From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Afro-Brazilian)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject African diaspora (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Brazil / Geography (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Geography of Brazil task force (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

What is and what is not a personal opinion.[edit]

User User:B-Machine has removed a few lines from the article, arguing that they are "personal opinions".

Let's look at those "personal opinions", one by one:

  • The adjective unusual, used to qualify "Afro-Brazilian" as a term to refer to racially categorise Brazilians, together with this sentence: Brazilians, including Black Brazilians, rarely use the American-style phrase "African Brazilian" to categorise themselves, and never in informal discourse.

However, the text of the article quite well shows that unusual is a perfectly apt adjective to describe "Afro-Brazilian": The IBGE's July 1998 PME shows that, of Black Brazilians, only about 10% considers themselves of "African origin"; most of them identifying as having a "Brazilian origin"; a sentence that (on contrary of much of the material here) has a source, and, again contrary to what is usual in hyphenated-Brazilian articles, a source that actually supports the article's text. In fact, the article shows, in another section, that unusual may well be an understatement: In the July 1998 PME, the categories "Afro-Brasileiro" (Afro-Brazilian) and "Africano Brasileiro" (African Brazilian) weren't used even once; the category "Africano" (African) was used by 0.004% of the respondants. In the 1976 PNAD, none of these were used even once. Both these statements, again, are, also unusually for the standards of hyphenated-Brazilian articles, sourced, with sources that actually support them.

Unbeliavably, the source that would support the opening statement of the article as it reads now, after B-Machine's edit, Afro-Brazilian is a term to racially categorize Brazilian citizens who self-reported to be of black or brown (Pardo) skin colors to the official IBGE census ( MAIOR POPULAÇÃO NEGRA DO PAÍS) simply does not use the term "Afro-Brazilian", or any other one that can be assumed to mean the same, even once; it systematically calls those people "negros", starting in its title. So, what seems a rather "personal" opinion, or at least an opinion that is not supported by the sources, is the statement that now purports to introduce the subject.

  • The parenthesis in Finally, the Black movement system groups "pardos" and "pretos" in a single category, "negro" (and not Afro-Brazilian).

Unhappily, this is the truth: the Brazilian black movement groups "pardos" and "pretos" in a single category, "negro", and not into a "Afro-Brazilian" category. And that is what the given source, "Race in Another America: the significance of skin color in Brazil", by Edward Telles, says. For instance, in page 22: Although the Black movement classification recommends that the term "negro" includes blacks and browns, I prefer to use "nonwhite"... And in the same page: I could also have used the term Afro-Brazilian or Afro-descendant (...) Although those are not commonly used in the discourse of ordinary Brazilians, they are increasingly used by college-eduacated persons and activists in the Black movement. In the whole book, the term, besides the mentioned explanations, is used a few times, all of them, with three exceptions (a reference to "Afro-Brazilian leaders", a reference to "Afro-Brazilian communities" and a reference to Abdias do Nascimento as a legislator who defended the "Afro-Brazilian population") in a different context ("Afro-Brazilian culture", "Afro-Brazilian religion", "Afro-Brazilian music", etc.) So, again, if this is a "personal opinion", then it is a "personal opinion" solidly supported by sources.

  • This sentence: However, this binary division of Brazilians between "brancos" and "negros" is nevertheless seen as influenced by American one-drop rule, and attracts much criticism.

This however refers to Demétrio Magnoli's "Uma Gota de Sangue", which is immediately discussed. In fact, the idea that the binary division between "brancos" and "negros" is influenced by American one-drop rule is one of the core reasons of Magnoli's criticism. Of course, Magnoli used to be quoted here as a supporter of such division, and the arguments he used to dismiss (in fact, to ridicule) it were reported as the actual reasons why the Black movement supports it; and the erased sentence intended exactly to underline this fact: that Magnoli is a critic, not a supporter, of this idea. Ninguém (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Since there are no arguments against, I am restoring the suppressed information. Ninguém (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting to latest reliable version.[edit]

An editor made a series of recent changes, removing fact tags, dubious tags, and verification failed tags, and reintroducing false content into this article. I am therefore reverting the article to the latest reliable version.

There is one of the changes that I am reverting that I feel particularly inclined to comment here. Here it is, with this remarkable edit summary:

(No. The original story was not about a White slave woman, which never existed in Brazil. It became later, when they decided to represent a slave with a White actress.)

