Talk:Portuguese Angola

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move this page from Portuguese West Africa to Angola (overseas province), per the discussion below and related discussion at Talk:Portuguese East Africa. This move was discussed in more depth there because the link from WP:RM was to that page instead of this one. Dekimasuよ! 05:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I doubt whether this name was ever used officially - banknotes of the time state that they are payable in the "dependencies of the province of Angola" rather than in a "Portuguese West Africa." The name could be an entirely English construction, and a dated, inaccurate one at that. More people are likely to be familiar with the colony under the name Angola than under "Portuguese West Africa." Gws5597 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion about this. But the term may have been applied more generally than to specifically Angola. For example, see The International Yearbook. older ≠ wiser 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• The title affects the article. If it is about Portuguese colonies and colonialism down the west coast of Africa including what are now called Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe, Cabinda and Angola as well as various claims and forts then it should have a different name to the position if it is just colonial Angola. --Rumping (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lacks neutrality, lacks references, factually inaccurate, pathetically weak

I have put a POV notice on this article because it was clearly written from a non-neutral point of view in an attempt to retrospectively justify Portuguese imperial control of this part of Africa.

For example the phrase "From 1764 onwards, there was a gradual change from a slave-based society to one based on production for domestic consumption and export." is a complete lie and fails to point out that Portugal resisted the abolition of slavery in it's African colonies until 1869 - more than a century later! It also fails to point out that the primary 'export' referred to was the black population, which was increasingly exported into slavery in the Americas - even despite the British navy's efforts to restrict the slave trade. However, even the inclusion of these 'details', would not hide the fact that Portuguese colonialism after the abolition of slavery continued to rely on forced labour and brutal systems of plantation and mining.

I have also included a 'lacking references' notation. An example of sloppy, biased editing is the phrase 'the white population increased from 44,083 in 1940 to 172,529 in 1960. Where do these extremely precise numbers come from? Was there a census? Did it include a 'racial' question? What other 'racial' categories were in the census? How much of the total population took part in this census? Why is the only census information on this page about so-called 'whites'. Why were 'racial' categories included in this supposed census? Clearly, a 'racial' census indicates at least some level of racial discrimination (even it was only in the form of a census question). What other forms of racial discrimination existed in 'Portuguese Angola'? None of these questions are addressed by this ignorant article.

The Portuguese empire's violent opposition to basic democratic reforms (such as the rights to self-determination, to vote and to form political organisations) is never mentioned and, amazingly there is no section on the independence movement!

Given that there are already articles on Angola and the history of Angola, one has to question what is the purpose of this article? It includes large amounts of text that are identical to other articles dealing with the Portuguese empire indicating that it has been edited in a way designed to cast the violent, racist, repressive Portuguese empire in a good light.

Editors should therefore be mindful that this article has possibly been created and sustained by disgruntled Portuguese extreme nationalists with a nostaglic longing for the defeated empire. Ackees (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits, Mr. Ackees, strongly contradict the provided sources. What you have done is change a number of things in the article to the opposite of what they stated previously, without changing the sources whatsoever. This makes little sense, since it can only be justified if the source itself was originally incorrect, but this has not proven to be the circumstance per my checking.ElliotJoyce (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)sockpuppet of Vost

Neutrality lacking

Have re-instated the POV box. Editors should strive to seek consensus on the issues raised. Ackees (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. The Economy section already states that "explorer Paulo Dias de Novais founded Luanda in 1575 as "São Paulo de Loanda", and the region developed as a slave trade market." and "Portugal, would not tolerate the growth of these neighbouring states and subjugated them one by one." All of these statements are referenced in the link provided http://www.angola.org.uk/Default.aspx?IDM=15&IDLang=1 (United Kingdom's embassy of Angola itslef). I see no use in repeating the same statements on slavery and violence across the entire article because that was just a part of history that should be explored in the proper article Slavery in Angola and Slavery in Africa.Unobjectionable (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope the emphasis now placed on slavery (16th - 19th centuries), forced labour (19th - 20th centuries) and independence movements (1950s - 1975) are enough to remove the NPOV tag. Unobjectionable (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these are the bare minimum of improvements, but they cannot justify the removal of the POV notice. This article is systematically littered with racist and pro-colonialist propaganda. In the history section it says, 'Native lifestyle included centuries long practices such as slavery among black peoples'. What kind of a phrase is 'native lifestyle' to describe so-called 'slavery'? Why is slavery the first thing mentioned about the indigenous culture? What evidence is presented that it was the most significant or foremost element of the culture (as opposed to kingship, or agriculture for example)? Why is it described as 'slavery among black peoples'? What evidence is there that skin colour was an important factor in any supposed indigenous labour system? Or is it only of interest to an inherently racist Portuguese POV? What evidence is there that slavery was practised for 'centuries' prior to Portuguese arrival? Among the list of pre-Portuguese cultural life, what is meant by 'fetishist' - is that an insult against indigenous beliefs? What evidence is presented for the forced deportation of 1 million Angolans into slave labour in the West? Lovejoy (Cambrigde, 2000) claims more than 4 million deportees from the 'West Central' region. Why is it claimed that there was 'a deep traditional tribal heritage in Angola which the European rulers were neither able nor interested to eradicate' - surely this contradicts the later phrase about a race-based education system that 'taught black Africans in Portuguese language and culture'? Why is Angolan local culture described as 'tribal'? Why does the article state that the war of independence began when the UPA 'massacred civilians in surprise attacks' when other sources state that the uprising began with a Portuguese massacre of civilians? What sources are presented for this issue? Why does the article state that there were '1 million' 'retournados' and why does it include Mozambique and Guinea in the numbers? Why is it stated that ALL the refugees were 'destitute' - this seems unlikely as they included the elite of a 400-year old empire? Why are there such minutely detailed 'racial' statistics such as, 'The white population increased from 44,083 in 1940 to 172,529 in 1960' and yet no mention of the official racism which necessarily produced such statistics? The phrase stating that the 'province enjoyed special derogations' suggests that in fact Angola was privileged above Portugal and yet in the same paragraph it states blithely that 'most Africans did not have the necessary qualifications to obtain positions', as though this was just an unfortunate accident. If it's true that 'Angola was indeed a territory that underwent a great deal of progress after 1950. The Portuguese government built dams, roads, schools, etc.' then why were the people willing to fight for their independence? Perhaps the truth is that it was not the 'Portuguese government' that did this building, but the 'forced labor system' (which is barely mentioned, as though slavery in the 1950s was a sort of insignificant incident).

