Talk:History of Brazil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Brazil (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Portugal (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject History (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Miscegenation" offensive?[edit]

Like some other Brazil-related articles, this one has repeated references to "miscegenation." Currently this term is considered offensive, according to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


Talk:History of Brazil/archive 1 See for public domain text that can be copied into this series. --Jiang


It is a mistake to call them "stone age" as this is a term applying to a chronological period, and its use here is Social Darwinian. Whilst Tupi-Guarani language emerged later as the major family, the decimation of Indian populations leaves us ignorant as to which was originally numerically preponderant. John D. Croft (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed sentence[edit]

Brazilians have great appetites. Say what?! I don't think that this is appropriate for an encyclopedia; it is appropriate for a late night talk show. If I'm mistaken about the humorous nature of this sentence, then what is its meaning?

National debt[edit]

The low social indicators and the huge national debt are by no means a result of the Fernando Henrique administration. The national debt was acquired during the dictatorship, and has been a growing problem ever since, and the social indicators actually rose quite a bit between 1995-2001. I've corrected this. --Paraiba 04:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have you looked at the figures? The national debt at the end of the dictatorship was about US$ 100 billion, and decreased under the following governments -- until FHC's. It skyrocketed again under FHC (to over US$ 450 billion), because of his economic policies which aimed at fighting inflation at all costs. In particular, he borrowed massive amounts of money at extremely high interest rates in order to sustain the 1R$ = 1US$ illusion. It was FHC, not his predecessors, who created the present "unpayable" debt -- and that was only one of his many disastrous "achievements". Let's give credit (or rather debt 8-) where credit is due.
Jorge Stolfi 05:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Don't be fooled by statistics. The federal administration assumed the state's debts and broken regional banks as a measure to contain inflation and improve national accountability. Check the "Fiscal Responsability Law". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried giving the introduction a bit more of a NPOV. Particularly when the man left office only two years ago, I think that the focus should be on giving a balanced and neutral perspective rather than calling his policies "misguided," true or not. Adam Faanes 21:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changing division of Modern era[edit]

I am not satisfied with this divison of recnt brazilian history. From 1964 to recent a lot of things happened this is not aone single period. And in contrast, 1930-64 seems to be too short in comparison (with colonial/empire etc) I propose merging the two in one, the modern history, when presidents are elected out of the coffe and milk thing, and when the democracy is taken down multiple times. Is somethings as 1930-present, divided in:

  • Populism (1930-64) maybe subdivided in Vargas and the rest (what is called golden years)
  • Military dictatorship (1964-1985) maybe divided in hard core and soft until medici. (or iron years, as the papers call)
  • Redemocratization (1985- present) maybe divided in liberalism and left turn attempt (Lula governement)

The latter is not a pov view or a judgement over the Lula government, but we must agree that the last five years had been a new period in latin america, with many left wing parties achieveing power. What will be the result of this (Lula, Chaves, Mesa etc) is debatable, but that they are a significant change from the liberalist (or neo-liberalist, but this has negative connotations in brazil) years is unquestionable. So any complaints? Alexandre Van de Sande 23:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could only have done this if you properly reworked the article and logically defended your division. Lula does not represent a new area. We don't know the result of that yet. See his recent corruption scandal for example. Tfine80 3 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)

Controversies about the "discovery" of Brazil[edit]

