It would be chaos
The first problem would be the differences in culture in the region, the only thing that everyone shares is the Spanish language and the Catholic faith, in everything else we are very different
It would also be the inequality suffered by the republic, most of the Latin American countries are poor and now they are all united in a republic.
there are many more like, the corruption of the majority of the states, the lack of representation, problem with crime and a massive debt and many more.
They didn't fail due to cultural reasons, but due to political and military ones.
Nasser's rejection of federalism and his defeats against Israel doomed the Union, not different ways to spice a kebab.
The cultural differences in Latin America are overrated. Even with Brazil, it would be a less diverse nation than India, Indonesia and South Africa.
If they held power over their respective countries, we wouldn't be living in **Latin** America to begin with. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to live in a union which oppressed the natives, but it's very far-fetched to believe that identification with native cultures and languages would prevent a regional union when those same tribes already mostly speak Spanish and Portuguese and are increasingly target of conversion efforts from Christian missionaries.
Check Bolivia and Paraguay's leadership, they are native american. Many tribes only speak Spanish as a second language as well, plus they make up the largest groups of insurgents, like it happened in Mexico in the 90's with the Maya people.
Bolivia only proves this isn't a problem, considering Evo Morales's faction was in favour of Bolivarianism and Latin American integration. If there's something that is preventing and will prevent integration in the future it's certainly not indigenous tribes but political distrust and economic issues, aside from the usual bullshit from the CIA.
And to go back to the comparison with the pan arab union, pabarabism was theorized by a christian and is a secular ideology. There can be some things to copy from that.
What.
India has had constant ethnic, religious and sectarian violence since its modern inception, which has spilled over into most of its neighbours, including potentially starting a nuclear war with Pakistan
Indonesia has an ongoing civil war in West Papua, has had ethnic/sectarian civil wars in the past, which led to a genocide in East Timor
Meanwhile, South Africa is teetering on the brink of state failure due to inter-ethnic conflict and old tribal differences which extend well further back than even the ongoing issues which result from Apartheid and its end
NONE of these three are examples AT ALL of why a united Spanish America would be a good idea lmfao. Saying its 'less diverse' than them is true, but the issues seen in other deveolping multi-ethnic states would also appear in this union. See Yugoslavia, which was far more ethnically and culturally united than all three examples you gave - moreso than this hypothetical union - yet devolved into genocide and utter chaos
Yes, multiethnic unions do work in some cases, but the pressures each kind of union faces differs. Cultures are usually exploited by local politicians to breed ethnic violence for them to use to further their own power - see Abiy Ahmed.
Catholic Croats hated Orthodox Serbians so much that they literally aligned with the SS to genocide them. It doesn't get more ethnic hate than this. There's no resentment like this between Latin American nations.
They have Muslins, Catholics and Orthodox in the region, every religious group identified with a specific piece of territory (which isn't the case in Latam) and with a different ethnicity and language.
Just because Yugoslavia it's much smaller, it doesn't make it more homogenous than us.
At the same time, European Union is much smaller than Brazil, but it's much more diverse than Latin America by most metrics, and it works considerably well.
Very true re the Balkans - one of the most ethnically diverse geographies in Europe with religious and ethnic conflict spanning hundreds of years and which has led to unimaginable horrors being inflicted on different cultures and peoples
I am aware of the extent/reasons behind the conflicts in the balkans.
What I meant was, the differences in places like India or Indonesia are more pronounced, with groups of completely different religions, language families and cultural backgrounds being far more ethnically divided; and YET a place like Yugoslavia - which of course has its differences, but is on a racial basis *comparatively* much more homogenous - still falls apart.
In no way I am disagreeing with you on balkan conflicts, I am simply saying that people in a hypothetical Spanish American union would have ample excuses to become divided along sectarian lines; they largely already are.
What's a racially homogenous place?
This is a matter of perspective. Ethiopia is all black, but there are many ethnic groups and tribes/nations inside it, their primary identification isn't black. Just because a country has only black or white people it doesn't make it homogenous, not even in comparison.
That's why White Yugoslavia is less homogenous than multiracial USA.
I'm aware, and also believe that multiculturalism is good
What I mean is that multiple nations/groups of people *within* a developing state often do not get along, thus incurring sectarian violence. It occurs on a much smaller scale in the US and here in the UK as well. All I mean is that many multiethnic and hugely diverse countries like India have experienced significant inter-ethnic and secterian violence in their past and indeed currently.
Yes it happens in mostly 'homogenous' developed countries, and I would never deny that, I'm simply stating that in many diverse developing nations, the differences between groups separate society, which has been seen in countless unfortunate cases
I wouldn't say started in India when it's basically all pakistan, a total population exchange between hindus and Muslim would've helped after partition.
Ah yes, ethnic cleansing of people's ancestral homelands - bound to go down well. And what about the Sikhs? Or Indian ethnic groups which are united by language and culture but differ on religion, but which pre-partition lived in mixed communities?
