Will we ever see a Unites States of South America?

Affable

A USSA? Why not, they all speak the same language, they all have the same/similar religions, similar cultures?

af_thefragile

Affable wrote: »

A USSA? Why not, they all speak the same language, they all have the same/similar religions, similar cultures?

Nope.

They have very different government systems. Most of them are very leftists.
Leftists won't give up their country to merge into one big mega-country.

What will be there (which already kinda is) will be economic block like the EU.

Very soon countries are gonna lose their identities and will instead be a part of economic blocks. And so the world will be composed of economic blocks rather than countries.
Just like the old days!!

Vorsprung

Brazil speaks Portugese, most of the others speak Spanish. There's a French overseas territory knocking around over there too. Not to mention the Falklands!

Affable

bigjimthefirst wrote: »

Brazil speaks Portugese, most of the others speak Spanish. There's a French overseas territory knocking around over there too. Not to mention the Falklands!

Yeah Brazil does but the rest of the vast place speaks Spanish. whats your point?

Tarzan007

Affable wrote: »

A USSA? Why not, they all speak the same language, they all have the same/similar religions, similar cultures?

It looks quite possible, with Chávez of Venezeula leading the way. Read a good article by I think Noam Chomsky about it, very interesting. However, Uncle Sam is not looking too kindly on it ............

oscarBravo

My in-laws just arrived here from Chile. I don't think there's any appetite for a USSA in any of the South American countries I've visited, but I'll check with them whether it's something that's ever discussed there.

Most South American countries are fiercely protective of their national identities, from what I've seen.

Affable

Tarzan007 wrote: »

It looks quite possible, with Chávez of Venezeula leading the way. Read a good article by I think Noam Chomsky about it, very interesting. However, Uncle Sam is not looking too kindly on it ............

Threat to their dominance? They are looking kindly on the European project right?

magick

Affable wrote: »

Threat to their dominance? They are looking kindly on the European project right?

not when it comes to even mention an EU army the Americans get upset at the thought of it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

af_thefragile

Affable wrote: »

Threat to their dominance? They are looking kindly on the European project right?

Chavez gave two fingers to american oil companies who were leeching oil of Venezuela, while a few Venezuelians were getting super rich from the oil commision, rest of the country was becoming increasingly poor and were watching their countries natural resources slowly being drained away.

Chavez put a stop to all this with his commie regime.
And now America (and most of the west) hates Chavez.
As Chavez is becoming quite an icon and inspiration among other 3rd world leaders for flipping off America.

Affable

magick wrote: »

not when it comes to even mention an EU army the Americans get upset at the thought of it.

Yeah, 'generosity' extends to when we are doing as they say

turgon

Affable wrote: »

Yeah Brazil does but the rest of the vast place speaks Spanish. whats your point?

I think his point is that all the countries don not in fact speak the same language.

Also French Guinea speaks French, and is apart of the EU.

USE

Affable wrote: »

A USSA? Why not, they all speak the same language, they all have the same/similar religions, similar cultures?

In my opinion total unification is what this world won't avoid. And it should not to. But its a very long perspective. I mean, very long.

I think that it will happen by stages. Somelike EU and other continental unions that will evolve into federations.

Dividing ourselves into ethnical groups and fighting for each of their interests? That's irrational.

But I like differences of culture. This should not to vanish. And it don't must while unificating. Simply not to be a reason to fight anymore.

You can try to encrypt my nickname

Pygmalion

Affable wrote: »

A USSA? Why not, they all speak the same language, they all have the same/similar religions, similar cultures?

I reckon we'll definitely see the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom merge.
Why not, they all speak the same language, they all have the same/similar religions, similar cultures, those are the only factors influencing this kind of decision right?

Affable

Pygmalion wrote: »

I reckon we'll definitely see the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom merge.
Why not, they all speak the same language, they all have the same/similar religions, similar cultures, those are the only factors influencing this kind of decision right?

I didn't say it would, I said it could/should(South America).
Ireland and the UK won't, as you're implying(unless it's as a USE), but they are different culturally. The UK was calvinist, presbyterian, protestant largely and Ireland was catholic.

turgon

Affable wrote: »

The UK was calvinist, presbyterian, protestant largely and Ireland was catholic.

Religion does not equal culture.

Affable

turgon wrote: »

Religion does not equal culture.

You said similar religions. What is the point you are making or do you want an argument for it's own sake?

brianthebard

Affable wrote: »

I didn't say it would, I said it could/should(South America).
Ireland and the UK won't, as you're implying(unless it's as a USE), but they are different culturally. The UK was calvinist, presbyterian, protestant largely and Ireland was catholic.