Acoording to the Wikipedia in Portuguese: Vicente Yanéz Pinzón, navegador espanhol, partiu de Palos de la Frontera, Espanha em 19 de novembro de 1499. Em Janeiro de 1500 desembarcou no Brasil no local atualmente chamado Praia do Paraíso, Cabo de Santo Agostinho, Pernambuco. O local foi batizado por Pinzon como Cabo de Santa Maria de la Consolación. Pinzón seguiu sua viagem e em fevereiro de 1500 chegou à foz do Rio Amazonas, que batizou como Mar Dulce. A Viagem de Pinzón e sua chegada ao Brasil não constam da maior parte dos registros oficiais de história do Brasil pois pelo tratado de Tordesilhas as terras descobertas por Pinzón pertenciam, de fato, a Portugal. Mas existe grande probabilidade de que mesmo a esquadra de Pinzón não seria a primeira expedição européia a desembarcar em terras brasileiras. Já em 1325 circulavam em Portugal lendas e mapas sobre uma terra rica em pau-brasil situada além mar. Na disputa com a Espanha por novas terras, os portugueses realizam expedições sigilosas chamadas "de arcano". Assim há relatos de que João Coelho da Porta da Cruz e Duarte Pacheco Pereira teriam estado no Brasil respectivamente em 1493 e 1498. Diogo de Lepe, navegador espanhol, teria atingido a costa brasileira em março de 1500. Gimferrer 14:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

YES! I've tried to deal with this issue sometyme ago, but someone (can't remember whom...) reverted my changes to the article, giving it its present and Spanish-centred POV form, where it is stated, blumtly and without discussion, that Vicente Yáñez Pinzón, and not Pedro Álvares Cabral, was the discoverer of Brazil. I think I'm going to change this, doing something in the lines of what is done in the Portuguese Language Wikipedia. That is to say, creating a section (or even an article if it's too long) on the Controversies about the "discovery" of Brazil. What does everyone think? The Ogre 19:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. There is a controversy and it should be treated as such, instead of arguing which version is right. Actually, there are at least two navigators who are claimed to reach Brazil before Cabral besides Pinzón: spanish Diego de Lepe and portuguese Duarte Pacheco Pereira, I think they should be mentioned on the new article, too Kensuke 20:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It is not only that subject. As far as I know History starts with a civilization with writing hability, not with nomads - that's pre-history. One can talk about these peoples but one cannot say that history starts with these nomad tribes. The best would be to translate the one from the Port. language one. A lot of people could have been in brazil before, everybody knows that because of strategical secrets, Pedro Alvares cabral made the OFFICIAL discovery. And the Tordesilhas triety is in fact, a proof of that. Portugal very probably had discovered Brazil before the triety was made due to sea birds, the sea streams, this is a strong proof and is even studied in schools, I was teached this version. Because it is not recorded (it was a secret), maybe it is also pre-history ;) hugs ppl. - 00:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is also the belief that the cosmograph Duarte Pacheco Pereira already knew the existence of Brazil. In the "Esmeraldo de situ orbis" he says that D. Manuel I o «mandou descobrir a parte ocidental, passando além da grandeza do mar oceano, onde é achada e navegada uma tão grande terra firme», another letter this of Mestre João sent to the king D. Manuel says: «... mande vossa alteza trazer um mapa-múndi que tem Pêro Vaz Bisagudo e por aí poderá ver vossa alteza o sítio desta terra...»

There is still a contradiction in this article. In the lead section it is stated "It is widely accepted that the European first to discover Brazil was Portuguese Pedro Álvares Cabral on April 22, 1500." while paragraph "Beginning of Brazil" starts with the following: "The land now called Brazil (the origin of whose name is disputed), was first discovered by Vicente Yáñez Pinzón, a Spanish navigator that had accompanied Colombus in his first trip to the American continent. Pinzón arrived to today's Pernanbuco region on 26th January of 1500." MarkkuP (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Old news article from the 80s, an underwater archaeologist claimed to find ancient Roman stuff & that the Brazilian government covered it up & banned all underwater archaeology because they didn't want to have to rewrite their history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed sentence[edit]

"Thanks to vast natural resources and cheap labor, Brazil is today South America's largest economy, the world's ninth largest economy, and fifth most populous nation." oh boy... where did this come from?

