Jump to content

Talk:Colonial Brazil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2019 and 24 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lynadg, Jnlambert.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]

Isn't colonial Brazil part of Brazil history?? The article about brazilian history should have contained colonial Brazil in the first place!! by Benhpark

It shouldve, but i dont think this article be merged. Portugal had other colonies too. by Jodavid 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be merged. The article is part of a series in the HISTORY OF BRAZIL. Not the history of Portugese colonization.

I disagree. The history of the Portuguese colonization of the Americas coincides 100% with that of Colonial Brazil, since Portugal never had any other colonies in the Americas. FilipeS 13:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Brazil was the only colony. Chico 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge: Portugal also attempted to colonise parts of North America, like Newfoundland in Canada, which could be dealt with in Portuguese colonization of the Americas. Besides, the history of colonial Brazil includes the unsuccessfull attempts by the French and the Dutch to colonise parts of Brazil, and a great part of Brazil (Amazon, the South) legally belonged to Spain under the Treaty of Tordesillas, and was explored by the Spaniards (like the Amazon river, which was first explored by Spanish explorers). Thus, even though colonial Brazil coincides almost 100% with the Portuguese colonization of the Americas, they are not exactly the same thing. Fsouza 12:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point there. will remove the merger proposal. FilipeS 23:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Heir requested to return To/From Brazil

[edit]

In section United Kingdom period (1808-1822), we have: 

The heir of João VI, Prince Pedro, remained in Brazil. The Portuguese Cortes demanded Brazil to return to 
its former condition of colony and the return   of the heir to Brazil.

Which doesn't make sense. As I recall, the Portugues Cortes demanded his return FROM Brazil (to Portugal), as he would continue the royal family line in Portugal. Therefore, I will edit this, as it looks like a typo/mistranslation. Feel free to discuss and revert. 201.25.2.32 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more references

[edit]

Many parts, if not all of the article has been writen without references nor footnotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IngeniusDodo (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racist Elements in this page:

To imply that Spain and Portugal simply divided the world in order to exploit it is racist. The Spanish people, Portuguese people, or Western civilization for that matter are being vilified by this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.106.28 (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the above, I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say it is racist against the Spanish and Portuguese people but I do agree that it could possibly be considered biased if you imply that it was exploitation and thus perhaps providing sources and examples of what the Spanish and Portuguese did in the colony is a good way to structure this point while maintaining the unbiased stance necessary in a wikipedia article Ericadl99 (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an old Spanish saying which I will cite just to establish that old established bias is a fact of history. The saying: "A Portuguese is born of the a Jews fart." By polite 21st Century standards much of the bias against the Spanish and Portuguese, while perhaps not rising to the level of racism that has long existed against Jews, or Africans, or the bias against Vietnamese "boat people" that had fishermen of nearby ethnicities slaughtering refugees, is nevertheless a fact of history. In writing of early colonial times, when the St. Bartholomew's day massacre a "current event", when ships of all European nations stopped at any non-European harbor and resupplied by raiding the surroundings for whatever they could find, when the Dutch and the Portuguese in Brazil gave no "quarter" during their struggle and allowed their defeated enemies to be slaughtered and eaten by their cannibal allies, when we consider the Inquisition, when we consider the Atlantic Slave trade, it seems a rather mild criticism of the Spanish and Portuguese to "imply that Spain and Portugal simply divided the world in order to exploit it....P2dwight (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original author/authors contact me

[edit]

I have recently bought a book named Portuguese Overseas Expansion, 1400-1800 that might help improve the quality of citations on this page, but I need the original authors to also add citations to the sources as well. If I add the ones that I have available, it would overwhelmingly make it appear that it all came from my book, which isn't the case. So could anyone contact me about the citations and possible expansion of this page. Thanks for readingLeftAire (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viceroyalty and Principality

[edit]

The colony was never officially elevated to a Viceroyalty. Some of the "governadores-gerais" had the title "vice-rei" - it was only a title. I know that the colony was divided in 1621 in "Estado do Brasil" and "Estado do Maranhão". Later, "Estado do Maranhão" changed of name, but it was merged into "Estado do Brasil" in 1775, which lasted until 1815. I don't know if the name "Estado do Brasil" existed before 1621. And I don't know if "Colony of Brazil" was an official name, or usual name, or just a name created by historians.

In fact, there was the title Prince of Brazil, but I never heard of the "Principality". Maybe this name was used somewhere, but I think it was merely a formality, not the official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.56.4.135 (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article pt:Anexo:Lista de nomes oficiais do Brasil can give a help for this discussion, although it lacks references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.42.166.36 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous to say that Portugal was "not interested" in Brazil after its discovery. Portugal had as much interest in Brazil as it merited. It had nothing to offer Portugal but slaves and dyewood compared to India that was rich in products for the European market. But as soon as the Portuguese realized that sugar cane would grow there they began to develop sugar plantations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

expeditions to Brazil

[edit]

We have no idea how many expeditions Portugal sent out to Brazil in the period 1501-1516. We have records for only one, but it is logical that many more went out. To assume that paucity of documentation is the same as paucity of expeditions is foolish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Complex: Captaincies, Governorates, State of Brazil, Colonial Brazil

[edit]

There is a complex of articles that contain fragments of Brazilian colonial history from 1534-1815:

Total words 4250

As one can see, with the exception of Captaincy of Pernambuco, they're all short articles. To get the context, one has to find and read most of them. There is substantial overlap between the articles, maybe 1/3. I propose merging those articles together into this one. Associated portions of this article are:

There would be again, substantial overlap between the merged articles and the text of these two sections. Combining the merged article into the sections might result in adding between 1800 and 2300 lines to the existing article. But we then have the opportunity of making a nice and complete exposition of colonial forms of government. There is perhaps enough text to keep Captaincy of Pernambuco as a separate article. Either way, after the merge, I'd propose converting the pages for the old articles into redirects to appropriate section(s) in this article.