Over and over again we find a whole slew of pro-colonialist, racist, anti-African propaganda designed to give the impression that Portuguese colonialism was actually a benefit to the local people - rather than a predatory, hostile system of foreign, class and racial exploitation and oppression. The POV hypocrisy of the editors who have contributed this nonsense lies in the fact that (one can assume) none of them would want to become colonial subjects of a foreign power. Until this article can present a balanced view of Portuguese colonialism, then it must be viewed as primarily a propaganda sheet produced by pro-colonial advocates.Ackees (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I did not make myself understood. This article is about a 5 century-long period. There was a period with slavery, other period with forced labour, and, yes it is true, other period with an effort to build a Westernized society, with educational endeavour for blacks and whites, and incresingly higher equality and social developments for all Angolans. If you insist in mixture all that different periods we will never have an acceptable article. In addition, we do not have room to explain in detail all of those different periods which already are explored in appropriate articles. Did you know that a lot of people (including black Angolans) were not willing to fight for independence, but against independence? There were all-black Angolan battallions. By 1973 over 50% of Portuguese Army troops employed in the Colonial War were black Africans. Of course these details do not need be explored in detail in this article. Finally, we must make clear that propaganda, violence and ideological radicalism are not exclusive features of one single faction. I think the artcile states in a balanced manner both points of view and do not erase any of the main historic flaws occured in both ideologic sides. Unobjectionable (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring the Angola-related articles

Having over the last decades specialised in studies on Angola, I am a newcomer to WP. To my surprise, I have discovered the country is dealt with not only on a main page, but on several complementary pages as well. However, while my first reaction was to consider this as positive, I have since come to rather negative conclusions. On the one hand, not all articles (or sections of articles) meet WP standards in terms of quality, sources, neutrality etc., and some parts are simply bad. On the other hand, there is a stunning lack of consistency among several articles, in terms of facts and analyses. Also, they often either overlap - or then leave out important points. The only solution seems to consist in overhauling all articles, without exception, and in this process deciding which ones are to be maintained autonomously, and which ones are better lumped together. I am not sure this is the best place to start this discussion. If it is not, is could be transferred to the discussion page of the main article. Aflis (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

For something so wide-ranging, one of the WikiProjects (I'm thinking Angola's) is probably best. This page certainly deserves to remain as a former state or state subdivision. Some of the other articles do overlap and/or suck, though. For example, the page on Angola's precolonial history is actually a history of its colonial-era history. — LlywelynII 00:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Source for article expansion

This book from Cambridge U. Press has a good section on the establishment of Angola colony and how it was a shift in Portuguese behavior up to that point. At the time of its establishment, the Portuguese name was the Reino de Angola. Ideally, the other names in the lede should be clarified and include the original Portuguese names and explain the dates of the change. — LlywelynII 00:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Angola (Portugal) → Portuguese Angola – The current title just seems awkward. Also, the article on the Portugese colony of India is called Portuguese India. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese Mozambique? Surely you made a typo there! Walrasiad (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Note Editors commenting on this may also wish to comment on the parallel discussion atTalk:Mozambique (Portugal)#Requested move_2 Walrasiad (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. —Cliftonian (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Support, with a minor caveat that neither "Portuguese Angola" nor "Portuguese Mozambique" were proper names. Names like "Portuguese India" and "Portuguese Guinea" are supposed to indicate subsets of a larger "region" (India, Guinea). But there is no "region" called Angola or Mozambique, they were the proper names of very specific colonies (pedantically, the country that we now call Mozambique would have been "Portuguese East Africa", as it encompasses multiple old colonies of Sofala, Mozambique, etc., so the current title is plain inaccurate, as well as being awkward). That said, I still think it an improvement to change it to "Portuguese Angola" and "Portuguese Mozambique" simply for clarity, to avoid confusion and ease of linking.Walrasiad (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, whoops, I am very sorry about the typo, I did it for Mozambique as well and I must have forgot, my apologies. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Support per Walrasiad. —Cliftonian (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: I share the criticisms of this article and think there is no justification for its existence. The relevant information it contains on Angola should be included in the history section of Angola and/or in the main article History of Angola, avoiding thus fastidious and disfunctional repetition. -- Aflis (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