Emprie of Brasil[edit]

Brasil was not the only country of the New World to effectively establish a monarchic state; Mexico did it twice; though the first one was short-lived, the second one re-arragned the country adminsitratively and politically. --J.Alonso 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

True, and one of its Monarchs was actualy a cousin of D. Pedro II of Brazil. Daniel

yes and Pedro died in a killing he lifed 1825-1891 also Genarl Manuel D. da. Fresca was or put himself in a place of honor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessekisser23 (talkcontribs) 17:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Not true. For starters, Canada, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vicent and the Grenadines are all "New World" countries that happen to be monarchies. (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Precolonial culture[edit]

The view of seminomadic hunters and tribes living off the wilderness of the the Amazon jungle has been challenged since the 1990ies. I am not an expert on that and refer to the article "1491" in "Atlantic Monthly | March 2002" ( Author Charles C. Mann refers to recent research by archeologist Anna C. Roosevelt of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History and several botanologists and geographers. They indicate that the indigenous population before 1491 had created the rain forest ecosystem by systematically planting trees and shrubs and ameliorating the soils. The Amazon Rain Forest -if this hypothesis stands- is not a wilderness but the result of human activity. I think this idea should be mentioned. --Kipala 11:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

1491 hello also pedro the 2nd was killed by a general and lived for 1825 - 1891 jessekisser23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessekisser23 (talkcontribs) 17:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

To Wiki Formatters[edit]

I was on the main page and I started reading and on the 5th paragraph, the first line, some of the text is blocked and I can't read it. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia so could somebody else please move the picture slightly so it is readable. This is a realatively minor problem

Thanks Nelson

I'm not sure what generic solution there is for this, but if you make your browser window bigger, it should solve it. Mlewan 17:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Or make the words smaller. Aran|heru|nar 04:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Colonies in Brasil[edit]

The famous Governor of Dutch Brazil wasn't the great Maurits of Nassau but his godson and relative Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen.

Decorated Che Guevara[edit]

That wasn't Jango, that was Quadros, a completely different guy. So, only as a precaution, I'll add a "citation needed" thing to the rest of the paragraph. Also, would you mind reading a book about the subject before writing it on the wikipedia? I don't go around writing that Lincoln wrote the declaration of independence of the United States. -- 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, there are only 4 or 5 active editors in Brazilian topics right now and we're all busy going after a GA status on Brazil. I guess this is a good place to have the next WikiProject Brazil collaboration.--Dali-Llama 21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. Only on my second read I noticed that problem, so I fear there might be other crazy stuff around there, and a less prepared reader could take them as truth. I'm specially concerned that the thing on military dictatorship mentions little of the US role on the events apart from the Escola Superior (not even a mention of operation Brother Sam, for instance). Ignoring that is like ignoring the role of the British Empire on the war of Paraguay, or North-American role for the end of Vargas dictatorship. History is too important a thing to be forgotten. But anyways, best of luck. -- 22:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

History of Brazil -- BOX[edit]

I've moved the Infobox up to the "abstract" (introductory) section. It still needs some better-ification from someone who's familiar with Template Editing... cheers201.27.222.29 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Military Dictatorship (1964–85)[edit]

Added a POV to that section, as it really lacks a NPOV, more like a newspaper article then an encyclopedia entry. (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a style rather than content issue. Please specify biased statements. - RoyBoy 20:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Knocking on the barracks door[edit]

This section says that Goulart was in favor of the Bay of Pigs; yet another unreferenced Wiki article says the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

From dictatorship to redemocratization[edit]

I think, this article has almost no information on the dictatorship in 80s and transition to direct elections of presidents. It would be great if some one can fill in this gap. I'm unable to do this. (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Oleg.

Indians crossing bering strait[edit]

I've deleted this phrase, because without explanation, it's implausable that indians crossing the Bering strait in Alaska walked (?) all the way to Brasil. We need at least a few paragraphs to cover what happened there. Why not also cover geologic history, before humans arrived (i.e. the separation of South America from western Gondwana, the spread of rainforests and the rise of the Andes mountains?) This article is really about Portuguese/European history of Brasil, and starts with what little we discovered about Brasilian indians when Europeans got there.Sbalfour (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)