What do you think about Pedro II, emperor of Brazil?

File: 1460939467567.jpg (40KB, 632x377px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 632x377px

Petista pls go

Slavery was maintained for so long precisely because D. Pedro had instituted a constitutional monarchy and relinquished absolute power, and this power into into the hands of the only people learned and qualified enough to actually run the country, wealthy aristocrats who didn't care for the abolition movement.

So what if it was a monarchy, does that make it automatically bad? Remaining a monarchy actually had Brazil emerge as a stable power with a clear political hierarchy and not a war-torn land like most of the rest of South America, which fell into internal conflict between the various freed states as well as civil war inside those states. Brazil meanwhile was mostly peaceful except for a few small rebellions and Guerra dos Farrapos. Also, a political union between Brazil and Portugal, where both states were united into a single polity and not merely a case of Portugal ruling over Brazil would have been beneficial to both parties.

I will not deny that there were excesses in Paraguay, but Paraguay at the time was the North Korea of the 1800s, and they started a war for absolutely no reason against our neighbors. If we had done nothing and Paraguay had won, we would have been their next target.

He was usurped by a traitor who openly followed positivism that described the best form of government as a dictatorship. Under Deodoro the nation was much less free and democratic than it had been as a monarchy, and the republican leaders of that early period were absolutely unfit for governing, and we are still reeling from the instability they caused by deposing the Emperor. And the only reason he didn't live the rest of his life in Brazil was because he didn't want to plunge the country into civil war, and because he honestly thought that republicanism would be best for his country, and because of that you could certainly say that he was a fool who doomed us all.

>>1653338
Paraguay had already invaded Brazil, in fact.

>>1653259
Vete a tu cama, Francisco Solano Lopez.

>>1653338
Calling a historical figure with honorifics says a lot about your level of bias.

Do you think it is okay then for a country to prosper through the biggest Native genocide in history, inhuman treatment of slaves in one of the biggest transatlantic trades and by obliterating a country?

File: 1458173858890-int.jpg (130KB, 949x718px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 949x718px

>>1653402
And no, while I certainly don't find it "okay" this would be judging him, and any contemporary, by 2016 standards. Values and cultures change over time, doing such things today would be terrible, but in his time it was the norm. The treatment of the natives and the African slaves was disgusting, but you yourself seem to have a bias towards these people just because they were oppressed, which, again, I'm not saying was a good thing. Just, consider for a moment that those Natives and those Africans waged wars, slaughtered people, sacked cities and took slaves too. This is how human society has functioned for all of its history. Tribe A waged war on Tribe B, won, and took all their things for the betterment of their tribe, then Tribe C came, waged war against Tribe B, won, and took their things for their own benefit, and so on and so on until the European came and defeated Tribe #5426 and took their things for their own benefit. After all, like the Natives fought between themselves, so did the Europeans, and when they stumbled upon the Americas and met the people there, why would they possibly think to treat those people any different?

What would you expect from the European when he came to America and Africa? That they take a Prime Directive approach and all agree to not disturb these primitive beings in their habitats like animals? Do you believe that there were absolutely no Natives or Africans who attacked or wanted to attack Europeans unprovoked to take their cool things? This is perfectly natural human behavior, why are only Europeans vilified for it? Up until about 1300, Europe was an irrelevant backwater, until something happened to elevate the people there above their Muslim and Mongol neighbors who were invading their lands. Were they supposed to do nothing about this? In the competition of life, Euros won, and now their declining, and China is gaining primacy again. And that's just the way things are.

>>1653259
Might be a bit racist now, but as a white person, I just can't help but laughing out loud when I hear "Emperor Pedro".

>>1654281
You have a very superficial understanding of history and are comparing things that have a very different magnitude. There were millions of slaves shipped to America and millions of natives killed. How does that compare to a few fights among African tribes? The only thing worse than colonization was WW1 and WW2... which was an European thing again. But well, the natives from America and Africans are barbarians anyway apparently.

Furthermore, you seem hold the false belief that the past was "just cruel" and that everything was acceptable... Even in the Bible, 2000 years ago there were rules on how to deal with war and slavery in the most humane way possible. The world kept developing these ideals, hell, the first Geneva convention was made already in the 19th century.

Studying things in context, many countries were more humane than Brazil during Pedro II reign. Brazil was a relatively civilized and rich country by then, it was not a land of savages. It literally had no excuse to allow the things that happened there. For all the shit the US get in this board, we have to admit that Brazil did worse in every single sense.

File: Pedro-sanchez.jpg (159KB, 445x418px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 445x418px

>>1654318

>>1654318
Pedro II was White.

You mean "as an American".

>>1654318
>Ameriburger
>white
60/100.

File: 1460941185404-pol.jpg (107KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 768x1024px

>>1654537
And you seem to have a pretentious and overly optimistic view of human beings. The magnitude of the acts are irrelevant. Europeans did it because circumstance put them in a position where they could, and Natives and Africans didn't because they couldn't, but they would have, if that option was available to them.

>But well, the natives from America and Africans are barbarians anyway apparently.