Various texts that I have read indeed support the idea that there were White slaves in Brazil, but this is not the point. A Escrava Isaura is a fictional work, so the existence or non-existence of White slaves in Brazil has no bearing on the issue of whether the central character of this book was or was not White.

Here is the description of Isaura in the book:

Her complexion is like the ivory of the keyboard (of the piano, which she is playing), white of the kind that doesn't lose its bright, turbed by a delicate nuance, that you won't know if it is a slight paleness or a fainting pink. (...) The free and strongly wavy hair falls through her shoulders in thick and glossy locks...

A Escrava Isaura cannot be found online, but an excerpt can be found in A literatura brasileira através dos textos, by Massaud Moisés, that includes the lines above. The original Portuguese reads, A tez é como o marfim do teclado, alva que não deslumbra, embaçada por uma nuança delicada, que não sabereis dizer se é leve palidez ou cor-de-rosa desmaiada. O colo donoso e do mais puro lavor sustenta com graça inefável o busto maravilhoso. Os cabelos soltos e fortemente ondulados se despenham caracolando pelos ombros em espessos e luzidios rolos..., in case anyone wants to verify.

I won't make detailed comments on the other changes; they follow the usual pattern of unreliability and distortion, including some sources that absolutely do not say what is reported (for instance, an article about Spanish TV that doesn't say anything about Brazilian television), and the remission to huge books with no mention of page or chapter, which becomes frankly unverifiable. Ninguém (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the two versions and, while I claim neither to be able to read Portuguese nor to have examined every detail of both versions, I can see that your description of the two versions is at worst broadly accurate. This comment of yours (15:21) was, as we can see, followed by no attempt here to point out where you were mistaken, but instead (at 20:38) a flat reversion with the one-word edit summary "Vandalism". At this point, what might have looked like an edit war with perhaps honorable intentions on both sides clearly passes into a mere battle between two editors, one of whom (Ninguém) behaves like an adult, the other (Opinoso) behaves like a 11-year-old throwing a tantrum. Now, the adult may not be right all the time, but where he is not, the other in the dispute has to argue this in an adult fashion. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
As usual, administrator Hoary helping his friend Ninguém. What a neutral and serious administrator.
This article was a mess, full of fake "citation needed" and other tags. All I did was to add the citations. In fact, I had to add the same citations several times, because the person who added the "fact tags" (Ninguém) almost included these tags in every single sentence, including when there was a source about the sentence. It seems Ninguém wants to keep this article as terrible as it was.
Why did Ninguém reverte all my edits, based on a small comment on the soap opera "Escrava Isaura" or asking the pages of books. He asked for sourced, I added them. I also included other pictures of "Afro-Brazilians" and improve the section about the Male Revolt.
What he is calling "reliable version" is an article comparable to a garbage full of fact tags, including fact tags when there is a source!
By the way, Hoary, do you think the article with all those fact tags is better than one with citations or are you here because you deslike me, like you said before, and likes Ninguém and protects him? Is it allowed to an administrator be non-neutral?
I do not need to "argue" before or after including sources where there are fact tags. Even less because this person is named "Ninguém" (nobody in Portuguese), an user who weeks ago claimed that was leaving Wikipedia, as he did several times, but he is back, as usual. User "nobody" is famous for opening useless and endless discussions in talk pages of article, which only people who do not have a real life in a real world can follow. I don't have time to discuss about "Escrava Isaura" and other soap operas.
All I did was to add the sources he wanted. Of course he will ask pages of books and abuse because the sources are usually in Portuguese and nobody understand them.
Again, I won't argue when I only added sources. Unlike user "nobody", I am "someone" and I have a real life outside of the Internet. I come to Wikipedia to know and have fun, not to become stressed with "nobody". if you want to get stressed, Hoary, be alone with your friend "nobody", do not force me to "argue" when I don't have to. Opinoso (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Hoary, where can I report you as being non-neutral and being a friend with Ninguém and helping this user to ruine article of Wikipedia? Opinoso (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances by users ("Administrator abuse"). -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to argue when your "sources" are accused of not supporting the statements they should support. In which case you have to demonstrate that they do say what you report them as saying. It shouldn't be difficult, all you have to do is to point out where does any source say that Guimarães' Isaura was not a White woman, and how such supposed source trumps over the book itself, that very clearly describes her as White. Or to point out in which page(s) do Ribeiro or Freyre actually say what you describe as their opinion. Or show us where a source that deals with Spanish TV even mentions Brazil.

