Not a lot of people thought twenty years ago that Brazil would be an emerging giant in the world. It had held its first free presidential elections since the right-wing military dictatorship supported by the U.S. took control in 1964. It's first try was a failure, however. Electing the charismatic, young and good-looking Fernando Collor turned out to be a disappointment for democracy as his huge corruption scheme unravelled and he resigned in order to not be impeached. The 1990s were not kind with rinflation rampant and the wide gulf between rich and poor only widening and interest rates that are the highest in the world (and continues to be).
However, in 2003 a different kind of president was elected (finally). Having run since 1989, Luis Inacio "lula" da Silva finally was elected in the second round of a competitive election. He is truly a man of the people. Born in the poor northeastern Brazilian state of Pernambuco to a large and humble family, he knows exactly the plight of the people. He moved to the industrial São Paulo at 7 and quit school before finishing high school in order to work and support his family. He led the steel workers union in Sao Paulo in a time where unions were oppressed, ending up imprisoned by the dictatorship. He was one of the founding fathers of PT , the Worker's Party in Brazil. Upon the loosening of restrictions in the mid-80s Lula was at the forefront of Brazilian liberalism and the fight for justice. However, the elitist/ "intellectual" Fernando Henrique Cardoso still won the presidency in 1994 and 1998, the only good thing he did was introduce the Real, but even then with mistakes.
Lula is amazing for other quirky reasons too. What other president do you know is missing a pinky from working at the steel plant? He also has a lisp, which is pretty funny but cool that he doesn't give a damn. And most of all he doesn't talk down to the people, unlike most Brazilian politicians. Instead he talks to the people, in ways everyone can understand. His way with words and his vivid metaphors are as entertaining as they are true.
But back to Brazilian progress, all that history lesson and biography was to say that Brazil is emerging as one of the largest and most responsible economies out there. Lula always refused to be a lackey of the U.S. interests and publicly criticized Bush several times. He was a defender of the emerging and poor nations, defending them when members of the EU and the U.S. accused Brazil and other nations of being the causes of the food crisis in 2007. He came out very ironically saying that if there was a food crisis, it was because people in India, China, Brazil and emerging countries are eating better, not because Brazil is producing ethanol, which was one of the accusations.
Under Lula, millions of Brazilians have come out of poverty to middle-class standing. He introduced several social welfare programs that have created jobs for those once without hope. I'm not illusioned though, Brazil still has one of the most horrible slums in the world in Rio and São Paulo and the northeast is still a completely different country compared to the richer south. But what I see is progress and hope that in the future things are going to be better because they have already progressed a long way.
As for the International Recession, Lula has been hitting HARD on the so-called "industrialized, first world" countries. And he is right in doing so. Today he said, while having Prime Minister Gordon Brown by his side, that this recession is caused by people with blonde hair and blue eyes. And he's right, this wasn't caused by African nations, or Latin America or Asia, this was caused mostly by white people in Europe and America. And Lula isn't racist, he's just stating a fact that while white people in America and Europe cause the problems, poor nations who depend on credit for life suffer the most. That's why he has called out jointly with Prime Minister Brown for a $100 Billion fund to help credit flow amongst nations.
Lula, though angered that a lot of what he was able to build on in the last five years may be tainted by this crisis, is not despairing. Brazil is suffering much less than most countries. No mass job cuts as of yet, no massive bank failures. What is affecting Brazil is international trade, which is a big deal. Still, the government projects that Brazil will still grow this year, initially put at 4%, now analyst say it could be much less but still growth or 0.
So I look forward, hopeful for my parent's country, for a people I've lived with and know of their joy, beauty and generosity. I'm an American, and I love this country, but in no way am I ashamed of my Brazilian roots. The Brazilian future is bright, if only they do not fall in previous traps.
Posts
"Today he said, while having Prime Minister Gordon Brown by his side, that this recession is caused by people with blonde hair and blue eyes. And he's right, this wasn't caused by African nations, or Latin America or Asia, this was caused mostly by white people in Europe and America."