@Aflis, while not happy with the content of this article, I respectfully disagree. It is frequently useful, e.g. in historical articles, to link to a plain simple article about the historical state/colony, without being re-directed to the dense prose of a long "history of x" article. Walrasiad (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is some overlap but with Colonial history of Angola, not History of Angola which is a broad overview. Like User:Walrasiad, I'm not crazy about this article's content but it fufils the function of dealing with the state and all of its capacities rather than just a straight history (cf. Southern Rhodesia/Colonial history of Southern Rhodesia). —  AjaxSmack  03:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Walrasias & AjaxSmack: It so happens that lenghthy texts on the history of Angola, from the first Portuguese contacts until independence, apear in several aricles: this one, Angola, History of Angola, Independence and Civil War. The are all narrative, consist mainly of fastidious repetition, and contain quite a variety of errors and contradictions. In my mind, this situation is inacceptable and calles for revision and restructuring. In this context, the present article is (at least in its present form) simply superfluous, because its "gains" over the other articles are negligible to nil. -- Aflis (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Always thought that this article should be renamed from this awkward name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Same message without the hindering parenthesis Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What sense does it make to change the name of the article without resolving the much more important problem of the repetition of the colonial history of Angola in five articles (actuallly six: there is also Slavery in Angola)? Aflis (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't just a jaunt through history, but (theoretically) a look at a specific polity that existed in the past, looking at its laws, people, and government. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Two answers. (a) That is what the article may be supposed to be, but in fact it is a mixture of an unsatisfactory description (and not a structured analysis) of the "polity" (which can be considered as having existed from 1926 to 1974) as well as elements outside this framework. (b) Very similar pieces appear in the other articles I have referred to, especially in "History of Angola". My conclusion remains thus the same: eliminate this article, and improve the corresponding section in "History of Angola": after all, it is part of that history, isn't it, and connot be analyzed & understood out of the context of an overall historical process. As for the other articles, this solution would allow to reduce/summarize the historical parts, referring the reader to the article where it is developed at more length. -- Aflis (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't think information that which is currently in the Government section here would work well in a History article. To take a rather extreme example, this page is meant to be something like the Byzantine Empire page. I wouldn't think all the information there would belong in, say, History of Turkey. I do agree though that this article as it stands is a poor example. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am ("institutionally") political science & sociology myself, and consider that trying to separate the "academic disciplines" doesn't make sense - especially a separation between history and social sciences. Thus, in the "effective colonial occupation" section of "History of Angola" this is the perspective that can and should be adopted. Aflis (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Aflis, please, look at some of the following articles for a while: Southern Rhodesia, North Rhodesia, Cape Colony, Colony of Natal, Batavian Republic, Lusitania, Hispania, Dacia, Kingdom of Kongo... Do you think they should be deleted and merged into their modern territories' articles? (IMO, off course not! Like hundreds of other well established articles of historical polities, they deserve their own encyclopedic article.) Smsagro (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

State of West Africa

Was that what this province was called? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