Your comments about my screen name are unwarranted, and constitute, as usual of you, a personal attack.

Have a nice night. Ninguém (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Where are the rules of Wikipedia saying that I have to argue each source I add to Wikipedia in talk pages? I'm not forced to cite pages of book, am I? Each edition has a different content in a book. And, by the way, you added "fact tags" where there are sources. Why did you do that?
Why are you insisting in "Escrava Isaura"? That is just a ridiculous old book presenting a "White" woman as slave in Brazil. It only shows that Brazil was not ready to present a Black woman as a heroe, and had to create a pathetic White slave. By the way, Isaura's mother was Black, so she was in fact Mulatto. But Isaura never existed, its fiction. You claimed that White people were enslaved in Brazil, which only shows your lack of knowloge about Brazil. Not a surprise from an user who claims "not to watch television" and that spends a whole day connected on the Internet. You probably don't even know real-life ~people and Brazilians, that's why you create such an imaginary and ridiculous Brazil that does not exist. Opinoso (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So now we agree: A Escrava Isaura presents a White woman as a slave in Brazil. Good. So let's keep the discussion about Lucélia Santos playing Isaura's role out of here, as it does not illustrate racism in Brazilian TV (perhaps in Brazilian literature in the 19th century, but this is another thing). There is no doubt that there is racism in Brazilian TV, and the other examples (Sônia Braga as Gabriela, Sérgio Cardoso as Uncle Tom) illustrate it quite well. Why use falseties to make a point?

Your view of A Escrava Isaura as a "ridiculous old book" is interesting; it certainly goes against most literary critics and literary historians that I know. Do you deem Uncle's Tom Cabin a "ridiculous old book" too?

Your personal attacks continue. How about stopping them and discussing the issues? Ninguém (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

About you being "forced" to cite pages of a book, no, in principle you don't have to. When directly questioned about it, however, you should do so. Do you have a problem with doing it? Is there any actual reason that the source is better if the page, or chapter, or verse, is ommitted? Ninguém (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Nobody cares about Isaura. You cannot reverte all my edits based on that small and pathetic part. By the way, I don't have to cite pages of book, I don't want to waste time look for passages in books of hundreds of page only to please you. I have a real life outside. By the way, I'm leaving now. Opinoso (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You care enough about her to undo my edits on the subject, calling them vandalism. On the other hand, you don't care enough about her to know whether she was White or not.

I frankly do not care much about her, but if she is going to be cited in the article, then the citation should be correct. Can we take her entirely out of the article, or is there any reason that her role being played by a White actress should be reported as a racist scandal, when it is clearly not?

I also didn't revere all of your edits "based on that small and pathetic part". I have reverted them based on this, and on the systematic denial of precise citations, as well as on the insistence on sources that clearly do not say what they are reported as saying.

You don't have time to look for pages in books of hundreds of pages? Fine, this is perfectly understandable. If you don't have the time to do that, however, please don't insist that your views on the content of those books must be taken for granted; if anyone questions about whether a source says something or not, you should be prepared to demonstrate it does, or accept the fact that it will be removed.

On the other hand, the article about Spanish TV doesn't have hundreds of pages. It should be easy to find the line where it mentions Brazil and give us a direct quote, so that no doubt remains that your reading of it is accurate.

Have a nice leave. Please enjoy real life as much as you please; it is indeed vastly superior to Wikipedia. Ninguém (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Opinoso, please stop the attacks; perhaps you don't realise how it looks. Nothing will come of accusing Hoary of being a "friend" of someone whose opinion you don't like; in my experience, you could not find a more neutral admin. Nor do your other accusations add to the effort to resolve this matter—they make it harder. Please read WP's policies on sourcing; I see a prima facie case here of poor sourcing practice, and it looks as though that is the nub of it. Tony (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

uncited, feel free to cite and replace[edit]

If these people are notable black Brazilians we need citations that refer to them as such or that support that claim. Some of them do look blackish but that is not reliable and WP:OR - Also Black Brazilian seems a bit vague imo it redirects to Afro-Brazilian which does perhaps not necessarily infer black. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