ReplyDeleteCould you imagine if Gordon Brown said "Terrorism is caused by people with brown skin and large beards"?
I certainly see your point, and no doubt it was something risky to say, but Lula is all about being bluntly frank. I don't know how I'd take it if Brown said that, I guess it would depend on the context.
ReplyDeleteIn what kind of context would it not be offensive?
ReplyDeleteHey racist, is there a cabal of blue-eyed people working together to destroy the world? Is this 2% of the world to blame for all the world's problems? You sound like a NAZI. They blamed Jews, who were about 2% of Germany's population.
ReplyDeleteObviously the last two posters have taken this to its extreme. I'm definitely not a racist and neither is the Brazilian president. Is calling Africa's problems today mostly based on colonialism from the white man racist? No. It's the truth. That the industrialized world and the main cause of this crisis came from rich white people in europe and America is no lie and isn't racist to say. Lula received a lot of criticisms of this type after saying that and he simply shrugged it off. Why do people have to be so sensitive about something that was obviously not meant as anything more than a critique of the rich countries' policies and their affects on the third world. It IS true that while the rich countries in Europe and America will come out of this eventually, Africa, Latin America and poor Asian countries will suffer the burden that they did not cause. That's all and nothing more.
ReplyDeleteI resent the fact that you have to bring Nazism into this which purely wasn't true, as also isn't true Ahmedinijad's conspiracy theory.
Your racist Brazilian president repeated his attack on people with blue eyes.
ReplyDeletehttp://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKTRE53E76B20090415
When a world leader blames people for causing problems just because of their physical features given by God, that's an incitement to genocide. I'm absolutely sure Lula's comments increased the hatred in some racist's (like you?) minds, and a few made the leap to actual acts of violence, but the media would is never going to report it as such. There is nothing factual about your sick assertion. It is absurd as saying straight hair caused the crisis.
That Lula when beyond merely saying the standard leftist diatribe of "whites" and added "blue eyes" is like a window into his twisted mind. He is an overt racist. And now he is inciting hatred by assigning blame based on a eye color. Sick.
The fact is, this crisis is directly related to subprime mortgage loans and the war against jihad. It is no secret these loans are meant to help poor, mostly non-whites. Jihad is a integral part of Islam. It is the violent conquest of non-Muslim societies. Islam is a violent, totalitarian and discriminatory ideology with minor spiritual aspects. And of course, most Muslims are non-white. These are facts, not bizarre, sick theories such as blaming eye color for economic downturns. Learn the difference.
"It is no secret these loans are meant to help poor, mostly non-whites." Now you're just a small hop away from racism yourself, buddy. I guess if non-whites weren't so lazy there wouldn't be a crisis at all? Maybe you think banks just shouldn't lend to them as a matter of policy, eh?
ReplyDeletePlease explain how the "violent, totalitarian, discriminatory" Muslims are to blame for any one of the many factors that led to the crisis: the housing bubble, distorted CEO compensation scheme, regulatory laxity, etc.
These beneficiaries of these loans are openly stated to be "minorities". Its part of diversity and "affirmative action" policy. You don't like facts? I did not say anyone is lazy, you did. Maybe for whatever reason, a given group generally chooses less lucrative careers. East Asians are the highest earners in the US. Does that make them evil also in your eyes?
ReplyDeleteMaybe as a matter of policy banks shouldn't lend to people who can't pay back, regardless of color. But banks were pushed into loaning by ACORN, etc, then they found they could get rich for a while also. So you and Lula allege all these banks were a blue eyed conspiracy? You're sick.
Read jihadwatch.org for a few weeks and talk to me about Islam afterward. I said jihad is to blame because we've spent two trillion dollars in a war started by jihadists. This has no doubt contributed to the overall crisis.
Saying Lula is racist is like saying the Burglar is against cheeseburgers! He himself is white, runs a country where the elite are white and where you will find people with all different combinations of hair, eye and skin color . The only people who would think he was racist are those who don't know anything about him or the country. I agree, perhaps he should have been less metaphorical and said "rich countries" instead of white.
