What about Brazil for a first game?

[unmerged(2567)]

Originally posted by PMLF
But there isn't a Mexican ethnicity like the Dixie one, for instance. What they apparently did about the Latin American ethnicities is likei f they decided that the American ethnicity was English instead of Dixie, Yankee and Texan.

Right, but we have two examples now:

1. Where they have a Mexico without a Mexican ethnicity.
2. Where they have a Cuba with a Cuban (creole) ethnicity.

This leads me to conclude that we have a 50-50 chance of having a Brazilian ethnicity, and that therefore, we shouldn't jump the gun and say that there is no Brazilian ethnicity even while we've got examples of both having one and not.

I completely agree that if the Brazilian ethnicity is not represented, it should be.

 

[pimparel]

Originally posted by Napoleon_VI
I completely agree that if the Brazilian ethnicity is not represented, it should be.

Thanks!!!

 

[unmerged(20240)]

Re: Re: Brazilian independence - a Portuguese view

Originally posted by pimparel
As I said from 3 million, half was african ethinies from the portuguese colonies there, a quarter south american indians (tupi and guarani) and the last quarter was divided among portuguese and brazilians. I realy dont know how was distributed but I believe something like 60/40 portuguese/brazilian

But when you say brazilian, you are talking of descendents from previous portuguese migration waves, right? Also, the ones that we call portuguese 20 years afterwards probably were called brazilians. Perhaps it's a matter of generations andmigration waves.

Also I would say that cultural diferences betwen inhabitants of Portugal and European origin inhabitants of Brazil were very mitigated at least when compared with the current ones.

By all means it is a very dificult definition - but I understand you, it doesn't seam fair to just say that all the European descendents were portuguese nationals.

 

[unmerged(16363)]

Someone here told that the mexicans are descendants from mayans and incas... in fact, they can be from mayans and aztecs!

:rofl:

Well, just a small advertisement... since there are way too many brazilians viewing this thread, please you, brazilian brother, click on a special link on my signature... yes, the one written in Portuguese!

 

[pimparel]

Re: Re: Re: Brazilian independence - a Portuguese view

Originally posted by Geraldo
But when you say brazilian, you are talking of descendents from previous portuguese migration waves, right? Also, the ones that we call portuguese 20 years afterwards probably were called brazilians. Perhaps it's a matter of generations andmigration waves.

Not only their descendents, but the fruit also of the union of african and indians, or europeans with the previous. And since 1500 the brazilian colonization began, so the descendants of those portuguese 300 years later are indeed Brazilians

 

[unmerged(20240)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Brazilian independence - a Portuguese view

Originally posted by pimparel
Not only their descendents, but the fruit also of the union of african and indians, or europeans with the previous. And since 1500 the brazilian colonization began, so the descendants of those portuguese 300 years later are indeed Brazilians

Partial agreement on that; they were Brazilian born, but they were raised either by their European families or by their African/Indian families. I'm positive we all agree that the color of the skin does not determine your Nationality.

But in any case, the only thing I'm sayng is that possibly in the early eighteen century it could be a bit hard to define a Brazilian Nationality as it would be expected for a recent country. Even when we talk about the Portuguese controling all the commerce just before independence, maybe we are just talking of a conflict between Portuguese descendets (and OK also in part Indian/African descendents but defenitily the ones raised by European families) and newcomers (the ones that came with the Royal Family).

I would say that a consistent National conscienceness may have appeared only in the midle/late eighteen century (also due to the massive imigration came later on - we always need to keep in mind that the population at Independence date was very small when compared with for instance the end of the eighteen century). What I would found absolutely impressive would be if the game would be able to include this shift, from whatever you want to call it at Independence date to a Brazilian Nationality a feww decades afterwards. That would really be something.

Ei, is that Brazilian clan open to other portuguese speakers? (I used to live in Rio, do I qualify as Brazilian?)

 

[unmerged(16363)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brazilian independence - a Portuguese view

Geraldo... I think you mean the nineteen century here (1800's)!