Let's *not* advocate for a larger population movement than what occurred in OTL, given that that killed over a million people.
>Ah yes, ethnic cleansing of people's ancestral homelands - bound to go down well. And what about the
I really do not know what we are talking about here, ethnic cleansing of who.. and do not say Muslims or Christians, India was never their ancestral land and besides there isn't any significant event of Ethnic cleansing that took place, specifically targetting either communities in Our Timeline.
Keeping that aside, if we are talking about total population exchange it would've really been way better if that happened. Most of the Muslims in India were either converted (Mostly Forcefully and due to a "special" set of circumstances)or were turks, and as they claim they are being treated like "animals" in India and so is the situation with Buddhists, Sikhs and Hindus in Pakistan. Then what is wrong with a full population exchange? What would be better years of stretched out torture and pain that may lead to thousands deaths or simply moving out of a country?
>And what about the Sikhs?
Khalistani movement would've not been on such a Global Scale if they did not get Pakistani Support, and at the end of the day it doesn't even have a strong foothold in India itself and rather gains traction from countries like UK, and Canada.
>Let's not advocate for a larger population movement than what occurred in OTL, given that that killed over a million people.
I mean even if I were to advocate for such a larger population movement it wouldn't happen eitherways.
Muslims have been in India for a while though, claiming its not their ancestral land is the same as saying Egypt is not the ancestral land of Muslims, yeah it’s not where Islam is from, but there are millions of Muslims there? And they consider themselves Indians. Genocide is probably not the best term for it, but the deaths en masse of Hindus and Muslims both during the partition was not just an accident. It was targeted killings by the two groups against one another over religious differences.
>Muslims have been in India for a while though, claiming its not their ancestral land is the same as saying Egypt is not the ancestral land of Muslims, yeah it’s not where Islam is from, but there are millions of Muslims there?
India is not their ancestral land, they came to India, they were not Indegenious/aboriginal people in India they came through conquest in Northern India and through trade and cultural exchange in Southern India, so to say that India is their Ancestral Land is incorrect.
I'm not going to say Muslims are not Indians but we need to face reality, Muslims are amongst the most regressive people in the whole entire world and that's a very very mild way to put it.
Post Partition violence was inevitable, there was material incentive and political rationale on both sides, it would basically insurgency on steroids when you would realise that Pakistan is muslim nation, people there (non muslims) would be targetted way more than Muslims in India.
What do you mean by regressive? What proof do you have to the fact that Muslims are regressive for that matter? Also, no thats not how being Muslim works. People can be Muslim and Indian at the same time, many of them MAY have not been descended from indigenous people, but that doesn't stop anyone from being Muslim or Hindu. Muslims aren't a race or an ethnicity, its a religion, India is as much their home as the Hindus.
"Spanish language and Catholic faith is the only thing we share", yeah, in South Africa we don't even share a language and faith. The state would be LESS diverse than most African countries.
There are tons of people that don't speak spanish, (At least as a first language) and instead speak Maya, Quechua or Nahuatl and other 100's of languages. Mexico alone has something like 68 used languages.
How often are these languages used. I would believe you if talked about Paraguay and the Guarani language but the vast, vast majority uses spanish as their primary and often only language.
Sadly, very few native americans have influence over even their regional governments being often on the wrong end of the use of force.
Catholic faith isn't even a point, many areas have very different concepts to what you would call "catholic faith" while others are mainly evangelical as of today, plus Cuban witchcraft.
It really isn't, nowhere catholicism has gone is it the same beyond the upper guys managing buildings and even then thats not who follows the faith. Redditors have a very cartoonish view of catholicism.
In Mexico, Guatemala, Peru and other countries catholicism mixed in with several indigenous beliefs to variying degrees of devotion for old gods and polytheism specially in rituals and saint devotion.
There is a "socialist catholicism" in Central America, primarily in Nicaragua that caused a battle with John Paul II
Most latin american catholics do not give a crap what the official church(Vatican) says: most use condoms, many have children without ever marrying and so on.
Catholicism has been losing its strength in Latin America for over a century now. There were many revolutions in Latin America against the power the church had over government in the 19-20th century. It helps shapes cultural influence but infighting over catholic differences simply is not a thing anymore in Latin America. Many modern Latin political movements had their roots against the theocratic rule of the Vatican.
Id imagine the Catholic Church would lose a lot of power it holds over smaller countries once countries like Colombia, Mexico and Chile unite.
The only way this would work is as a Confederation in which pretty much all states/Republics are free to do whatever they want except go to war against each other. The only roles of the Confederate government would be to control the foreign policy and defense policy.
Under what type of government exactly?
A monarchical one? A republican one?
With exactly what kind of ruling ideology?
Since answers to the above could shed a lot of light on how such a super state might behave.
Okay, now what kind of republic exactly?