English would be better, please translate the relevant text. thanks. It needs to support the claim that they are Black Brazilians. Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No sources in English, sorry. Are you challenging any of those sources? I suggest you ask any neutral person who reads Portuguese to check their accuracy, before doing so. I have clearly indicated the pages, except for those sources that have no pages and where the subject is discussed in the very first lines. Ninguém (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I am a neutral person. I also read Portuguese. These sources for ethnic claims are very weak indeed so yes, imo these sources are not very strong to claim some one is a black Brazilian. Where does it say this person is a black Brazilian? I don't see it, what are all these links? Such poorly claimed ethnic coloured claims are much better not in any article , thanks for your work though . Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave you the pages; since you can read Portuguese, you are able to translate them, and consequently show the evidence that they don't support the idea that any of those people are Black Brazilians, if you think it is the case. Can you please do so, so that we can have a discussion on the sources and improve them? Ninguém (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest with you, imo these links are more like spam than worthwhile supporting WP:RS for a cited claim of colour and ethnic ancestry. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Give us one example of a link that is spam, among those I have used as a source here.

I have cited academic papers and books by Ricardo Bernardes, Domingos Tavares, Hélio Teive, Uelinton Farias Alves, Hermínio Bello de Carvalho, Maria Ângela Pavan, Gilberto Ferreira da Silva, João Carlos Rodrigues, Augusto César de Lima, Luciana Xavier de Oliveira, Ely de Oliveira, Mário Rodrigues Filho, Décio Pignatari, and Nei Lopes. Together, they make 52 of the 59 citations I have just added. So which of those authors are spammers, exactly? Ninguém (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Section is no longer uncited; so I have moved it back to the article. Ninguém (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Rob, there have been various issues here. First, true, in the version of the article on which you first commented in this section, there was indeed not a single citation for these particular claims. You wrote If these people are notable black Brazilians we need citations that refer to them as such or that support that claim.

However, this article starts by saying that Afro-Brazilian is a term to racially categorize Brazilian citizens who self-reported to be of black or brown (Pardo) skin colors to the IBGE census. Of course we editors at Wikipedia do not have access to individual census returns (which I should guess would have been pulped shortly after use), so very strictly speaking we can say nothing. Moving down the scale from a fanatical commitment to consistency towards intellectual sloth, we can start by looking for people's statements that yes, they answered the census by writing that they were black. My uneducated guess is that this would be a complete waste of time. As the next stage, we could look for people's statements that they [themselves] were black. And the stage after that would be to look for unchallenged comments by others that those people were black.

It's good that you demand evidence, and good evidence too, for assertions. But please do look at what the article says.

For some time, my own opinion on a large set of articles of which this is just one has been that there needs to be a single, intelligently written article on the issue, or non-issue, of [perceived] "race" in Brazil. The article would firmly avoid conflating the sociological and the genetic. Analogies with the US are dangerous, but let me indulge in one for just a moment: such an article about the US would explain (for example) how it was that Obama was "black" (and not mestizo). We do have an article, Race in Brazil. However, this is marred by a dispute tag at the top. In the talk page, we see no real argument, but rather reasoned argument from one party and mere harrumphing by another. (It is a long-term pattern of this kind of obstructivism that has led me to lose all patience with one editor.)

Back to this article. Let's make the (dangerous) working assumption that either (a) people who are widely perceived as having been "black" did think of themselves as being "black", or (b) the start of this article should be rewritten so that it's about people widely perceived as being "black" (whether or not this is how they thought of themselves). And therefore that it's legitimate to present a "gallery" of people who were, on good account, "black". At 22:49, 18 September 2010 -- when you wrote imo these links are more like spam than worthwhile supporting WP:RS for a cited claim of colour and ethnic ancestry, this was the current version of the article. Or perhaps you were referring to this longer and slightly older version. Either way, yes, I see unsatisfactory sourcing in the article. And I see at least one spam link (which I am about to remove). What I don't see are links that are like spam that are relevant to this discussion. Please provide examples.