 

[MegaPIMP]

The question is, are there a Brazilian nationallity in the other 2 scenarios?

Or maybe just the ww1 scenario?

 

[PMLF]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brazilian independence - a Portuguese view

Originally posted by Geraldo
Partial agreement on that; they were Brazilian born, but they were raised either by their European families or by their African/Indian families. I'm positive we all agree that the color of the skin does not determine your Nationality.

....

Ei, is that Brazilian clan open to other portuguese speakers? (I used to live in Rio, do I qualify as Brazilian?)

The best way to represent it in the game would be to create a Brazilian ethnicity but to also let a Portuguese minority in Brazil.

EG:

Brazilian: 45%
African Minor: 48%
Tupi, Guarani, Jê and other native Americans: 3%
Portuguese: 2%
Dutch: 1%
Spanish: 1%

 

[unmerged(10240)]

Originally posted by PMLF
I agree with you. He was probably the best ever ruler of Brazil and thanks to him Brazil was very stable (for South America patterns). I am big fan of D. Pedro II and the monarchy.

-Best ruler? The guy was a complete idiot. Economic policy of the empire was based on free trade and slave labor, while the USA followed strong protecionist policies and was largely based on wage labor. The result? By 1900 our per Capita GNP was 1/10 of that from USA, despite the fact we were not very different by 1800 (actually Brazil had a better economic performance than USA in XX century, the differnece between those countries are largely the result of absence of protecionist and industrialist policies in Brazil from 1822 to 1930). He also insisted on taking the Paraguay war to a total victory, while a truce was feasible as soon the Paraguay offensive was repulsed. This costed us 50,000 soldiers (many of them slaves...the Empire didn´t consider them as persons), while war expenses amounted to 11 TIMES the annual pre war budget, further worsening the poor situation of our economy. And what about the 1877-78 famine, which killed 500,000-1,000,000 people? The emperor was more worried with the "property rights" (obviously people were stealing cattle and food) than with help to starving people.
-On the other side, the empire was able to keep our country unified. We owe this to the Caxias Duke (our best military commander) than to Peter the pathetic....

 

[PMLF]

Originally posted by afenelon
-Best ruler? The guy was a complete idiot. Economic policy of the empire was based on free trade and slave labor, while the USA followed strong protecionist policies and was largely based on wage labor. The result? By 1900 our per Capita GNP was 1/10 of that from USA, despite the fact we were not very different by 1800 (actually Brazil had a better economic performance than USA in XX century, the differnece between those countries are largely the result of absence of protecionist and industrialist policies in Brazil from 1822 to 1930). He also insisted on taking the Paraguay war to a total victory, while a truce was feasible as soon the Paraguay offensive was repulsed. This costed us 50,000 soldiers (many of them slaves...the Empire didn´t consider them as persons), while war expenses amounted to 11 TIMES the annual pre war budget, further worsening the poor situation of our economy. And what about the 1877-78 famine, which killed 500,000-1,000,000 people? The emperor was more worried with the "property rights" (obviously people were stealing cattle and food) than with help to starving people.
-On the other side, the empire was able to keep our country unified. We owe this to the Caxias Duke (our best military commander) than to Peter the pathetic....

The rulers after him were not better than him IMO. And at least thanks to the monarchy Brazil was stable (compared to other Latin American countries, not to European countries). We didn't have civil wars nor coup d'etats (until 1889).

 

[unmerged(10240)]

Originally posted by PMLF
The rulers after him were not better than him IMO. And at least thanks to the monarchy Brazil was stable (compared to other Latin American countries, not to European countries). We didn't have civil wars nor coup d'etats (until 1889).

-If you look at economic performance, the best results were achieved from 1930 to 1973, under policies of protecionism and state capitalism. However, unequality increased and human developed improvements were mediocre even under those governments. If you consider all the Brazilian governments dumb, I agree with you, with the possible exception of Vargas....
-On the empire, we of course had civil wars. There were the Farroupilha Revolution, The Cabanada (in Pará, which killed as much as 10% of the province population), the liberal revolution in 1842, disturbances in Maranhão. Nothing like Colombia, but also far from Switzerland.....