If you are suggesting the above is an example of a union that could work then you should try again.

I think there will be closer relationships between the various South American nations, at least for the next while, since all but Columbia have left leaning governments. In time this may lead to a stronger bond between the nations, embracing not only economic but also cultural and social opportunities.

Affable

brianthebard wrote: »

If you are suggesting the above is an example of a union that could work then you should try again.

I was obviously saying the reverse, historically. South America is different because it has the same religious foundations all the way across it.

turgon

Affable wrote: »

You said similar religions. What is the point you are making or do you want an argument for it's own sake?

You said that the cultures were different, and you cited the fact we have different religions. You tried to use diversity of religion to suggest diversity of culture.

brianthebard

Affable wrote: »

I was obviously saying the reverse, historically. South America is different because it has the same religious foundations all the way across it.

Fair enough. Its still not accurate though, there are many different variations in the church across the continent, many things picked up from local custom. Even the division between liberation theology catholics and "orthodox" catholics should be obvious. Tbh I can't understand why so many people so easily believe that South America is a homogeneous, single culture entity. Its simply not true.

Affable

turgon wrote: »

You said that the cultures were different, and you cited the fact we have different religions. You tried to use diversity of religion to suggest diversity of culture.

Well religion plays a huge part in culture. Hence catholicism in Liverpool/Ireland, presbyterianism in Scotland, Islam in the middle east, Judiasm in Israel etc.

994

turgon wrote: »

I think his point is that all the countries don not in fact speak the same language.

Also French Guinea speaks French, and is apart of the EU.

Surinam speaks, English, Guyana Dutch, and then there are many nativ elanguages like Guarani and Quechua.

nesf

af_thefragile wrote: »

As Chavez is becoming quite an icon and inspiration among other 3rd world leaders for flipping off America.

Yup, his suppression of the opposition has been charming alright.

Harassing the opposition

Mr Chávez has often said that “the revolution is peaceful, but armed.” Violence and intimidation of opponents by the security forces and by armed civilian groups (some openly linked to the government) have increased. Students campaigning against the constitutional change have faced harassment and arrest.

Opposition politicians elected as mayors and state governors last November have found it hard to exercise power. In Caracas the new mayor, Antonio Ledezma, has suffered an occupation of the city hall and other buildings by armed chavistas. The government has refused to intervene, saying that the occupations are a response to Mr Ledezma’s refusal to renew the contracts of thousands of workers hired by his chavista predecessor. Elsewhere, incoming opposition administrations have also found equipment and offices purloined.

The most disturbing incident was the sacking of Caracas’s main synagogue on January 30th by more than a dozen armed men. They vandalised religious objects, painted anti-Jewish and pro-Palestinian slogans on walls, and stole computer hard drives containing a database of the Jewish community. Officials condemned the attack and blamed the opposition. But it says that the government has been fostering a climate of hostility against Jews. Mr Chávez cut diplomatic ties with Israel in response to its attack on Gaza last month.

Days earlier a group of armed chavista radicals had attacked the Ateneo de Caracas, one of the capital’s most important cultural centres. Complaining that it was being used for “ultra-rightist” activities, they hurled tear-gas grenades and fired shots. They held scores of people at gunpoint for hours, stole their mobile phones and vandalised the premises. The assault was lead by Lina Ron, a prominent member of Mr Chávez’s referendum campaign. None of the assailants has been arrested or questioned. As if to dispel any doubt that the invasion of the Ateneo had the government’s support, the next day the finance ministry ordered the eviction of the cultural centre from the state-owned buildings it has occupied since the 1980s.

Ironically, the Ateneo provided Mr Chávez with a platform when he entered politics after leading an unsuccessful military coup against a democratic government in the 1990s. The incident highlights his regime’s increasingly authoritarian bent. “The first thing totalitarian regimes do is to attack institutions where different schools of thought and ideologies come together,” said Carmen Ramia, the Ateneo’s director. Hitherto, to describe Mr Chávez as “totalitarian” has been inaccurate. Will that remain the case?

Source: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13061800 (I imagine the source won't go down well with many though)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's an inaccurate representation of my point.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

nesf wrote: »

Yup, his suppression of the opposition has been charming alright.

Source: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13061800 (I imagine the source won't go down well with many though)

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who are willing to ignore such inconvenient details. That he is anti-American, left-wing and 'for the people!' is what's important. His suppression and rampant nationalisation? Well, let's forget about that for now...

It reminds me of those who are enthusiastic that China will soon overtake America as the leading superpower, with the idea driven only by anti-American sentiment. I mean, it can't be done out of admiration for Chinese politics, can it? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8080437.stm (See video).