Thanks. Will read. I'm not one to go out there to debate just so i can read my words. I can say only about my experience and from those around me, so it's always anedotical. Don't mind seeing other realities.
Kudos to youI can confirm. The same thing exist in every country until there is proper historical work and conscientization. People hardly realize that slavery was a real thing down here (Uruguay). In Argentina, most people think that they were no slaves nor africans neither. Most of them were massacred during the 19th century.
I'm pretty sure that before the civil right movement, most US Whites would think that slavery was not that harsh.
The "nice and gentle" brazil didn't mind sending military force in Uruguay during the 19th century, to capture tens of thousands runaways slaves.
Didn't Franco and Pinochet kind of step down?
Eeeh, Franco died and his right hand man who would have continued the dictatorship had been assassinated so we got a king who decided it may be good to have a democracy because the public kinda demanded it, even then we nearly got another military coup. A better example of pacific change would be the portuguese one which had a popular revolt forcing them out in a not violent way and probably showed the high rankings in spain that it was better if they did the samd.
Yeah, about that. I also don't like the idea of e-voting and I would much rather a paper based system, but it's really not one of our most urgent problems right now. There are a lot of worse practices that should be tackled first, besides a lot of people like e-voting and changing back to paper might make people stop voting (even though we have mandatory voting we have had abstentions of over 20% in the last elections as is). The problem here is a lot more how people choose who they are going to vote for rather than how they vote for them. The party system is ignored by a lot of people, most choose who they will vote for based on looks, charisma and some sketchy promises for that campaign rather than any ideological trait, so you may have people voting for a "leftist" candidate for mayor and in the same election voting for a far-right candidate for congress. To give a better idea of what this does, we currently have 25 different parties in the national Congress, so the government needs the support of at least 6 or 7 "big" parties to have a majority and even then that's not guaranteed because politicians vote more along what they want rather than vote according to what the party wants. Then if you want to do any major change you need 2/3 of congress to amend the constitution and you do need to do that a lot, because we have a constitution that tries to tackle everything. So far our constitution has had 91 amendments and it's only 29 years-old.
It's a bit exaggerated, I don't think we are really that close to actually having another military rule, but there are a lot of people who want that. Right now I guess the closest we would have to a military rule is if Bolsonaro wins the election and after a while tries a coup, but even that is not that probable. I still think Bolsonaro has no chance of winning, as he doesn't have the resources to do a country-wide campaign. He'd need massive donations to make that possible, he'd need political contacts with mayors or at least important local groups to make rallys, he'd need big TV campaign ads and he will likely not have most of that.
^This. You may want a military dictatorship all you want, but you can never control how long it will last and how gruesome it will be. Our last military dictatorship began in 1964 because a lot of politicians wanted to out the "communist" president and they believed the military would do a really fast coup and then return the government to them. They were wrong. The military government lasted until 1985 and during this period some of the politicians who supported the coup were later persecuted by it. Also people who defend the military dictatorship seem to forget that a lot of our corrupt politicians got to power thanks to the military, a famous one is Paulo Maluf who started his political career by being appointed by the military to several different governmental roles, today he is involved in a lot of corruption scandals and Interpol even has an extradiction order to send him to the US for prosecution.
There IS, i think a small chance, general Mourão Said last week about intervention to correct the corruption If the judiciary cant solve It. General vilas boas Said this IS not true, but Said that the army can do a intervention If Brazil is a Chaos.
He didn't just go paranoid, he went full-fascist dictator during the late 30s and never really changed even after being closer to the allies at the end of WW2. I don't want to undermine the notion that there were some important positive aspects during his period in power but let's not get carried away.
Yeah, i share your worry with this word
I read the article, but by then Brazil was already an independent nation since the 1820s. Before Brazil's independence the idea of Portuguese in the colonies having children with other ethnicities was already a somewhat common thing throughout the Portuguese empire. That's pretty much one of the few things that distinguished the Portuguese empire from other colonial powers of the time.