 

[unmerged(16363)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brazilian independence - a Portuguese view

Originally posted by Geraldo
Ei, is that Brazilian clan open to other portuguese speakers? (I used to live in Rio, do I qualify as Brazilian?)

Don't need to be strictly brazilian, nor there is need to have "members" on the clan... just go there! You're welcome!

 

[PMLF]

Originally posted by afenelon
-If you look at economic performance, the best results were achieved from 1930 to 1973, under policies of protecionism and state capitalism. However, unequality increased and human developed improvements were mediocre even under those governments. If you consider all the Brazilian governments dumb, I agree with you, with the possible exception of Vargas....

Vargas sympathized with the Nazis, he killed many enemies of the regime (many more than the 1964-1985 dictatorship). Although he did good things like the CLT (Consolidação das Leis do Trabalho) and the investment on Siderurgy (is that the word in English?) the fact that he was a dictator excludes him from being good ruler IMO. And I agree that ALL rules in Brazil were/are dumb and it seems the current one is the dumbest of all...

Originally posted by afenelon
-
-On the empire, we of course had civil wars. There were the Farroupilha Revolution, The Cabanada (in Pará, which killed as much as 10% of the province population), the liberal revolution in 1842, disturbances in Maranhão. Nothing like Colombia, but also far from Switzerland.....

It's true that there were revolts, mostly during the Regencial period, but during D.Pedro II government Brazil was very stable (until the 1880s at least).

 

[pimparel]

Originally posted by PMLF
It's true that there were revolts, mostly during the Regencial period, but during D.Pedro II government Brazil was very stable (until the 1880s at least).

As I first said, he is still dumb, don't forget that during the earlier years the empire was governed by "Regentes". The was greater man behind the emperor, he was a fantoche!

When the cat was away, the mouse made party and abolished the slave work (not that I am against), but how the hell didn't he saw it coming!!! He traveled more than FHC and Lula together, the last trip took almost 2 years.

Still dumb!!!!

 

[PMLF]

When the cat was away, the mouse made party and abolished the slave work (not that I am against), but how the hell didn't he saw it coming!!! He traveled more than FHC and Lula together, the last trip took almost 2 years.

Still dumb!!!!

Maybe he was Dumb and all the others were dumb as well as I said before.

As for his trips, you have to remember that it was the 19th Century. It wasn't possible to be in another country for only 5 or 10 days like it is today. He had to be in another country for at least 4 months. Of ocurse the idea of traveling was dumb, but the length of the trips wasn't totally his fault.

 

[unmerged(20240)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brazilian independence - a Portuguese view

Originally posted by Anibal
Geraldo... I think you mean the nineteen century here (1800's)!

Yes that' it.

 

[unmerged(20240)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brazilian independence - a Portuguese view

Originally posted by PMLF
The best way to represent it in the game would be to create a Brazilian ethnicity but to also let a Portuguese minority in Brazil.

EG:

Brazilian: 45%
African Minor: 48%
Tupi, Guarani, Jê and other native Americans: 3%
Portuguese: 2%
Dutch: 1%
Spanish: 1%

Come on! Give us a bit more! We are few in any case, lets not overreact. Honestly, there should be much more Portuguese than Spaniards.

 

[Galeno]

Come on! Give us a bit more! We are few in any case, lets not overreact. Honestly, there should be much more Portuguese than Spaniards.

I agree. Despite the fact that my mother was Spanish (ok, ok, she's from Galicia, almost Portugal, just beyond the Minho river...), I agree that should be more Portuguese, counting the guys that consider themselves Portuguese during the beggining of the XIX century.

 

[unmerged(16363)]

And Dutch can be considered zero by those days. In fact IIRC they didn't bring much colonizers, and the few were all assimilated with our local culture.