For a time, yes. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No: 1972-75 it was called "Estado de Angola" (State of Angola)! Before, from 1951 onwards I think, it was "Província Ultramarina de Angola" (Overseas Province of Angola), and before that, "Colónia de Angola". -- Aflis (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It was only colonia from the 1930s. Prior to that it was "Provincia". e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]. [5]. Can't find a single reference to it as a "Estado de Angola" outside of the brief window of 1972-75. Walrasiad (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Nor, for that matter, "Africa Occidental Portuguesa". Seems to be a term only used in Spanish sources. Walrasiad (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Are there any English sources backing up "State of West Africa", because unless this is a name used in English it doesn't belong here, transliteration or not. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't care if it's not a name used in English. It's not even a name used in Portuguese. It was never called that. Entering "Estado da África Ocidental" in googlebooks and here we go: [6] There is one, only one book, that mentions it - and that is an obvious typo (they meant so say "Oriental", meaning Mozambique). Take away the old spelling (make it the modern "Ocidental") and these are the results: [7] A whole 9 books, none of which refer to Angola, all of which refer to the generic phrase "a state of west Africa", in the context of, say, talking about, oh, Liberia, or Cote d'Ivoire. This name does not exist and was never used. Walrasiad (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Walrasiad: The change of name to "Estado de Angola" was published in 1972 in Diário da República(Lisbon)(I can't find the exact date). After that, all official publications in Angola (e.g. statistical yearbooks) of course used the new designation. I have a dozen of them on my shelves: I picked them up in Luanda at the time. -- Aflis (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. But 1972-75 was a very short window of time in an article that is purpoting to cover +400 years. In most of that time it was "Provincia de Angola" (P.S. - Are you Angolan per chance?). Walrasiad (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the purpose of the argument. And don't forget the term "Província de Angola" was introduced in 1951 (after the last "primary resistence" hat been put down in the 1940s). - Also, please don't invoke the myth of the 400 years. Delimitation and something approaching "effective occupation" was not achieved before the 1920s; in the beginning of the 20th century about 5% of the present territory of Angola was occupied; halfhearted attemps at conquering more than the pockets around Luanda and Benguela were started as late as the first half of the 19th century. - I have been doing research in and on Angola since the 1960s, from changig bases in Europe. Post-colonial Angolans sometimes consider me as an assimilado (in the reverse sense). -- Aflis (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am actually trying to push for the "Portuguese Angola" as the preferred article title, and leaving official titles qualified in the text rather than blazoned across the top. "Estado de Angola" is not something that shows up much. "Overseas Province" is the name by which the colonies were known in all official documents before the 1930s Colonial Act. The 1951 name was not new, but a resumption of the old nomenclature after the repeal of the Colonial Act. All official documents & legislation outside of those windows, referred to them as such,.g.all the documents I linked above are pre-1930, and all refer to "Provincia de Angola"; and all the old Portuguese constitutions refer to ultramarine provinces e.g. Art.20-23 & Art. 162-64 of 1822 Constitution [online], 1826 constitution [online], Art. I & Title X of the constitution of 1838 [online], Title V of the Republican constitution of 1911 [online]. The great exception, as noted, was the 1930 Acto Colonial [online] , which started referring to them as 'colonies' for the first time (incorporated as Title VII in the 1933 Constitution of the Estado Novo (PDF), but subsequently repealed in 1951 (PDF)) and returned to status quo ante. So there should be some sort of clarity on what longer-standing official title was. That said, I am not presuming any sort of occupation of the territory, and I am quite wary about the whitewashing intentions of Estado Novo propaganda. That said, it is useful to be clear what the official name for the jurisdiction was before the 1930s. It is useful for historical articles that involve, say, laws or appointments of officials, etc. I don't want them saying something like in "1890 Mr. X was made governor of Estado de Angola."

@ Angolans. That's excellent. I hang around a lot on articles of African history and am always disappointed at the relative scarcity of editors, particularly from Africa, or well-versed in African history. Good to see you're around. P.S. - Palancas have their opening game today in Burkina Faso. Trying to break old curse of always losing opening game. Walrasiad (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

An alternative to "Portuguese Angola/Mozambique" could be "Angola/Mozambique under Portuguese rule" or similar. Just a thought. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be already covered in the "History of Angola" articles? I think there needs to be an article about the colonial entity as an official entity. I've run into this problem before in writing articles which refer to historical states that no longer exist. I might need to refer to, say, the Duchy of Burgundy, but if an explicit article for "Duchy of Burgundy" does not exist, the link will likely get thrown into a long, densely-written "History of the Upper Rhone" article. That's what I'm imagining the purpose of this article is (or should be). Walrasiad (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, though I didn't mean it in that way. You could easily have a "History of Angola under Portuguese rule" article as well as one simply about the colony/province called "Angola under Portuguese rule". I do see how confusion could arise, however. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Walrasiad: (a) I accept your demonstration of the historical use of "colony" vs. "province". It would help if it could be completed for the period prior to the 19th century. NB: I am not a historian myself. As a political scientist/sociologist, I have been focusing mainly on the period since the 1960s, but have been made to work my way back from there. (b) I understand, and share, the interest in analyzing as a distinct period that of ~1926 to 1974, i.e. the one in which a colonial state existed that covered the entire territory negotiated during the Berlin conference (& aftermath). However, I don't think this should be done in a separate article, but in the article History of Angola. This would allow to bring out its specificity "in context", i.e. underlining the links backwards and, above all, fowards (= continuities colonial state > postcolonial state). -- Aflis (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Move vs revision vs elimination

Two remarks:

