Geography and destiny

Since reading John Mauldin's report on Brazil the other day, I've been thinking about geography, identity and destiny. To what degree do our physical surroundings define who and what we are ? I suppose it's the old nature-nurture debate, except transposed onto entire countries and cultures rather than single individuals.

Mauldin's report makes much of Brazil's brutal inaccessibility - in marked contrast to, say, the US or Argentina. As a result of this national handicap, development of the country was delayed by about a century. And when it did get going, the huge upfront investment required played into the hands of a small elite who were able to muster sufficient funds. This left everyone else in a state of virtual serfdom.

The massive imbalance continues to this day, says Mauldin, with a pathetically small land-owning middle class in Brazil. The only hope of societal change rests on Brazil's ability to change it's geography, bit by bit. Formerly inaccessible areas finally become linked, to each other and to the main population centres, transport hubs and ports. It's painfully slow work and with no absolute guarantee of success but, without control of the Rio de la Plata, Brazil has no choice but to keep chipping away at its hostile terrain.

That's all very macro stuff. Back down here in the everyday world of the micro, I find myself applying this grandiose backdrop to things that I see and hear about the culture and character of Brazilians.

For example, when someone tells me, "Brazilians are so unreliable / unprofessional: they will make an agreement with you and then break it just like that and without any notice."

Or when I hear: "Robert, you are like so many foreigners here: too open and trusting with people. Brazilians can't be trusted, they are backstabbers. We were colonised by the wrong sort of people (the Portuguese)." Etc.

With the hand of geography upon my shoulders, I now interpret these kind of comments as follows: Inhospitable country leads to mix of big business / oligarchs and big government - effectively the worst of both capitalism and socialism. Taken together they act as a sort of duopoly. The "little guy" is buffeted between these two overarching forces and feels a sense of impotency.

All he can do is follow orders and make nice with both "parents", which takes up most of his time, energy and initiative. When not doing so, he interacts with his fellow impotents in a manner that is often irresponsible or childish. After all, the intrusive and overbearing Big Government and Big Business have no interest in making him truly independent or responsible. They don't want him to feel accountable for his actions; they just want him to do as he is told. He is not important; only the land is important.

Such thoughts led me to perhaps coin the phrase, the "robber nanny state", as in robber barons being in cahoots with those supposedly representing "We the People".

Which, I suppose, brings me back once again to one of my recurring themes on this blog: the need for Brazil to prioritise its human resource (aka "intellectual capital") over its "natural resource". Other countries, such as Japan, South Korea and Israel have overcome nature's stinginess by using their brainpower. They defied geographic determinism by dint of sheer human determination.

But Brazil - "God's land" - has never had enough of a crisis to force a change of direction. If God really does have a soft spot for this country, he should engineer something that will change the national psyche once and for all.

Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.