[Note: I have just examined the text of Captaincy of Pernambuco, and it has some serious issues on its own. It won't survive in its current form, so it may as well be treated together with the rest, so all the relevant work gets integrated together.]

Sbalfour (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

purpose and structure of the article

[edit]

Editors have written some nice flowing, readable text for this article. It's fatally flawed by lack of sourcing; two of three footnotes (art history websites) are not very appropriate. The ancillary problem is omission of significant events in the text.

The starting place for this article is where it fits into the existing miasma of articles on colonial Brazil in the encyclopedia, and that itself takes some investigation. There are already detailed articles on almost significant period and event, for example: Guarani War, Brazilian Gold Rush, Captaincies of Brazil, Slavery in Brazil, etc. There also exist several overview articles: Brazil#History, History of Brazil, Portuguese colonization of the Americas, and maybe others of significant relevance like History of Portugal.

Many whole books have been written on small portions or events of Brazilian colonial history. Even a topical treatment of it could occupy an encyclopedic volume. We can't do that here. So what we really have here is an in-between article: we don't want to go into detail on topics that are covered in other lower level articles, but we want to break down and detail events and periods mentioned only in passing (or not at all) in the overview articles. At some finer level of detail, we want to stop, and leave the readers wikilinks or hatnotes to main articles or see also articles. The See Also section is the place to enumerate parallel or higher level overview articles.

This article serves somewhat the same function as a disambiguation page: it's a set of wikilinks, hatnotes and lists of things we might be interested in, woven into a comprehensive but mostly topical narrative. One might think of the article as List of articles on colonial Brazil ordered by date or clustered into periods (sections of the article), with a sentence of two about each one. Of course, the article should be outlined independently of the list of existing articles, because some relatively significant events may not have wikipedia articles!

Creating a comprehensive outline requires first, gathering a list of appropriate and scholarly sources like Robert Southley's History of Brazil. Tertiary summary sources like Cambridge History of Latin America, cited in the article are not good sources. I'd suggest that most primary and secondary sources for this article are in Portuguese, and some will be in French, Dutch, Spanish and Italian (very few in English), so I'd say it's essential to be multi-lingual to research this article.

Actually, while there is no doubt primary sources are predominantly in Portuguese, there is a considerable body of high quality research and writing in English, quite possibly more extensive than in French, Dutch, Spanish, or Italian. In addition to Southey, C. R. Boxer, Brad Burns, A. J. R. Russell-Wood, Bailey Diffie, Stuart Schwartz, and Dauril Alden are easy recalls. Moreover, Francis Dutra published a guide to the liturature on colonial Brazil that lists hundreds of sources in English. P2dwight (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've doctored up the article, to indicate some specific deficiencies, but I think as stated above, that basic structure and integration of the article with the rest of the encyclopedia are the isssues to be addressed.

Sbalfour (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Defeat and or Extermination of the Indigenous People

[edit]

"the discovery of the New World" but we know now of course that it was an invasion. There is little sense of this fact in this article. The people from whom Brazil was taken are mentioned only in passing, as a minor set back in the invasion, or in the ridiculous "strained the situation was between the Portuguese and many indigenous tribes." --133.62.200.185 (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that State of Brazil, Governorate General of Bahia, Governorate General of Rio de Janeiro, State of Maranhão and Piauí, State of Grão-Pará and Rio Negro and Captaincies of Brazil be merged into Colonial Brazil. Those articles were created by an overzealous editor awhile ago. They serve no purpose, since they bring the exact same information from the "mother" article. Surely they won't be expanded because there is no one with the expertize to work on them. Why to keep them as stubs, then? Lecen (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Because they have separate WP:SCOPES. This is an overview and (eventually) cultural article, whereas those are polities and deserve separate treatment. — LlywelynII 01:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colonial Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping to contribute/expand on the following...

[edit]

This article is missing information on how mining related to environmentally-harmful agricultural practices and how that altered Brazilian landscape/environment/society. I also hope to expand on the quilombos and their influences. I am planning on adding a small section about the cabbala frontier and another section on the role of beef relating it to the mining industry of this era...

I will use the following sources: Schwartz, Stuart. "Rethinking Palmares: Slave Resistance in Colonial Brazil."

Darren, Warren. "Gold and Diamonds, Ants and Cattle." 


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynadg (talk • contribs) 04:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Brasil time period

[edit]

Should the date of Colonial Brazil on the top of the infobox be 1500-1630; 1654-1815 since Dutch rule lasted 1630-1654? Danial Bass (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colonial_Brazil&oldid=1230196476"