1. The move did of course not resolve any of the serious deficiencies of the article, some of which have been discussed on this page.
2. Much less does it resolve the utility of the article as such. Just to recapitulate: the subject matter of this article is treated in Angola, History of Angola, Angolan War of Independence, Slavery in Angola, and Angolan Civil War - thus in a total of six (!) articles. The logical solution would be to concentrate it in the corresponding section of "History of Angola". - The argument that it should be maintained as a seperate article by the same token as e.g. Kingdom of Congo, because "Portuguese Angola" was no independent polity, but a colony (whatever the official designation). And we are not coming out in favour of having seperate articles for the colonial history of all countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia - or are we??? -- Aflis (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with one separate detailed article for every single former/historical colony, kingdom, republic, overseas province, khanate, Roman province, puppet state and so on. This is valid for the former political entities known as County of Portugal, Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, the Republic of Texas, Vladimir-Suzdal or the Songhai Empire, as well as for the Cape Colony, Belgian Congo, British Somaliland, French West Africa or Manchukuo. Furthermore, it is obviously a well established editorial policy followed by this online encyclopedia and found in other literature. Smsagro (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I fervently hope this is not the the editorial policy followed at WP in actual fact, and that there are more precise criteria than lumping totally diverse situations together. Criteria like this one: articles for polities which were historically independent entities yes, but not for mere colonial (or similar) extensions of metropoles etc. - In the Angolan case, an additional argument is the repetition of the same subject matter in half a dozen articles - a problem which the other discussants have avoided to address. -- Aflis (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be nonsense to merge all these articles into one. Look at all other previous colonies that are now sovereign states, they have articles on their previous positions. Now, that doesnt change the fact that this article may not be the best it can be. We must work on this article, not destroy it. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well said. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not well said at all. (a) Nobody ever spoke of merging the six articles into one. That is a baffling misunderstanding. The problem raised is that Angola's colonial history is dealt with not only in "Portuguese Angola", but in the five others as well, in more or less developed sections - and that there are quite a few contradictions between them. I cannot imagine that anybody thinks this is an acceptable situation. NB: Each of the other five articles has of course merits of its own; the nonsense lies in the repetition; there should be a logical (and consistent) "division of labour" betwen them. (b)I am still of the opinion that the best way to deal with the specific situation Angola was in during colonial occupation (1926-74) is in a well developed section of "History of Angola", which is the best place to establish the historical links of that period with the previous as well as with the following one. (c) As to the need for serious improvement, I think this applies to practically all Angola related articles. -- Aflis (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to make this article into a section in the larger History of Angola, which would be an oddity amongst the entirety of wikipedia. It would create a non-acceptable exception amongst the tens of hundreds of articles just like this one on previous colonies, countries, empires, etc. It is completely out of the question. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Are we now resorting to nicities like "ludicrous" in order to make our points? Aflis (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Aflis, repetitions among related articles are a practically unavoidable situation. You find it in every "History of" article, as well as in almost all articles belonging to a given category or subcategory. Smsagro (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

@Smsagro: Occasional repetition of historical facts is in fact functional, but (a) there should be one article where the subject matter is developed at length, so that in other places short references are sufficient, and (b) in our case, having the same story told six times, by different authors, at length and with contradictions, cannot be considered as acceptable - or do you think it can? Aflis (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Aflis, the six articles you mentioned all have different focuses. Similar subject material will be mentioned over all of them yes, but they aren't duplicate articles. CMD (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

@Chip: Of course the six articles have different focuses: I am all the more aware of this as I have not only read them, but made contributions to (I think) all of them. This is why I agree that all of them have their specific merit (except, in my view, "Portuguese Angola", for the reasons given). The problem is that "Angola under the Portuguese" (see the book by Gerald Bender) is dealt with to some length not only in "History of Angola" and in the history section of "Angola", but also in the pieces on the independence war, on the civil war, and on slavery - and that there are contradictions of facts as well as analysis between them. You are thus right in the sense that, considered in toto, these are not duplicate articles, but their parts on Angola 1926-74 are repetitions. Especially as all of them are narratives without a special focus or analytical perspective. The option I propose is thus (a) to maintain one extensive piece on the 1926-75 period (in "History of Angola", dropping "Portuguese Angola") and (b) to maintain the other articles in question, but in each of them to substantially reduce the part on the 1926-74 period, adapting it to the specific focus of the article. Aflis (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a little doubtful of the value of "Colonial history of Angola" separate from this one. IMO, those two should be merged, with this page as the main article, to be referenced from the "History of Angola", which should be just a general overview (with perhaps a generic analytical narrative) with links to denser pages with more details. I think 1926-1974 should be primarily here, with the denser part of the Angolan War of Independence (1961-1974) being separated out into its own article. If you an find reasons to include more dense articles from other eras during the colonial period, then they can be separated out, but this should be the hub of colonial-era Angola. Walrasiad (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Acceptance of independence before the Carnation Revolution

I rewrote this (and removed the GREA coalition government statement):

"In 1972, the Portuguese National Assembly wanting to grant Angola its independence, formed a coalition government (GREA) with the liberation movements, and thus effectively changing Angola's status from an overseas province to an “autonomous state” with authority over internal affairs";

Who knows a reference for GREA (?) coalition before the Carnation revolution please? Were MPLA and UNITA involved in that coalition? Smsagro (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

