A Tale of Two Statues

Two statues - one stands above the most popular city of Brazil, and one looking onto the most popular city of America. They are the symbols of the nations in which they stand, and it is interesting to think about what it is they each represent. Perhaps think about it for a moment before reading further - The Statue of Liberty of New York, and Christ the Redeemer of Rio de Janeiro.

Both nations are "Christian nations," but one has chosen to put the Christian Savior atop a mountain looking over its most internationally recognized city. It is interesting then, that Rio has become one of Earth's most "iniquitous" cities.

The other nation chose for its national icon, a woman representative of ideals in her appearance and accessories. It represents liberty, freedom, and justice, while Brazil's statue represents mercy and love and equality. All of these things are good, in my humble opinion, but apparently the former three have been more efficient in running a country.

The Christ the Redeemer statue (Cristo Redentor) was completed in 1931, after more than ten years of preparation and five years of construction in celebration of Brazil's independence from Portugal. In 2007, it was declared in Lisbon Portugal to be one of the new seven wonders of the world. Indeed it is a wonder. It is perched high upon a seemingly impossible hill, and stands many more feet above. Dedicated in 1931, it still stands strong and attracts millions of visitors each year.

The Statue of Liberty was not built entirely by the United States, as most know. Credit is given to the French, but some may not know that it was a combined effort of both nations to construct. The U.S. built the base, and the French took responsibility for making the rest of it. They completed it in France in 1884 and it arrived in New York in 1885.

So what does this mean for the world? Many Americans will accredit their nation's success to Christianity and the religious freedom given them to worship God in a more correct manner. How then could this explain the slow, third world development of Brazil, whose very icon is a representation of the idea that Americans attribute their success to?

The Statue of Liberty is a representation of the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy in our nation. The Cristo Redentor may be seen as a representation of mandatory restrictions and mercy over justice. These are just thoughts, but I do firmly believe that the United States has been helped by the hand of God because its citizens were always free to worship as they pleased. Because of their freedom to choose - their agency - when Americans worship God, they do it out of free will. Even to one with no belief in deity, this can be seen as a positive. Men and women have chosen to do good of their own choice, and not out of necessity or coercion.

This is not to say that Brazilians are forced to worship God in a certain way, but you should visit Brazil. Rio is not a good representation of the rest of the country, so choose a different place. The communities are Christian, and they judge the wayward and scoff at them. More and more turn wayward, but out of a necessity they will always confess that they believe in Christ lest they be heckled even more. Thus, the forceful nature of religion drives people away from obeying its good rules.

I am not here to argue that one religion or another is right. As Dennis Prager asks, if you were alone at night and ten men approached you on a vacant street, would you feel any safer if you knew they had all just come from a Bible study class? Religion does inspire goodness in the world, and that cannot be denied.

And so, the statue that represents liberty, freedom, and justice has created (because those are the ideals of the nation, not just because there is a statue) a more productive and powerful nation than that whose statue may be representative of the more merciful and equal system of Brazil. Mercy and love are beautiful things to embrace, but must not come before we administer justice and freedom to our people. That is why I believe the emblem of the historic belief of America has not served Brazil as best as Lady Liberty.

But now Brazil is on the up and up. Something to be said there too, no?

The Drill to Brazil

As Americans, we can be assured that our taxed money is being redistributed throughout not just the country, but the entire world for its betterment. As of late, we can also be assured that more of it is going to Brazil so they can dig for oil. Good? Bad? Let's examine it.

President Obama gave $2 billion to Petrobras, Brazil's primary oil company, to support their increased drilling efforts for oil off the Brazilian coast in June, 2010. Contrasting that with Americans' desire for more drilling off the Alaskan coast, among other states like Louisiana, one is left to think, "We gave that much money to Brazil, shouldn't we be developing our own oil projects a bit more too?"

But of course, that is not what most democrats want in the United States. More drilling means more pollution and more dead fishes. I am willing to face those facts, and I am glad that there are people in the world who care enough about the environment and life to want less drilling to spare our dear Mother Earth. The fact is that the more careless we are about any human project, the more likely it is to pollute and kill wildlife, and I can accept that fact and agree with the humanitarians in a desire to lessen the collateral damage we inflict for our own good, such as gasoline.

I also hold another point of view, and that is that I am sick and tired of my country relying on foreign powers(ones that would destroy us were they capable no less) to supply us with a natural resource that we can dig up right here by ourselves. We understand that the Middle East poses a threat and cutting them off may not be in our immediate best interest, but now what of South America? Are we to give Brazil the power to have more control in the world? Will it be a good thing or bad in the end?

How might Brazil act if given the power to control a large supply of the world's oil? It is already on the economic rise and seems to be doing quite well for itself. The 2016 Olympics in Rio will certainly be a test of the ages to see if one of the world's most violent cities can become safe for an international meeting place. I am interested to see how Brazil reacts, and exploring how it might will be saved for another discussion I think.

For right now, we NEED to take a look at how this decision affects our own country. Take a look at unemployment. A much overstated comment, but how will giving money to Brazil to increase their output of a good we can produce here help us? Were we to take advantage of our own resources, we could not only lower the price of gasoline, but increase the jobs in the United States and boost the economy. I don't believe it to be rocket science to figure that the more we can work on our own soil, the more people can be working. And what we need right now is more people working.

Of course many are content to sit unemployed. They, of course, vote democrat. I just had to throw that in. Democrat or republican, we've got to take every opportunity we can to increase jobs.