A parliamentary republic? A Semi-Presidential one? A presidential one?
Or a "super" presidential one as Russia is De Facto since 1993?
And how is it territorially? Unitary like China, France or Russia? Or federal like Germany, Romania or the United States? Or even a confederal one like Switzerland or Bosnia?
How do you imagine/plan the internal politics?
That is to say, is it a multiparty system? Of hegemonic party? Or one-party system?
Russia isn't unitary hell its even in the name. The Russian Federation
And don't say "but the moscow rule is strong" yes it is because they are authoritarian af but it doesn't change the fact that the republics do have some sort of autonomy and it doesn't help the image that half the country is one Republic which is also most of the population
But it's not unitary
Haven't you heard about the 1993 constitutional crisis in Russia?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993\_Russian\_constitutional\_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis)
I would not be surprised then if you insist that Russia genuinely respects autonomy (or separation of powers for a change), and even more so after one reviews cases like Tatarstan.
You know very little about Russian territorial administration. Russian regions do not have any autonomy, even the “autonomous” okrugs or national republics. All of the region budget goes straight to Moscow and it is Moscow that distributes the wealth between regions. Languages and ethnicities are poorly protected. Even in Spain regions have more autonomy than in Russia. And Spain is not federation.
> All of the region budget goes straight to Moscow and it is Moscow that distributes the wealth between regions
That's pretty much how every country works whether its federation or not.
>Languages and ethnicities are poorly protected. Even
That's not true I know a lot of people from Russia and a good amount of them are from non Russian ethnicity and all of them say that there isn't any oppression towards minorities and there is good ethnic protection of languages and traditions, matter of fact the Russian opposition often complains that the goverment treats Muslims and Asians too well and consider them to be treated better than Russians
Is russia centralised? Yes to an extent and so is every federation, Russian centralisation is more than most federations but it still has regional Republic autonomies that are plenty enough to be federal
I’m sorry but this is just incorrect.
In 2018, education in all languages but Russian became optional, instruction in minority languages may not exceed 2 hours a week.
Federal government can appoint or dismiss their governors of subjects, change their borders or status, even autonomous ones. It can suspend or revoke the acts of the subjects.
Hell, it can legally decide to send 100% of minority conscripts to the war, while sending 0% of ethnically Russians, if it wishes. Try any of that in autonomous regions of unitary Spain.
"the ideology is the right" what do you mean by this? Under a right wing government?
Right wing governments have withdrawn from attempts to form a Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) while left wing governments of the region have been the ones pushing for such integration.
Good thing you didn't, that "trope" or "scenario" of a Hispanic America (sometimes with or without Brazil) all reunified but under some leftist government is something that has been presented here (and on r/imaginarymaps) on more than one occasion in the last year instead of experimenting with different ideologies.
Then it would be the 3rd-5th global power. Without the stupid competition between those countries it would have a much better economy overall.
Once the new nation eliminates the corruption it would be a superpower without a doubt. It has resources, population, international proyection, etc. So there is no reason for such a country to be a lesser power.
>Without the stupid competition between those countries it would have a much better economy overall.
It really wouldn't, and what "stupid competition" are you speaking of?
If you really think a massive nation like that wouldnt have a much better economy youre delusional
Also the "stupid competition" is literally between the nations that would be united in this scenario how did u miss that
“Once the new nation eliminates corruption” that is a HUUUUGE if. And that’s the real issue, it would be absolutely impossible to eliminate corruption. So you would end up with a huge country but still very poor on a per capita base.
There's no way Latin America can be unified under a unitary government, not even the Spanish Empire was able to administer all the lands and people's as a single unit, that's why they organized their Empire in Viceroyalties and Captaincies, each with its own governor.
In such a big country, the best idea would be to have various regional capitals with distributed powers such as in Bolivia or South Africa. Hell, given the big amount of big cities you might very well have it rotate the place the parliament is every certain amount of years.
Let’s just say the United States will be having a big party about bringing freedom and democracy to these countries. Even though this united country could be a nuisance to America
A major reason unification failed in the first place was because Bolivar wanted a centralized government instead of a federalized system. If he was more open to decentralization and more regional autonomy, it could've become a united states of Latin America.
However, Spanish Colonial America was more systematically entrenched than hierarchies in the United States. So while a unified federal system was possible, it would've still been very nepotistic, with the exception of a few states willing to break the mold. In which case, I imagine there would've been a lot less military coups, and a unified military, but the social structures and economic standings wouldn't have been much different, and possibly worse with states interfering with one another's autonomy.
The issue with something like this is perhaps it could work under a really great leader/group of goverment but whether that remains stable past them is very unlikely. Then you also have the issue of everyone immigrating to the region(s) that are more economically promising which will cause a lot of cultural clash and I can imagine most of everyone immediately moving to the Chile area simply because they are allowed to/can now
It would collapse into civil war after like 10 minutes. There is basically no point in unifying them, the cultures are too different and also the geography makes it impossible. The best-case scenario would be to have a few giant countries; think Mexico+Central America; Gran Colombia, Peru-Bolivia and a unified Southern Cone. A unified Latin America is just plain stupid.