All this is entirely erroneous. (a) The "late colonial" policy, started in 1962, abolished a number of basic legal provisions which discriminated black people (first and foremost the "Instituto do Indigenato"). However, the aim was by no means to grant Angola independence, but on the contrary, to "win the hearts and minds" of the Angolans, convincing them to remain permanently a part of an intercontinental Portugal. (b) Renaming Angola (like Mozambique) in 1972 "Estado" (state) was mere window dressing. It was part of a clumsy effort to apparently give the Portuguese empire a sort of federal structure, conferring some degree of autonomy to the "states". In fact, the structural changes & increase in autonomy were highly limited. (c) The government of the "State of Angola" was the same as the "provincial government", except for merely cosmetic differences of personnel & titles. Is was of course entirely composed of people that were part of the Salazarist establishment. (d) While this occurred, the guerrilla war against Portugal went of course on. The mere idea of having the independence movements take part in the political structure was absolutely and totally unthinkable (on both sides). (e) The GRAE (Governo Revolucionário de Angola no Exílio) was constituted in 1963 in Kinshasa, by the FNLA, in an attempt at claiming (on the international scene) the sole representativity of the forces fighting Portugal in Angola. (For a standard reference see John A. Marcum, The Angolan Revolution, vol. II, Exile Politics and Guerrilla Warfare (1962-1976), Cambridge/Mass. & London, MIT Press, 1978) -- Aflis (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So I did well when I removed the GREA thing, because it is totally false. Thank you. I will add your own words in this talk page to improve the section. Thank you. Smsagro (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Angolan War of Independence

In my view, the article "Portuguese Angola" should not contain more than a very short description of the 1961-1974 war. The proper place to develop this description is the article "Angolan War of Independence", and a duplication does not make sense. On the other hand, "Portuguese Angola" is the place to develop the analyses of the "late colonial" period initiated by the incisive reforms of 1962. -- Aflis (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am in favour of duplications when they are made to explore relevant content for the artcle. Wikipedia is full of that.Smsagro (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I can only repeat: a short description of the war is of course functional for this article, but not lenghthy details - which, in turn, may make sense in the article on "War of Independence". - The fact that in WP articles often repeat what is said in others just reminds us of one of the weaknesses and flaws of WP.....-- Aflis (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a Portuguese nationalist propaganda site

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No improvement to encyclopaedia is going to come from this conversation CMD (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Currently this page is primarily a propaganda sheet for Portuguese revisionist nationalists and their sympathisers. Here some key problems:

1. Minimizes the systematic deportation of the Angolan people into slavery by the Portuguese empire.

2. Attempts to shift responsibility for the trans-Atlantic slave trade to indigenous Angolans, rather than Portuguese slavers.

3. Minimizes the role of slavery and, later, forced 'corvee' labour in the Angolan colonial economy.

4. Minimizes the systematic racism of the Portuguese colonial regime, chief regional ally of Apartheid South Africa.

5. Attempts to portray Portuguese colonialism as 'inherently good' - thus negating its anti-democratic, anti-indigenous, racist, ethno-centric, Catholic chauvinist, predatory, underdeveloping, exploitative nature.

6 Portrays the Angolan National Liberation Movement as inherently 'bad' - failing to account for its popularity and success.

7. Minimize the ongoing Portuguese warfare against local attempts at autonomy.

8. Gives a systematically biased account of the war of national liberation - failing to mention Portugal's strategic alliances (with NATO and South Africa); failing to mention Portuguese atrocities (concentration camps, massacres) - while focusing only on alleged shortcomings of the national liberation forces.

9 Makes ridiculous and pompous claims of 'Portuguese victory' despite the fact that Portugal lost the war and most Portuguese so-called 'settlers' abandoned the country.

10 Suggests that Portugal brought 'civilisation' to the region - in fact Portugal attempted to destroy a number of civilisations - particularly the Kongo kingdom.

These problems are compounded by the lack of source material, and the bias in the minimal source material that is offered, - as well as the over-use of Portuguese language source material on an English-language site. Constructive comments addressing these points are welcome.Ackees (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

For somebody propagating a message of equilibrium and neutrality, you don't seem to like the Portuguese very much. Please tell us more about the glorious Kongo Kingdom, where "it is certain that there was a large slave class in Kongo before the Portuguese contact. ... All in all, it seems likely that, even at the height of the Atlantic slave trade, there were many more African slaves serving within Africa than outside it." (quoted from Oliver, Roland Anthony and Atmore, Anthony (2001). Medieval Africa, 1250–1800. p. 230. See here). You are right that this is not a Portuguese nationalist propaganda site, as you put it, but on the other hand it isn't the opposite either. While I agree it's a good thing to re-evaluate history over time, this is an entirely different thing to re-writing history. I'd advise you to keep this in mind. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing at all against Portuguese people in general. Some of my best friends are Portuguese, and my knowledge is more intimate than you might imagine. However, Portugal launched a series of unprovoked wars against Kongo and other local states - in much the same manner as Germany attacked Poland and Russia - or Japan attacked China. To pretend otherwise is sheer hypocrisy - usually motivated by white supremacist ideology still seeking to make apologia for racial slavery and colonialism in Africa (much as neo-nazis justify Hitlerism).