Yes, but so were Europeans, they're exactly the same, is what I'm saying. The only real difference being the scale on which they committed despicable acts. See, for example, the Chinese, which at various points had the largest army in the world and got into immensely bloody conflicts that led to the death of sometimes millions of soldiers and non-combatants, the only difference being that these were civil wars within the Middle Kingdom, and the dynasties didn't have much of a desire to expand outside, does that make them better?

>Furthermore, you seem hold the false belief that the past was "just cruel" and that everything was acceptable

No, not really, just the ideals that you describe, from the Code of Hammurabi to the Geneva Convention are just that, ideals, guidelines, and they were enforced so well that today we don't have violence and war in the world, right :^)?

Those ideals are important, and really are helping humanity move forward into a more ideal reality, but this ideal future is a perfection, something that we'll always be striving toward but never reaching, because ideals don't change brain chemistry. We today think in the exact same ways as people from 50,000 years ago. The day world peace and prosperity is achieved, the day when not one person is in any way dominated by another, if and/or when that actually happens, then we won't be human anymore.

>>1653402
Various butthurt slave owners joined the republican cause after brazil abolished the slavery
they were the ones in favor to slavery,not Pedro

File: eu-amo-matar-nordestinos.jpg (79KB, 680x497px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 680x497px

>humiliated Argentina
>destroyed the agressor Paraguay
>the man absolutely hated being an Emperor, but worked day and night because he knew it was his duty

Man, Republic doesn't mean anything. Even me, a gaucho, have to recognize the value of Pedro II.

>Rio Grande do Sul decides to tell the Empire to fuck off and create our own republic
>10 years of war
>peace signed
>back in the union again
>state preserves its Republican ideals
>fast forward a few decades
>Canudos
>Gauchos are the most savage soldiers slitting the throat of elders, women, and kids without even caring

This is your republican freedom right there. Without even counting that the United States were a republic since their foundation and pretty much genocided their natives while in Brazil they were naturally integrated into society.

Not our fault if you can't recognize based leaders.

>>1654975
>and they were enforced so well that today we don't have violence and war in the world, right
He said that at least to follow some basic guidelines when waging wars or competitions. It did work during the Cold War, as the term Mutually-Assured Destruction was prominent back then. It means that ideals and rules, if not taken seriously back then (and today too), can annihilate the entire planet. Like WMD again, for example.

One country chimping out could cost us all. It seems the present era needs a person(s) who is not only powerful, but also wise. Someone who can view something from a bigger point of view in a long term. Would it be far-fetched to say those 'empty words' are more important than ever, as we become more powerful and advanced?

>>1656472
What is the gaucho opinion of Dom Pedro II?
I mean his ascension to the throne was one of the reasons for the end of the ragmuffin war.

as a portuguese i find this man an extraordinary individual in a line of incompetent idiots who ruined my country

>>1656754
grow cannabis

>>1656779
explain

>>1656791
make portugal great again

>>1656799
by growing cannabis?

>>1656803
yes

To the hues, explain the your regional memes. I've heard something similar to the south will rise again from you guys

>>1656818
Portugal has no future anymore. Maybe if spain anex them.

t. brazilian

>>1656851
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragamuffin_War

>>1656948
>Ragamuffin War
Sounds like a meme war.

Dom Pedro II>Vargas>Kubitschek>power gap>FHC>Lula>Quadros>power gap>the rest

>>1656878
the european union already did that

'MURICAN here

He was a pimp.

Much respect.

>>1656472
>>the man absolutely hated being an Emperor, but worked day and night because he knew it was his duty

>>1656542
Most people nowadays don't really know about him. But if it's not a leftist "muh slavery" the major consent is that he was a great emperor.

>>1657010
>hurrrrr meme war
>doesn't even care to search

>>>/int/

>>1656851
Northeast = Machete duels lawless wasteland

North = People non-ironically get shot by lost arrows
Bônus = Acre(state) either doesn't exist, is inhabited by dinosaurs or aliens.

Center-west = You either own a plantation or you work in one

South-east:
São Paulo = Cucks.
Rio de Janeiro = pew pew pew pew pew stab.
Minas Gerais = Pão de Queijo.

South:
Paraná = Region where everything weird as fuck happens, non-coincidentally the region received mass immigration of slavs.
Santa Catarina = Beautiful places, you can get killed in the small cities just for being brown with a funny accent.
Rio Grande do Sul = Separatism and gay.

>>1656754
Don't worry tuga even when the EU swallow you up we will take good care of your culture.

>>1657155
BUNDA SAMBA CRIME E DROGA CARAI POHRRHA

ao menos preservem o ouro negro

>>1657177
Não se preocupe.
Nós vamos cuidar do seu ouro do mesmo jeito que você cuidou do nosso.

>>1657200
;))))
andamos muito engraçados senhor brasuca

>>1657203
Eu acho que é do sangue.

>>1657223
não-ironicamente adoro brasucas no 4chan, vocês são hilariantes 2bh

>>1657227
O mundo nos ensinou a aguentar o bantz.