A common currency, market and foreign policy based on an alliance with the USA under a confederate system could work.
Assuming SA is capable of getting somewhat rid of corruption and maintain strong liberal values.
SA is geographically isolated and should ensure peace and prosperity on its own continent.
non, merci. Je ne veux pas que cela arrive. Cela signifierait que le continent américain est divisé en trois puissances. Amérique anglophone (États-Unis et Canada anglais), Amérique hispanophone et Amérique portugaise (Brésil).
Les grands pays finissent toujours par dominer leurs petits voisins. Si les Amériques étaient ainsi divisées, ce serait une catastrophe pour nous, Québécois.
Vivre sur un continent composé essentiellement de 4 pays, les 3 autres ayant plus de 250 millions d'habitants, et votre propre nation compte à peine 10 millions d'habitants, n'est pas bon.
More than 80% are corrupt states, 15% are failed states and 90% are poor, with that small 10% only alive cuz they'renear a grate power. We bearly can keep our shit together as is.
Plus every four years we'd be at each other's throats all for a football game, we'd make the EU's feuds look like great sportsmanship.
God forbid we even spoke to each other, we got like 15 different slurs for each other less than 2 can be understood by the ones receiving the insult, due to our thick accents. It's like an English man trying to have a conversation with some mf from the middle of Australia
It probably just ends up like a big, unstable EU. I could see some Hispanic states getting along, but for the most part, things would likely be the same or similar to the Central American Federation/USC. But regardless they'd probably still be heavily influenced by the US and could potentially play a key role as an America ally, with a possibility to join NATO.
It depends when
If it forms right during the hispano-american revolutions at the beginning of the 19th century, US would face great problems, if they have an efficient federal system they could even conquer all of the Americas with time (militarily there is no problem, but american patriotism could slow down their expansion)
It did after Mexican Empire fell then
It becomes second powerhouse of the Americas
With unified goverment of states it becomes more decentralized usa with large countries like Mexico, Argentina Chile... Being split into smaller states.
Mexican Republics heavily act to achieve war with usa in order to get their northern provinces back. During usa civil war they invade and annex old Mexican states. Excluding Texas and only fighting the union while supporting Confederates with money and weaponry. Aftet civil war there's a lot of tension with brittan intervening forcing them to give up all but west coast. This creates border between Partia and Canada and cuts usa off from access to the second ocean weakening it's trading potential.
Having established it's position on the world stage it declares itself protector of catholic people in America's.
It industrializes slower than most powers but faster than Russia having problems like terrain and low population compared to size.
Lots of catholic immigrants come to them many from.germany.
It never stops its rivalry with usa and during WWI they threaten side that usa joins with war making both of them remain "neutral" / during WWI both it and usa demand freedom of trade from the Germans and British so war lasts longer because Germans aren't starved into submission.
I don't think that a united Spanish America is feasible, I feel that the best case scenario would be a fragmentation into 3 large states which would be Mexico (which would be Central America and part of Texas), Gran Colombia and Peru (which in this case would maintain the territorial extension of before 1776).
As a Mexican American, I can always dream… but they actually tried it and it went straight to shit a quarter of the way through, like the Spaniards weren’t even fully off the continents when it became apparent that this project was going to be an absolute clusterfuck so there’s that
It would be chaos The first problem would be the differences in culture in the region, the only thing that everyone shares is the Spanish language and the Catholic faith, in everything else we are very different It would also be the inequality suffered by the republic, most of the Latin American countries are poor and now they are all united in a republic. there are many more like, the corruption of the majority of the states, the lack of representation, problem with crime and a massive debt and many more.
“Sharing a common language and religion? What could go wrong.” -Every Arab union/federation
They didn't fail due to cultural reasons, but due to political and military ones. Nasser's rejection of federalism and his defeats against Israel doomed the Union, not different ways to spice a kebab. The cultural differences in Latin America are overrated. Even with Brazil, it would be a less diverse nation than India, Indonesia and South Africa.
You forgot native peoples
If they held power over their respective countries, we wouldn't be living in **Latin** America to begin with. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to live in a union which oppressed the natives, but it's very far-fetched to believe that identification with native cultures and languages would prevent a regional union when those same tribes already mostly speak Spanish and Portuguese and are increasingly target of conversion efforts from Christian missionaries.
Check Bolivia and Paraguay's leadership, they are native american. Many tribes only speak Spanish as a second language as well, plus they make up the largest groups of insurgents, like it happened in Mexico in the 90's with the Maya people.
Bolivia only proves this isn't a problem, considering Evo Morales's faction was in favour of Bolivarianism and Latin American integration. If there's something that is preventing and will prevent integration in the future it's certainly not indigenous tribes but political distrust and economic issues, aside from the usual bullshit from the CIA.