Also, Portugal, and Portuguese colonialism in Angola bears key responsibility for one of history's worst attrocities - the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Attempts to minimize this demonstrates contempt for the victims of this attrocity, just as attempts to minimize the Jewish Holocaust demonstrates anti-Semitism. Resistance to enslavement and colonization was strong, endless and ultimately successful. The Portuguese empire was irredeemably racist - not 'mildly prejudiced' but systematically, permanently discriminatory). Trying to equate domestic servitude, or even feudal bondage, in Kongo with racially stratified plantation slavery in the Americas is erroneous. Your quotation produces a 'certainty' from no evidence and a 'likelihood' from even less. I have not mentioned 'glories' - you appear to be confusing my neutral edits with your own 'Afrocentric' straw man.Ackees (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is slavery okay in Kongo, but not in the Americas? You could just as easily call the work on a plantation "domestic servitude", and calling it "feudal bondage" seems to allude to serfdom in many European countries, which is also little more than slavery. Colonisation and enslavement are not the same thing (though they were often linked during this period). I see you added another quote from the same source I provided above, saying that "the colony of Angola developed essentially as a gigantic slave-trading enterprise". I'm not disputing this or saying it isn't true, but I think it is strongly misleading not to mention that slavery existed there before the Portuguese arrived. Omitting this surely implies that it didn't happen. I have to say I'm surprised you are using the "some of my best friends are x" argument—word for word, no less—as if this has some kind of intellectual value, particularly as you attack my quotation for "produc[ing] a 'certainty' from no evidence and a 'likelihood' from even less." Tell me, please: what is "even less" than no evidence? Why is Kongo to be let off the hook scot free: just because you feel like it? —Cliftonian (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never said that slavery is 'okay'. However, while there was undoubtedly unfree labour in Kongo prior to Portuguese colonialism, and it might be well be plausible to describe it as 'slavery', no source is able to accurately, or even plausibly estimate the actual extent of 'slavery' in Kongo prior to that point. What is available are records for a dramatic escalation and extension of enslavement from the time of Portuguese arrival onwards, as well as evidence of Kongolese resistance and complicity. Ackees (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That's because nobody kept records before the Portuguese arrived, because the Kongolese hadn't invented such complex things as reading, writing and so on, let alone written books about it. We have sources, as I provided above, which say there was slavery in Kongo before the Portuguese got there, and you're dismissing them out of hand because of what appears to me to be little more than a personal grudge. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that while you, Ackees, are against Portuguese Nationalistic feeling in this article (of which there is none), you present and opposite and yet equaly wrong point of view of an Angolan Nationalistic feeling, you dont see the wrong in that? Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Cliftonian, the user Ackees is dismissing the fact that slavery existed in the Kongo well before the Portuguese arrived because he is biased against Europe and Caucasians and in favor of sub-Saharan Africa and Negros. This bias spans far beyond this article; I've had dealings with him in other places, and his modis operandi is to systematically minimize unflattering aspects about blacks and sub-Saharan Africa and to emphasize (or to wholly fabricate) unflattering aspects about Europe and Caucasians. For example, one of his recent edits on the African Slave Trade page resulted in him rewording a statement from "less than 5%" to "at least 5%" without any explanation or source change. His arguments are a pseudo-intellectual attempt to validate his positions, but when push comes to shove, he simply pulls the race card and yells out "racist!", calling other editors "neo-nazis" and discounting any source that contradicts him as not having been "critically evaluated."ElliotJoyce (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)sockpuppet of Vost

As you can see above, Elliot, he threw "neo-Nazi" at me at the first time of asking, and also appears to have attempted to talk me around by bringing up the Holocaust. It's a strange kind of evidence he finds satisfactory, evidently. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As you can see ElliotJoyce is not concerned with neutrality or factual accuracy but has become completely obsessed WP:WIKIHOUNDing other editors, trailing them around the encyclopaedia. Luckily she has already been banned for this, but its unlikely that this will cause her to give up easily.Ackees (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are the one not concerned with factual accuracy in this matter, and you are either deranged or bigoted beyond all belief if you are going to continue to cling to this pathetic fantasy of yours, based on nothing. ElliotJoyce and I, among others, have given evidence in the form of sources in support of what is a more neutral and factually accurate article, whereas you have provided nothing beyond a flurry of pointed fingers, reverts and cries of "racist!" or "neo-Nazi!" All that said, though, your persistence is quite remarkable. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Feeling better now you've got that off your chest?Ackees (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

How about contributing something to the discussion? —Cliftonian (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war over terms

