Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Much is said in Brazil about the role the US had in supporting the military dictatorship in our country in its first 10 years (1964 - 1974), but usually there is no much talk about the important role the Carter administration, from January 1977 to January 1981, had in the weakening of the military regime.
Here are two interesting reads, in English, that helps to shed light on this subject:
"A dictatorship in the battle for human rights: the 1977 UN High Commissioner proposal and the Brazilian resistance"
Secondly, Carter’s 1977 election redirected American foreign policy and reconfigured bilateral relationships with Brasília. Geisel’s diplomacy understood that Carter’s election had triggered a fundamental change in US foreign policy. A Brazilian diplomat suggested that, while “US activism in the field of human rights” was not entirely new, it would “grow in substance and relevance” with Carter as president. Richard Gardner, the American representative in the Commission on Human Rights and a major High Commissioner enthusiast, harshly criticized Brazil for shelving the Amnesty-authored report.
From the second text:
Quote:
During the 1976 presidential debates with Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter criticized US support for military dictatorships in Chile and Brazil. Shortly after taking office, in March 1977 his administration issued a report condemning Brazil's dictatorship for its human rights record, which we now know, thanks to Dilma Rousseff's 2014 Truth Commission Report, included 8934 documented cases of murder and tens of thousands of cases of torture.
In June of that year, the First Lady traveled to Brazil, spending 48 hours in the city of Recife, where she met with two long-haired Americans who had been arrested in the poor neighborhood of Afogados: Catholic monk Lawrence R. Rosenbaugh and Menonite missionary Thomas Michael Capuano.
(...)
Rosalynn, meanwhile, became so deeply involved in the growing movement for amnesty so that political exiles could return to Brazil that, as Fernando Morais mentions in his biography of Lula (slated for publishing in English by Verso in 2024) she was nicknamed it's "informal godmother."
Well, we had... and it wasn't cool... dictatorships suck...
I say it depends on the dictator. Most tend to be pricks SOB’s, but some come through as more benevolent. I’m convinced there are societies that work best with a dictatorship headed by a benevolent one. In such societies, in democracy it’s hard to have people following most of the laws at any given time, but those same people are orderly in a dictatorship. There are places that while they were in a dictatorship it was squeaky clean and now in democracy litter and garbage is everywhere in many places. Everything worked when it was in a dictatorship (open the faucet and drinkable clean water comes out all the time, flick the switch and the light always come on, and safety was a given; yet, the same place under a democracy has many blackouts, constant water shortages and often the water isn’t drinkable, a noticeable increase of crime, etc.) The same people.
I say it depends on the dictator. Most tend to be pricks SOB’s, but some come through as more benevolent. I’m convinced there are societies that work best with a dictatorship headed by a benevolent one. In such societies, in democracy it’s hard to have people following most of the laws at any given time, but those same people are orderly in a dictatorship. There are places that while they were in a dictatorship it was squeaky clean and now in democracy litter and garbage is everywhere in many places. Everything worked when it was in a dictatorship (open the faucet and drinkable clean water comes out all the time, flick the switch and the light always come on, and safety was a given; yet, the same place under a democracy has many blackouts, constant water shortages and often the water isn’t drinkable, a noticeable increase of crime, etc.) The same people.
I most certainly would not want to live under a dictatorship.
Neither me. There is no such thing as a "benevolent" despot. Adult citizens are not children who need a "Big Papa" (or Big Brother) to discipline them.
Neither me. There is no such thing as a "benevolent" despot. Adult citizens are not children who need a "Big Papa" (or Big Brother) to discipline them.
The Middle East is full of kingdoms where the royal family has a greater influence in running the country that many royal families in Europe. They aren’t elected, hence they are a sort of dictator on top of society. In the 1960’s lots of oil was discovered in many of those places which has created great wealth for the region. If the royal families wanted, they could had kept most of that wealth for themselves leaving the bulk of the Saudis, Qatarís, Emiratis, Kuwaitis, etc still living a rough traditional life in huts and riding camels thriugh the desert. Instead, the royal families decided to share their wealth with their people.
Today, as an example, being an Emirati (only applies to a minority of the UAE’s population since they have been outnumbered by immigrants from India, Pakistan, etc; but the Emirati’s are the original Arabs that were the majority before oil was discovered and everyone lived in huts and rode around in camels) is better than being of most of the any other nationality in the world. All Emirati’s are born with a silver spoon, live in beautiful and magnificent houses with marble floors, maids, luxuries that are unknown to most humans in most countries, etc. Their government pays for their entire education including universities, in the UAE the Emirati’s go first in everything. The reason the Emirati’s have such a high standard of living, sonething unknown to most Americans and certainly most that make up the different Latin American populations can’t simply imagine what is like. The government has the Emirati’s covered and ensures each and every single one has a very high standard of living from craddle to grave.
The UAE never votes for who will be their royal family. Plus, each and every Emirati has such a high standard of living, a life of luxury not know by most in the Brazilian favelas or even out of those types of neighborhoods, with a level of safety that many Brazilians don’t have, with a level of health that many Brazilians also don’t have, etc. They have all of that and more because the royal family decided that it will be like that fir every Emirati. In the UAE the everyday Emirati isn’t wishing to be in a democracy since they live better than most peoples in democracies around the world.
I’m ni¡ot in favor that every society needs a benevolent dictatorship. In fact, many will be worse with one. However, there are societies that would actually be the best they can be under one that without one. Whatever works (ie. produces the highest standard of living for most or all of the people) is OK in my book.
Right now the best thing that could happen to someone is be born an Emirati since that is basically the only way someone can gain that citizenship. With that, the Emirati government has an obligation to ensure your life will be with a silver spoon from craddle to grave. There is no such thing as an Emirati living in poverty or even much of the middle class. In the UAE the Emirati’s are king, each and evey single one of them. That isn’t by chance, the royal family and “benevolent dictator” (ie, the king) wants it to be that way. Not one Emirati was left behind or discriminated by not given access to the country’s oil generated wealth. As long you’re Emirati, regardless whatelse you are, your life is set.
The UAE never votes for who will be their royal family. Plus, each and every Emirati has such a high standard of living, a life of luxury not know by most in the Brazilian favelas or even out of those types of neighborhoods, with a level of safety that many Brazilians don’t have, with a level of health that many Brazilians also don’t have, etc. They have all of that and more because the royal family decided that it will be like that fir every Emirati. In the UAE the everyday Emirati isn’t wishing to be in a democracy since they live better than most peoples in democracies around the world.
Only because the UAE is swimming in oil, as you said. Wait until the day when their oil reserves dry up, or oil is no longer necessary and is totally replaced by other, cheaper, energy sources...
I would never trade my FREEDOM in Brazil for the "prosperity" of any Gulf state. I wouldn't move to the UAE (or Saudi Arabia, or Qatar) even if I was offered a job there with yearly earnings in the seven digits. What is the point of making all that money and your wife / girlfriend / daughter risking going to jail for not wearing a headscarf?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