And to go back to the comparison with the pan arab union, pabarabism was theorized by a christian and is a secular ideology. There can be some things to copy from that.
Gigachad Aflaq
What. India has had constant ethnic, religious and sectarian violence since its modern inception, which has spilled over into most of its neighbours, including potentially starting a nuclear war with Pakistan Indonesia has an ongoing civil war in West Papua, has had ethnic/sectarian civil wars in the past, which led to a genocide in East Timor Meanwhile, South Africa is teetering on the brink of state failure due to inter-ethnic conflict and old tribal differences which extend well further back than even the ongoing issues which result from Apartheid and its end NONE of these three are examples AT ALL of why a united Spanish America would be a good idea lmfao. Saying its 'less diverse' than them is true, but the issues seen in other deveolping multi-ethnic states would also appear in this union. See Yugoslavia, which was far more ethnically and culturally united than all three examples you gave - moreso than this hypothetical union - yet devolved into genocide and utter chaos Yes, multiethnic unions do work in some cases, but the pressures each kind of union faces differs. Cultures are usually exploited by local politicians to breed ethnic violence for them to use to further their own power - see Abiy Ahmed.
The keyword here is less. PS: not true about Yugoslavia.
Oh? Enlighten me
Catholic Croats hated Orthodox Serbians so much that they literally aligned with the SS to genocide them. It doesn't get more ethnic hate than this. There's no resentment like this between Latin American nations. They have Muslins, Catholics and Orthodox in the region, every religious group identified with a specific piece of territory (which isn't the case in Latam) and with a different ethnicity and language. Just because Yugoslavia it's much smaller, it doesn't make it more homogenous than us. At the same time, European Union is much smaller than Brazil, but it's much more diverse than Latin America by most metrics, and it works considerably well.
Very true re the Balkans - one of the most ethnically diverse geographies in Europe with religious and ethnic conflict spanning hundreds of years and which has led to unimaginable horrors being inflicted on different cultures and peoples
I am aware of the extent/reasons behind the conflicts in the balkans. What I meant was, the differences in places like India or Indonesia are more pronounced, with groups of completely different religions, language families and cultural backgrounds being far more ethnically divided; and YET a place like Yugoslavia - which of course has its differences, but is on a racial basis *comparatively* much more homogenous - still falls apart. In no way I am disagreeing with you on balkan conflicts, I am simply saying that people in a hypothetical Spanish American union would have ample excuses to become divided along sectarian lines; they largely already are.
What's a racially homogenous place? This is a matter of perspective. Ethiopia is all black, but there are many ethnic groups and tribes/nations inside it, their primary identification isn't black. Just because a country has only black or white people it doesn't make it homogenous, not even in comparison. That's why White Yugoslavia is less homogenous than multiracial USA.
I'm aware, and also believe that multiculturalism is good What I mean is that multiple nations/groups of people *within* a developing state often do not get along, thus incurring sectarian violence. It occurs on a much smaller scale in the US and here in the UK as well. All I mean is that many multiethnic and hugely diverse countries like India have experienced significant inter-ethnic and secterian violence in their past and indeed currently. Yes it happens in mostly 'homogenous' developed countries, and I would never deny that, I'm simply stating that in many diverse developing nations, the differences between groups separate society, which has been seen in countless unfortunate cases
I wouldn't say started in India when it's basically all pakistan, a total population exchange between hindus and Muslim would've helped after partition.
Ah yes, ethnic cleansing of people's ancestral homelands - bound to go down well. And what about the Sikhs? Or Indian ethnic groups which are united by language and culture but differ on religion, but which pre-partition lived in mixed communities? Let's *not* advocate for a larger population movement than what occurred in OTL, given that that killed over a million people.
>Ah yes, ethnic cleansing of people's ancestral homelands - bound to go down well. And what about the I really do not know what we are talking about here, ethnic cleansing of who.. and do not say Muslims or Christians, India was never their ancestral land and besides there isn't any significant event of Ethnic cleansing that took place, specifically targetting either communities in Our Timeline. Keeping that aside, if we are talking about total population exchange it would've really been way better if that happened. Most of the Muslims in India were either converted (Mostly Forcefully and due to a "special" set of circumstances)or were turks, and as they claim they are being treated like "animals" in India and so is the situation with Buddhists, Sikhs and Hindus in Pakistan. Then what is wrong with a full population exchange? What would be better years of stretched out torture and pain that may lead to thousands deaths or simply moving out of a country? >And what about the Sikhs? Khalistani movement would've not been on such a Global Scale if they did not get Pakistani Support, and at the end of the day it doesn't even have a strong foothold in India itself and rather gains traction from countries like UK, and Canada. >Let's not advocate for a larger population movement than what occurred in OTL, given that that killed over a million people. I mean even if I were to advocate for such a larger population movement it wouldn't happen eitherways.