True, the weakening of the Middle-East's power to dominate the globe with its own oil is a good thing for the whole world, and yes, for the United States.

"More oil that is not concentrated in the Mideast is good for the world and good for America. It would be a lot better if we had the drilling here," said Gulf Oil CEO Joe Petrowski. "And it seems a double standard and it seems somewhat hypocritical to a country that desperately needs jobs...that we're encouraging other countries to create the jobs that we need."

The President's decision is not despicable, nor is it anything so bad that I would hate him for it, but I would wonder what holds back those democrats from supporting drilling(and in turn more jobs, more growth, and lower gas prices) on our own soil.

Further reading:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/23/lawmakers-execs-slam-obama-boosting-brazils-offshore-drilling/

http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/6824-obama-commits-american-support-to-brazilian-oil

From Humble Beginnings

The United States was founded on the principle that our Creator gave us all unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that government derives its power from the consent of the governed. But what does Brazil believe? What is the basis of their national beliefs?

In the fateful year of 1822, when Brazil formally announced its independence from Portugal, Brazilians were still largely in support of a monarchy. They desired a king to rule over them when they decided to break free from the kings that had formerly held them bound.

Fortunately, Brazil eventually realized the ineffectiveness of royal families. Since 1822, Brazil has adopted eight constitutions.

As most Americans surely think, the Brazilian government is modeled heavily after ours. I might throw in the thought that we, as Americans, perhaps should not turn up our noses so much at countries who have adopted a government similar to ours. I applaud nations who can see the genius that is our constitution and come to the humble decision that they aren't likely to come up with anything better.

What I wish to examine, however, is what we can learn about Brazil from their beliefs as listed in their constitution, namely:

-To construct a free, just, and caring society;

-To guarantee national development;

-To eradicate poverty and marginalization and reduce social and regional inequalities;

-To promote the well-being of all people, without distinction to origin, race, sex, color, age, or any other forms of discrimination.

There are differences and similarities between those principles and the principles on which the United States was founded. The principles as I see them, are found in the preamble:

-Establish justice

-Insure domestic tranquility

-Provide for the common defense

-Promote the general welfare

-Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

Now, I don't wish to put down either nation, but I wanted to compare these ideals briefly, yet allow readers to look them over and make their own distinctions between the two.

It seems to me that Brazil takes a greater interest in creating a nation of equals, where the United States seems to take more interest in creating equal opportunity. So many Americans criticize the E.U. for trying to promote equality over liberty, and it seems that Brazil upholds similar principles.

Can we say which is right? It is the endless debate that rages on in the world, which I don't think I shall divulge. Rather, I would prefer to simply state that Brazil has emerged as a nation with more concern for citizen equality than did the United States.

Perhaps this simple insight will help us as we examine Brazil's place in the world and its relationship with the great United States of America.

Primeiro, uma História

First things first, let's establish the fact that even spelled "Brasil," it is still pronounced "Brazil." The subtleties of Portuguese - Brazil's official language - can be extremely confounding, especially when one has a rudimentary (or even advanced) knowledge of Spanish. To pronounce it correctly, roll the R, saying, Brah-zeeu.

The only South American nation to speak Portuguese, "Brasil,"(practice the pronunciation!) stands alone amidst its Latin neighbors, and not just because of its language. In 2011, Brazil now has the world's seventh largest economy, the only one of the top ten nations on the list from the southern hemisphere. And is it any coincidence that it is that way with the only nation in the west descended from Portugal? Considering Portugal's problems, probably. We can go into that another time. For now, allow me to enlighten you with some brief history of Brazil's origins.

Pedro Álvarez Cabral(pronounced, Peh - well, let's just not go there), led his armada of ships to the western hemisphere in 1500, landing in what is now Porto Seguro, north of Rio, and south of Recife.

We will remember from our old history classes, the treaty of Tordesillas in 1494, where the Earth was divided and given to the Portuguese and the Spanish. The Portuguese thought they would win with their monopoly on Africa, but they did receive a small portion of eastern South America in the deal.

I don't know how well you can see, but the solid purple line is the divider of the world in this treaty. Interesting no? The whole world was divided between two nations! They came together and said, we get this half, you get that half, "tá bom?" (Portuguese for 'okay?')

From the unique treaty, the world wound up with Portuguese slave trade coming from Africa through the 1800's, and Spanish domination of the western globe until they ran into their own problems.

Now, perhaps you wonder what "Brasil" means in Portuguese. Perhaps it is someone's name? America is someone's name after all. But no; I will lay this mystery out before you all. In fact, a tree was named, the "Pau-brasil," from which they could get red-tinted liquid for paint. "Brasa" (brah-za) is the Portuguese word for "ember," and so, "Brasil" could mean something to the effect of "a quantity of embers." I don't have a better translation, maybe you do? Post a comment if so. So the great nation of Brazil was named for their tree of embers. A pretty decent name origin if you ask me. I would be interested in such a tree!

Brazil declared its independence from Portugal in 1824, although it basically remained a monarchy. It wasn't until the 1900's that Brazil had evolved itself into the República Federative do Brasil. Now, this Federative Republic of Brazil stands strong among its neighbors. And when taken from its neighbors, it stands strong among the strongest in the world.

Will Brazil become the the country of the future, o país do futuro as they say? Would it be such a bad thing? I hope to examine more of Brazil's history and follow its future with you in the coming years. Perhaps Portuguese will soon take Spanish's spot as the most learned foreign language in our schools. I might approve of that.