|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colonial Brazil article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Merger
- 2 Heir requested to return To/From Brazil
- 3 Needs more references
- 4 Original author/authors contact me
- 5 Viceroyalty and Principality
- 6 expeditions to Brazil
- 7 Article Complex: Captaincies, Governorates, State of Brazil, Colonial Brazil
- 8 purpose and structure of the article
- 9 Defeat and or Extermination of the Indigenous People
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)
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)
Merge: Brazil was the only colony. Chico 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
- You do have a point there. will remove the merger proposal. FilipeS 23:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Heir requested to return To/From Brazil
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. 126.96.36.199 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Needs more references
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
Viceroyalty and Principality
|Colonial Brazil received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- 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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
expeditions to Brazil
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Article Complex: Captaincies, Governorates, State of Brazil, Colonial Brazil
There is a complex of articles that contain fragments of Brazilian colonial history from 1534-1815:
- Captaincy Colonies of Brazil 299
- Captaincies of Brazil 554
- State of Brazil 555
- Governorate General of Brazil 590
- Governorate General of Bahia 404
- Governorate General of Rio de Janeiro 413
- Captaincy of Pernambuco 1067
- Captaincy of Sao Vicente 133
- Viceroyalty of Brazil 250
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.]
purpose and structure of the article
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.
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.
Defeat and or Extermination of the Indigenous People
"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." --126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)