To my mind, most of this quarreling over "correct" terms doesn't make much sense. To start with, "Portuguese Angola" is a misnomer. It was never an official term, nor commonly used. The official & common name has been "Angola" since the 16th century (although the territory is was applied to included in the beginning just Luanda & hinterland, then Luanda + Benguela + respective hinterlands, and the present territory from the 1920s onward only). "Portuguese West Africa" was a term which for some time was used by non- Portuguese, never by Portuguese. In the 20th century, the official term changed from colony tp province to state, but the common name continued all the time to be Angola. Conclusion: the article should be renamed "Colonial Angola". -- Aflis (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what is to be gained there. "Colonial Angola" is no more official than "Portuguese Angola". I can see the usefulness of "Portuguese Angola" as it is clear and helpful to understanding. Don't assume readers known that "colonial" implies Portuguese rather than English or French or Belgian. In other historical articles, I will write and link to "Portuguese Angola" much more readily than I'd ever write "colonial Angola" (it is just too uninformative and awkwardly superfluous if already in a colonial-era topic). I agree "Portuguese West Africa" is ridiculous (and misleading - more likely to be understood as Guinea-Bissau than Angola). "Portuguese Angola" is clear, informative, useful, and flexible, conveniently uncommitted to a particular official status (are you eager to witness edit wars about Angola being a "province" rather than a "colony"?). I am afraid I don't see the utilitarian gain of your proposal. Walrasiad (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The question this argument araises is whether or not such titled should reflect the official and/or common name. "Portuguese Angola" definitely does neither. As to "Colonial Angola", it is backed by the official use "Colónia de Angola" (until the 1950s), but I admit it is not an ideal solution. In fact, what the article does is describe "Angola Before Independence", with a special focus on the colonial system established by the Portuguese. It thus constitutes a development of a section of the article "History of Angola". And it poses a problem that appears elsewhere as well: that of a logical arrangement of the Angola-related articles, avoiding repetition and overlapping - or the existence, side by side, of competing narratives. -- Aflis (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"Portuguese Angola" as a historical entity

Former polities, provinces, colonies, kingdoms, principalities, protectorates or states deserve their own article. It is a well established policy in Wikipedia even if you disagree. Cape Colony, Rhodesia, French Algeria, French Indochina, Nazi Germany, Kongo Kingdom, Colonial Brazil, British Raj and Lusitania are a few such examples. Evolife (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not at all my point. Putting aside the terminological questions, my concern is that this article is part of a whole series of articles on Angola - especially Angola, History of Angola, Angolan War of Independence, but also a number of minor ones. As a consequence, there has to be a logical "division of labour" among all articles, and repetition/overlapping has to be avoided (or a point well developed in one article is mentioned in a succinct way only in the others). Even more important is the necessity to avoid contradictions, factual ones of course, but also incompatible "analytical narratives", to use the jargon. -- Aflis (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with you. I don't regard this as an article about the history of Angola, but an article about an entity in and of itself. In the same manner that I don't think the "Duchy of Burgundy" to be a subsidiary article about the history of the Upper Saone region. It is an article about an entity. An entity which no longer exists, that is true, but an entity nonetheless, with defined institutional, political and legal contours. It is frequently necessary in many articles to refer to such an entity, e.g. articles about diplomacy between England and Germany in the 1890s, or world coffee production in the 19th C., or a biography of a person who happened to have worked or lived there for a spell, or about a company that happened to bid for some mineral concessions there back in the 1910s, or about a ship that foundered near its coast, etc. None of those articles are about the "history of Angola" per se, yet need to refer to the entity of "Portuguese Angola". Does that make sense? You seem to be a little too focused on the "vertical" linkages and overlooking the "horizontal" linkages. I agree repetition should be avoided and maybe there's a better way of redistributing the material. But the existence of an article about the entity is essential.Walrasiad (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It does make sense to focus on a historical entity, but it does not make sense to do so without indicating the basic linkages, "vertical" as well as "horizontal". The same applies e.g. to the article on the independence war in Angola - or for that matter on Luanda or on the Benguela railway. In other words: the articles on Angola have to be systematically interlinked - but in the way of a logical "division of labour" (see above). -- Aflis (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Portuguese Angola

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Portuguese Angola's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bio":

• From Holden Roberto: Hamann, Hilton (2001). Days of the Generals. p. 13.
• From Erik Gjems-Onstad: "Portuguese Angola" (in Norwegian). Storting.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Acervo Museu do Senado (20187225478).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Planning to edit the Sports section of this page

Hello Wikipedia users and readers of this page, I am planning to edit the Sports section of this article. While it is a good section I feel like it could user more information to help bolster the article. Specifically I would want to add information on football and how Angola experienced it during colonial times. I will add specific information on the recruitment and scouting practices that occurred in Angola during this time. Also I will want to add how football was introduced and the general experiences of the African players. I will also add more information about the players that came from Angola and their contributions to Portuguese football overall. These changes will probably amount to around 50-100 words. I plan on using the book, Following the Ball : The Migration of African Soccer Players Across the Portuguese Colonial Empire, 1949–1975. This book is written by Todd Cleveland and he is a professor at the University of Arkansas. He is a scholar in African studies so I feel that he is a credible author here. If anyone wants to comment or suggest anything about my planned edits please let me know; either on this talk page or on my talk page. S4mon (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)