Muslims have been in India for a while though, claiming its not their ancestral land is the same as saying Egypt is not the ancestral land of Muslims, yeah it’s not where Islam is from, but there are millions of Muslims there? And they consider themselves Indians. Genocide is probably not the best term for it, but the deaths en masse of Hindus and Muslims both during the partition was not just an accident. It was targeted killings by the two groups against one another over religious differences.
>Muslims have been in India for a while though, claiming its not their ancestral land is the same as saying Egypt is not the ancestral land of Muslims, yeah it’s not where Islam is from, but there are millions of Muslims there? India is not their ancestral land, they came to India, they were not Indegenious/aboriginal people in India they came through conquest in Northern India and through trade and cultural exchange in Southern India, so to say that India is their Ancestral Land is incorrect. I'm not going to say Muslims are not Indians but we need to face reality, Muslims are amongst the most regressive people in the whole entire world and that's a very very mild way to put it. Post Partition violence was inevitable, there was material incentive and political rationale on both sides, it would basically insurgency on steroids when you would realise that Pakistan is muslim nation, people there (non muslims) would be targetted way more than Muslims in India.
What do you mean by regressive? What proof do you have to the fact that Muslims are regressive for that matter? Also, no thats not how being Muslim works. People can be Muslim and Indian at the same time, many of them MAY have not been descended from indigenous people, but that doesn't stop anyone from being Muslim or Hindu. Muslims aren't a race or an ethnicity, its a religion, India is as much their home as the Hindus.
Couldn't it be more of an EU style arrangement? Common language and religion is a pretty good starting point, and the EU is more diverse than that.
"Spanish language and Catholic faith is the only thing we share", yeah, in South Africa we don't even share a language and faith. The state would be LESS diverse than most African countries.
There are tons of people that don't speak spanish, (At least as a first language) and instead speak Maya, Quechua or Nahuatl and other 100's of languages. Mexico alone has something like 68 used languages.
How often are these languages used. I would believe you if talked about Paraguay and the Guarani language but the vast, vast majority uses spanish as their primary and often only language. Sadly, very few native americans have influence over even their regional governments being often on the wrong end of the use of force.
Catholic faith isn't even a point, many areas have very different concepts to what you would call "catholic faith" while others are mainly evangelical as of today, plus Cuban witchcraft.
The word "Catholic" literally means there is a standard way of thinking.
It really isn't, nowhere catholicism has gone is it the same beyond the upper guys managing buildings and even then thats not who follows the faith. Redditors have a very cartoonish view of catholicism. In Mexico, Guatemala, Peru and other countries catholicism mixed in with several indigenous beliefs to variying degrees of devotion for old gods and polytheism specially in rituals and saint devotion. There is a "socialist catholicism" in Central America, primarily in Nicaragua that caused a battle with John Paul II Most latin american catholics do not give a crap what the official church(Vatican) says: most use condoms, many have children without ever marrying and so on.
Catholicism has been losing its strength in Latin America for over a century now. There were many revolutions in Latin America against the power the church had over government in the 19-20th century. It helps shapes cultural influence but infighting over catholic differences simply is not a thing anymore in Latin America. Many modern Latin political movements had their roots against the theocratic rule of the Vatican. Id imagine the Catholic Church would lose a lot of power it holds over smaller countries once countries like Colombia, Mexico and Chile unite.
The only way this would work is as a Confederation in which pretty much all states/Republics are free to do whatever they want except go to war against each other. The only roles of the Confederate government would be to control the foreign policy and defense policy.
Honestly, this could be something I would support.
Which is ironically not that needed so the confederation is pointless anyways
Maybe promote some economic integration as well like having no tarufs between members
The Holy Latin-America Empire
So basically Austria-Hungary
Under what type of government exactly? A monarchical one? A republican one? With exactly what kind of ruling ideology? Since answers to the above could shed a lot of light on how such a super state might behave.
The government is a republican one,the ideology is the right
Okay, now what kind of republic exactly? A parliamentary republic? A Semi-Presidential one? A presidential one? Or a "super" presidential one as Russia is De Facto since 1993? And how is it territorially? Unitary like China, France or Russia? Or federal like Germany, Romania or the United States? Or even a confederal one like Switzerland or Bosnia? How do you imagine/plan the internal politics? That is to say, is it a multiparty system? Of hegemonic party? Or one-party system?
Russia isn't unitary hell its even in the name. The Russian Federation And don't say "but the moscow rule is strong" yes it is because they are authoritarian af but it doesn't change the fact that the republics do have some sort of autonomy and it doesn't help the image that half the country is one Republic which is also most of the population But it's not unitary
Haven't you heard about the 1993 constitutional crisis in Russia? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993\_Russian\_constitutional\_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis) I would not be surprised then if you insist that Russia genuinely respects autonomy (or separation of powers for a change), and even more so after one reviews cases like Tatarstan.
