political tantrum at anything that remotely resembles leftist ideas. You talk about me being a prostitute for feeling attached to Hispanic countries as much as I do to Brazil but at the same time you're throwing spics and monkeys around as if you're a westerner.

Check this out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongrel_complex

And you should consider leaving this country, perhaps the entire continent and anything south of the US. Do what every other mongrel complex subhuman in this country does and go become a prostitute in Portugal or Spain, marry a fat gay boomer and get a permanent visa, that might suit you.

>Latin America is an overused term that has been misused ignorantly by westerners and even people from the supposed region

That is true. But they do use Latin America and Hispanic America as synonyms and, although Mexico and Cuba receive desproportionate attention, there IS some degree of unity between the Hispanics. One of the first proponents of a Hispanic American confederacy was San Martín.

But you do are a mongrel. Not racially but certainly culturally. I'm assure myself that you've never opened any great book written by your fellow countrymen. Instead you accept a foreign concept (latinidad) out of personal insecurity and projects such insecurity on those who disagree, using obscene language and chimping out when replied to in the same manner. If there's someone with a mongrel complex it's you.

I don't know what kind of shit you have in your head, whether you're a communist or a catholic hispanist or something else. But you surely have a severe lack of understanding about your own nation. Study more:
youtube.com/watch?v=nwWLckQNbe4

Yeah, I know, but the term is used differently. For us hispanics, it is a synomym for hispanic, though I honestly don't understand why anyone went through adopting the term "latino" when there was already a word for it. Of course, there were pro-indigenous people who felt that "hispanic" was imposed by the conquerors, but that's also stupid, given that the "latin" identity comes from sharing a cultural heritage by romance speaking nations, which in the end also always end up turning back to Spain, AKA the conquerors, so it feels just like another case of people here being ignorant.

People in Anglo America on the other hand, do use it as a synonym, but it usually depends on the one you're asking. Some of them have used it for Hispanic America (which is why some actually start arguing against considering Brazil as part of it once they get to know it better), some use it as a synonym for Ibero-America which would in fact include you guys, while others just use it as a synonym for everything south of the border (this one is the most incorrect one for obvious reasons).

And honestly, this is the main problem I have with the usage, why keep using a term that wasn't entirely made by the people there and get confused about it's meaning? There have even been others who have coined it as a racial meaning and to argue that makes them not part of Latin America (Mexican pro-natives and Southern Cornerers LARPing as white), and of course, using it as a synonym for a specific term for a denomination that already exist (Hispanic America/Ibero-America) just makes it lose any purpose for existing altogether. That's why I genuinely hate the Latin American term, it's the most autistic denomination that haven't seen a concrete agreement, even by some intellectuals mostly because of how botched up it's usage has been right from the start.

como estan ecuador y peru con su estabilidad?

we did till 1965 when third worlders came en masse. till then, there was only select tensions (against catholics, irish, germans during wwi/ii, and blacks)

I live in a city with 2 million inhabitants and aside from other latin americans, mainly argies and peruvians, most of foreigners that I've met that decided to set residence here are at least "half-brazilian".
In uni I see a shitload of people: americans, dutch, germans, english, congolese, angolans, mozambicans, cape verdeans, bissau guineans, middle easterners.
I think nowadays the chinese are the largest immigrant group. They usually open up shops that sell pic related or electronic stores. There was even a big bust of counterfeit shit in SP this year and a lot of them were owned by chinese and also koreans.
Russian kids in school were also a thing.

Attached: pastel-de-frango-e-palmito-e-milho-22299.jpg (1200x883, 185K)

Unlike you I actually traveled through Latin America and have friends from numerous countries, even countries I didn't visit yet like Mexico and Ecuador. You don't have to show me videos of gringos trying to explain to me what Latin America is, I'm born here and I've been to quite a few Latin American countries to know by experience what it's like.

>projects such insecurity on those who disagree, using obscene language and chimping out
Look at this dude. You call your neighbors spics and your fellow countrymen monkeys while calling me a leftist and throwing political tantrums in an anime forum on the internet. I did not offend you a single time itt. I bet you're also the one making daily threads about Brazil being a shithole and how you want to emigrate. No self-awareness whatsoever.

And yet you're expecting me to support Brazilian incels like you instead of my Hispanic friends and the concept of Latinidad after everything I've seen and learned by actual experience. Go bang your head against a wall until you pass out and hopefully you'll wake up with an IQ slightly above room temperature and a personality that allows to interact with other people like a normal human being.

I wouldn't care having Brazil included into "Latin America" if the French-speaking polities, specially Québec, were included too and the concept wasn't so pervasively used. "Anglo-America" is a thing, but very few people talk about an "Anglo-American history" or "Anglo-American culture".

Have sex. Do you honestly believe Brazil is so special and unique as to be as different to Colombia as they are to Quebec? How delusional can you be, I'm legit interested.

>You don't have to show me videos of gringos trying to explain to me what Latin America is

>I did not offend you a single time itt

>I bet you're also the one making daily threads about Brazil being a shithole and how you want to emigrate

>Go bang your head against a wall until you pass out and hopefully you'll wake up with an IQ slightly above room temperature and a personality that allows to interact with other people like a normal human being

And this guy calls me a manchild!

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 10K)

The Brazilian NatSoc: hates spics and monkeys. Is very proud of his pure Germanic blood.

Attached: 1452918670952.jpg (900x600, 80K)

Kek

Attached: 161.jpg (680x823, 133K)

No, we got diddled by USA and the Clowns In Action for the better part of a century.

Attached: Bildschirmfoto20181230um10.14.44.png (740x613, 722K)

There were some spanish moving to chile with the 2008 crisis.

there's not going to be true stability as long as the us exists

Attached: 1560657358594.gif (3300x1619, 1.33M)

al presidente electo de peru lo sacaron por corrupto

Hubo un intento de golpe de estado en Ecuador hace pocos años.

a multicultural shithole will never be stable

Just depends on what you mean by stability

yeah if one of them was a British colony

>Jamaica 2.0

Attached: disgusted.jpg (800x450, 43K)

I would unironically rather live in Jamaica than your shithole

...Guyana?

Is that supposed to be an insult? I don't want anglos, and you *should* stay in your designated caribbean colonies, we already kicked you out three times.

Attached: Battle of San Juan.png (419x980, 213K)