ReplyDeleteYour argument is ridiculous and your following rant is true to your hate and is a clear projection of it. Please don't ruin my post about praising a good thing in the world (people moving out from poverty, a smart president, etc) with your ugly show of ignorance.
"These beneficiaries of these loans are openly stated to be 'minorities'. Its part of diversity and 'affirmative action' policy."
ReplyDeleteCitation?
I think you're referring to the Community Reinvestment Act, an act that encouraged banks to make loans to low- and moderate-income areas, which was proposed by those naive, bleeding heart liberals who ignorantly thought that it would be a good idea to help poor neighborhoods develop economically. It's been scapegoated by Ron Paul fanboys who don't bother to do their research but are nevertheless desperate for some kind of talking point against those uneducated, smelly lefties.
The CRA was passed in 1977. Have we been having a housing bubble since 1977? (Don't say "yes" to this question without checking the facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shiller_IE2_Fig_2-1.png). Also, it's now known that the majority of companies that took a hit from the housing crisis were not regulated by the CRA, and that there was no statistically significant difference in foreclosure rates between banks that were regulated by the CRA and banks that weren't.
It's easy to blame poor minorities for all our troubles; we've being doing it forever. But it's time to enter reality: the crisis was caused by a fatal conjunction of Federal Reserve policy and corporate dishonesty on multiple levels.
"Read jihadwatch.org for a few weeks and talk to me about Islam afterward. I said jihad is to blame because we've spent two trillion dollars in a war started by jihadists. This has no doubt contributed to the overall crisis."
I'm sorry that your education comes from "jihadwatch.org."
I agree that profligate spending in Iraq and an inflated, obsolete military budget hurt our ability to fight the crisis. If you can offer me some solid evidence that Hussein had anything to do with the jihadis, i.e. if you can succeed where the CIA has failed, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, maybe you should let this point go.
CHM
Caught matter-of-factly agreeing with Lula's stinking hate speech blaming blue eyes for worldwide recession, you now want to steer off topic. And make no mistake, it was hate speech, which he has since repeated. His words were carefully parsed. He put a lot of forethought into them. He didn't just say "white". No, he let himself off the hook, and said it is "blue-eyed whites" to blame. You agreed. Are you withdrawing your agreement now? That would be smart of you, and I would respect that.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think some people are not racist by nature, so they are allowed to say racist things, while other people are racists by nature and must be censored. Are you also saying there are no self-hating whites? Or is Lula playing the Hispanic elite game of being white when convenient and being "people of color" when convenient. Do you accept affirmative action, Mr. Brazilian Whiteman?
Brazil's claim of being colorblind is at best an example of trying to make a virtue out of a necessity. But it is more likely a lie.
The difference between your posts and mine is your criticism is based on slanderously guessing my motivations, while mine of you is based on your written words. I was outraged by Lula's comments, did a search, and found your post agreeing with him. Your problem is you've never been challenged on your misassumptions. That why you were so casual about demonizing a physical trait, like it was simply common sense in your leftist circle.
As for the other topics: Jihadwatch.org is run by two scholars of Middle Eastern Christian descent, Robert Spencer and Raymond Ibrahim. They have a dozen books between them. The site is almost entirely of mainstream news articles on injustices and terrorism perpetrated by jihadists and Islamic governments. An average week's worth of articles dwarfs the sum total of terrorism commited by the KKK during the last 80 or so years, yet my money is you haven't spent one minute questioning the party line that Islam is anything other than "a religion of peace"--an Orwellian expression made popular by Bush, by the way. On the war--there is no doubt is was started as a reaction to the 9/11 attacks by jihadists. I do not defend the choice of Iraq as the first target of our response, nor do I support rebuilding Islamic Republics. But this is a tactical question, not a stategic one. Learn the difference.