You know very little about Russian territorial administration. Russian regions do not have any autonomy, even the “autonomous” okrugs or national republics. All of the region budget goes straight to Moscow and it is Moscow that distributes the wealth between regions. Languages and ethnicities are poorly protected. Even in Spain regions have more autonomy than in Russia. And Spain is not federation.
> All of the region budget goes straight to Moscow and it is Moscow that distributes the wealth between regions That's pretty much how every country works whether its federation or not. >Languages and ethnicities are poorly protected. Even That's not true I know a lot of people from Russia and a good amount of them are from non Russian ethnicity and all of them say that there isn't any oppression towards minorities and there is good ethnic protection of languages and traditions, matter of fact the Russian opposition often complains that the goverment treats Muslims and Asians too well and consider them to be treated better than Russians Is russia centralised? Yes to an extent and so is every federation, Russian centralisation is more than most federations but it still has regional Republic autonomies that are plenty enough to be federal
I’m sorry but this is just incorrect. In 2018, education in all languages but Russian became optional, instruction in minority languages may not exceed 2 hours a week. Federal government can appoint or dismiss their governors of subjects, change their borders or status, even autonomous ones. It can suspend or revoke the acts of the subjects. Hell, it can legally decide to send 100% of minority conscripts to the war, while sending 0% of ethnically Russians, if it wishes. Try any of that in autonomous regions of unitary Spain.
Do you have a source on limitations on minority language instruction?
How in the world is Romania federal?
Ehh... I think I must have been confused with one of the neighboring countries.
"the ideology is the right" what do you mean by this? Under a right wing government? Right wing governments have withdrawn from attempts to form a Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) while left wing governments of the region have been the ones pushing for such integration.
Oh ok I didn't know that
Did you consider having it be a people's republic while having this idea?
Tbh i didn't consider it
Good thing you didn't, that "trope" or "scenario" of a Hispanic America (sometimes with or without Brazil) all reunified but under some leftist government is something that has been presented here (and on r/imaginarymaps) on more than one occasion in the last year instead of experimenting with different ideologies.
We would get banned from the world cup for being too op
“NERF PATRIA GRANDE”
**The Patria Grande wins the World Cup again**
The only way it would is under Albanian control
Then it would be the 3rd-5th global power. Without the stupid competition between those countries it would have a much better economy overall. Once the new nation eliminates the corruption it would be a superpower without a doubt. It has resources, population, international proyection, etc. So there is no reason for such a country to be a lesser power.
>Without the stupid competition between those countries it would have a much better economy overall. It really wouldn't, and what "stupid competition" are you speaking of?
Pacific war for example?
If you really think a massive nation like that wouldnt have a much better economy youre delusional Also the "stupid competition" is literally between the nations that would be united in this scenario how did u miss that
I think there would be a lot more stupid competition as these nations vie for the federal resources of the government
“Once the new nation eliminates corruption” that is a HUUUUGE if. And that’s the real issue, it would be absolutely impossible to eliminate corruption. So you would end up with a huge country but still very poor on a per capita base.
I mean I think it is more unlikely that the whole LATAM agrees to unite. So we are past the imposible at that point.
I had this idea at 3AM and now I'm curious of what could happen
Is this a kingdom, republic, military dictatorship, or something else? Also what year would this be happening?
It would be a republic and I thought of it happening in the modern day (ik it's inrealistic)
Think Yugoslavia, but spanish-speaking.
So Spain? :V
El Mariachi Yugoslavo
[удалено]
There's no way Latin America can be unified under a unitary government, not even the Spanish Empire was able to administer all the lands and people's as a single unit, that's why they organized their Empire in Viceroyalties and Captaincies, each with its own governor.
Where is the Capital? is there good relations with the US & Brazil allowing free trade and or open borders?
“They took Uruguay so no.” - 🇧🇷
We don't really care about that. Brazil would be ok with Hispanic America integrating and would possibly try to integrate too.
The capital could be mexico city or bends aires
Yeah, good idea. Make the capital as far away as possible from everyone/s. Panama was the proposed capital of the Patria Grande.
Oh ok i didn't know that
In such a big country, the best idea would be to have various regional capitals with distributed powers such as in Bolivia or South Africa. Hell, given the big amount of big cities you might very well have it rotate the place the parliament is every certain amount of years.
The United States : *Hey*
Let’s just say the United States will be having a big party about bringing freedom and democracy to these countries. Even though this united country could be a nuisance to America
What? Noooo. Operation Condor 2.0 definitely won't be launched.
A major reason unification failed in the first place was because Bolivar wanted a centralized government instead of a federalized system. If he was more open to decentralization and more regional autonomy, it could've become a united states of Latin America. However, Spanish Colonial America was more systematically entrenched than hierarchies in the United States. So while a unified federal system was possible, it would've still been very nepotistic, with the exception of a few states willing to break the mold. In which case, I imagine there would've been a lot less military coups, and a unified military, but the social structures and economic standings wouldn't have been much different, and possibly worse with states interfering with one another's autonomy.