You say minorities are an easy target to blame. So it that why you blame people with blue eyes? Why not straight hair? Or people over 5ft tall? Too many of them? Where is your evidence? Here's mine, without pinning "blame":
Subprime mortgage loans are a large part of the crisis. There was a large push to get "minorities" into houses during the Clinton and Bush years. Enough of these loans failed to add heavily if not outright cause the current crisis. Regulations were loosened during this period to push the loans, and many greedy financiers of all colors took advantage of it.
If you didn't want to ruin your post you should have thought a little harder about agreeing with a little fink like Lula. That's what ruined your post, not me.
Of course I disagree with Lula's remarks, and of course I consider it hateful and racist. Go back and see if you can quote me agreeing with him. If you can't, then let it go.
ReplyDelete"my money is you haven't spent one minute questioning the party line that Islam is anything other than 'a religion of peace'"
More ad hominems, eh? When you go to high school you'll learn that this is not considered a legitimate debate tactic.
"I do not defend the choice of Iraq as the first target of our response, nor do I support rebuilding Islamic Republics. But this is a tactical question, not a stategic one. Learn the difference."
I realize that touting the strategic-tactical distinction irrelevantly makes you feel smarter, but it really doesn't have any bearing here. First of all, the Iraq war was a strategic blunder, not merely a tactical one. It's been well-documented that people Bush plucked from PNAC and surrounded himself with sought to remove Saddam's regime well before 9/11, pursuant to a STRATEGIC policy of promoting American geopolitical power in the region. Radical Islam was an excuse for the war, but not the primary motivation. Second of all, it really doesn't matter what kind of error it was. The point I'm making was that the error was committed.
"Subprime mortgage loans are a large part of the crisis. There was a large push to get 'minorities' into houses during the Clinton and Bush years. Enough of these loans failed to add heavily if not outright cause the current crisis."
I'll say it again: there was no statistically significant difference between foreclosure rates by banks regulated by the CRA and banks that weren't.
Race had little to nothing to do with the crisis, and your argument suggests a very feeble grasp of the issue. The system would have been perfectly capable of absorbing a few losses on these hypothetical affirmative-action loans, which would have amounted to a little blip in the housing market. The real cause of the housing bust was excessive speculation in real-estate in the aftermath of the dot-com bust, low interest rates, and stagnant real wages which meant Americans (whites and non-whites) had to finance their increasing rates of consumption with credit rather than income. And even then, the only reason the economy imploded as it did was because these losses were spread throughout the financial system through securitization and OTC derivatives.
I'll let you get the last word, provided that you don't misrepresent/caricature me personally again.
Glad to see you "let it go" in regard to defending Lula's hate speech. It appears to be JR that Since there are two of you, not sure if that goes for both of you. I will assume it does unless I read otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI will try to make this my last post. You seem to say that "there was no statistically significant difference" in "affirmative action loans". That doesn't really hold up to logic, although I'm sure you can find a study to dispute me. These loans were made based on lowering credit requirements; what you are essentially saying is that credit scores are not worth checking since there is no significant difference between credit and ability to pay. That would be ridiculous. Regardless, these loans and affirmative action in general are at best dated and at worst, blatant reverse racism. There is no real majority in America anymore, only factions. So why does only one segment, not even the highest earning, not get "affirmative action"?
I say Iraq is a tactical decision because in the true big stategic picture, which Bush never admitted, we are at war with the Islamic world, or more precisely it is waging jihad on us. No, not every Muslim is a jihadist, as I'm sure "some of your best friends" are Muslim and they are swell people. Not every German in WWII was a rabid antisemite either. It's the ideology,stupid! (Sorry, just an expression).
Iraq is merely a battle in this war.
I agree that the current economic crisis has many cumulative causes, not the least being greedy bankers and real estate agents, etc. But they only took advantage of the lax oversight offered by regulators and politicians, and ultimately this goes back to an uninformed citizenry that put them in power.
If I have one intelligent thing to pass on here, it is please read jihadwatch.org for a few weeks and then post an essay on it.
Have a good life.