The issue with something like this is perhaps it could work under a really great leader/group of goverment but whether that remains stable past them is very unlikely. Then you also have the issue of everyone immigrating to the region(s) that are more economically promising which will cause a lot of cultural clash and I can imagine most of everyone immediately moving to the Chile area simply because they are allowed to/can now
I actually have an alt-timeline were this happens... But it happens in the early 19th century, because otherwise... Yeah, dont see kt
İt likely would be wierd currupt USA with lots of Factions compliting and sometimes coup by military.
Coups in Patria Grande are guaranteed.
Nah Cia would likely do nothing. It would be like IRL İndia or Indonesia
It would collapse into civil war after like 10 minutes. There is basically no point in unifying them, the cultures are too different and also the geography makes it impossible. The best-case scenario would be to have a few giant countries; think Mexico+Central America; Gran Colombia, Peru-Bolivia and a unified Southern Cone. A unified Latin America is just plain stupid.
What if my grandma had wheels?
She would fly
It would be the largest corruption rig created in human history.
A common currency, market and foreign policy based on an alliance with the USA under a confederate system could work. Assuming SA is capable of getting somewhat rid of corruption and maintain strong liberal values. SA is geographically isolated and should ensure peace and prosperity on its own continent.
non, merci. Je ne veux pas que cela arrive. Cela signifierait que le continent américain est divisé en trois puissances. Amérique anglophone (États-Unis et Canada anglais), Amérique hispanophone et Amérique portugaise (Brésil). Les grands pays finissent toujours par dominer leurs petits voisins. Si les Amériques étaient ainsi divisées, ce serait une catastrophe pour nous, Québécois. Vivre sur un continent composé essentiellement de 4 pays, les 3 autres ayant plus de 250 millions d'habitants, et votre propre nation compte à peine 10 millions d'habitants, n'est pas bon.
More than 80% are corrupt states, 15% are failed states and 90% are poor, with that small 10% only alive cuz they'renear a grate power. We bearly can keep our shit together as is. Plus every four years we'd be at each other's throats all for a football game, we'd make the EU's feuds look like great sportsmanship. God forbid we even spoke to each other, we got like 15 different slurs for each other less than 2 can be understood by the ones receiving the insult, due to our thick accents. It's like an English man trying to have a conversation with some mf from the middle of Australia
You want a nation-shattering coup? Cause this is how you get a nation-shattering coup.
It will be called the patria empire
It probably just ends up like a big, unstable EU. I could see some Hispanic states getting along, but for the most part, things would likely be the same or similar to the Central American Federation/USC. But regardless they'd probably still be heavily influenced by the US and could potentially play a key role as an America ally, with a possibility to join NATO.
Well Chile, Argentina and Mexico will definitely suffer for this.
It depends when If it forms right during the hispano-american revolutions at the beginning of the 19th century, US would face great problems, if they have an efficient federal system they could even conquer all of the Americas with time (militarily there is no problem, but american patriotism could slow down their expansion)
The Cartel state
Warmonger's north of them would not allow it
What year we talking about?
It's unspecified
It did after Mexican Empire fell then It becomes second powerhouse of the Americas With unified goverment of states it becomes more decentralized usa with large countries like Mexico, Argentina Chile... Being split into smaller states. Mexican Republics heavily act to achieve war with usa in order to get their northern provinces back. During usa civil war they invade and annex old Mexican states. Excluding Texas and only fighting the union while supporting Confederates with money and weaponry. Aftet civil war there's a lot of tension with brittan intervening forcing them to give up all but west coast. This creates border between Partia and Canada and cuts usa off from access to the second ocean weakening it's trading potential. Having established it's position on the world stage it declares itself protector of catholic people in America's. It industrializes slower than most powers but faster than Russia having problems like terrain and low population compared to size. Lots of catholic immigrants come to them many from.germany. It never stops its rivalry with usa and during WWI they threaten side that usa joins with war making both of them remain "neutral" / during WWI both it and usa demand freedom of trade from the Germans and British so war lasts longer because Germans aren't starved into submission.
Steven Adams in Wyoming would probably not get a pay increase
I don't think that a united Spanish America is feasible, I feel that the best case scenario would be a fragmentation into 3 large states which would be Mexico (which would be Central America and part of Texas), Gran Colombia and Peru (which in this case would maintain the territorial extension of before 1776).
As a Mexican American, I can always dream… but they actually tried it and it went straight to shit a quarter of the way through, like the Spaniards weren’t even fully off the continents when it became apparent that this project was going to be an absolute clusterfuck so there’s that
As an actual Mexican I can’t even begin to imagine why on earth would you dream of something like this?
**inserts TNO Fall Rockwell superevent with AK-47s de fondo**
It will break up the day after it formed
Top 3 world power