And the language question. Yes, all things being equal, it is indeed better to cite sources that are in English, or to translate the non-English into English. However, there is no obligation to do this; and indeed I frequently cite sources in Japanese, virtually never provide a translation, and as far as I remember have never been asked for a translation. As (i) each of these assertions here is minor and (ii) you say you can read Portuguese, I have to say that your request please translate the relevant text seems perverse. (If translations were so very and urgently important, then you could easily demonstrate good faith by providing half of the translations into English yourself.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Here on his talk page, I invited Offtoriorob to respond here on this talk page. Forty-six minutes later, he responded by deleting my invitation. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
What I actually did was leave a reply on Hoarys talkpage, which can be read here. I am at a loss as to why he chose not to mention this but whatever. Off2riorob (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, so you did. I don't know why I didn't notice it or a "You have new messages" flag. Anyway, sorry about that. ¶ Now, do you see any "spammy" sources? -- Hoary (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
As per my comments on your talkpage and the fact that my issues with the sourcing were ignored and the disputed content was re added without my support and my desire not to involve myself in the long running issues with this article regarding disputed racial and coloured descriptions of living people here I had removed this article from my watchlist and I will be repeating that action now. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So how can we see that a Brazilian is considered to be Black?[edit]

Offtoriorob has involved himself in this article, and I've had quite a job teasing out the ingredients that he dislikes in it. (Don't infer from this that I like the article. I don't. But that's mostly a different matter.) In a message on my talk page, he challenged the sourcing for the assertion that Djavan is Black. (This is of course a different matter from the assertion elsewhere in the article that a large percentage of Djavan's ancestry is African.) That surprised me, because it was sourced to a specific page, available online of an encyclopedia. I clicked on the link, and -- the "snippets" viewable there didn't mention Djavan.

I have fixed this; but only for Djavan, because I have little time now.

Note that I've linked from the page number, not the book title. This may well look odd, but it does suggest to readers of this article that they'll only be getting a very short extract, it suggests the discreteness of these extracts, and it's not what the other links do, so if we convert to this format for Google Books it will be easy to see which links have been checked.

Incidentally, compare the URLs. It was a change from


Simple rule with Google Books: when you find something within it that you want to link to, you don't simply copy and paste the URL but instead you work on seeing which simplification of the URL works, and then copy and paste that. (Yes, it is indeed yet more work.)

Offtoriorob raises some other points that I think I now understand. Or anyway, whether or not they're his points, here are a couple of questions:

  1. Should we be depending on the existence of a little entry in Enciclopédia brasileira da diáspora africana for inclusion here?
  2. Are articles such as this helped by lists (even if satisfactorily sourced) of famous XYZ-Brazilians?

I don't have any strong opinion on either. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Because this section is unsatisfactorily sourced (as described immediately above), I've moved it again from the article to the talk page, below. Let's improve the sourcing, at the very least, before moving it back. -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am away from home, and my internet access may be shaky until October. So I might have some difficulty contributing here.
I am sorry that I have missourced Djavan. I made about 60 reference entries in a very short time span, and while I have tried to check and re-check everything I was doing, it is obvious that I was not careful enough. Even then, the book I used as a source for Djavan is an encyclopaedia, and its entries are well organised in alphabetic order, so it shouldn't be difficult - as in fact it wasn't - to fix this particular - and good faith - blunder.
As for your questions,
2. I don't think these articles are helped by this kind of list; rather I think they degrade the articles.
There is a problem with Wikipedia in what comes to deciding between incrementally improving or rewriting from scratch; the latter is often preferable from the point of view of content, while the former is (besides, or course, easier), preferable from the point of view of relating to other editors (who might get offended by the removal or radical rewriting of 'their' material).
This particular list of notable Black Brazilians originates from a very old (in Wikipedia terms) version in which a smaller list was given, but the "notableness" of the cited people was reduced to their respective DNA composition. This could be easily (mis)taken as offensive or racist, as the actual accomplishments of these people (all of them belonging to an oppressed minority whose accomplishments, and even ability to achieve accomplishments at all, have historically been downplayed) were not mentioned at all. So I rewrote the section, specifically to include such achievements and explain why those people are notable. (It is interesting, and perhaps telling, that none of the statements on such achievement have been challenged. That Pelé is Black seems to need sources; that he was arguably the most complete soccer player ever apparently doesn't. Frankly, to me, the latter seems by far less obvious than the former.)
This prompted a second problem: while all or at least most of the people in the older version were in fact notable, they often were not the most notable people in their specific field of activity. To make it more clear through a shocking example: the older version included soccer player Obina, who is Black, who is Brazilian, and who is famous, important, or notable, or whatever other synonim may fit. However, there are other (many other) people who are no less Black and no less Brazilian than Obina, and who are or were, with the due respect Obina certainly deserves, by far more famous, more important, and more notable than him. Pelé comes immediately to mind. And so I expanded the list, including people who seemed more or similarly notable than those in the original list, especially in the fields of sports and popular music - which were virtually the only fields covered by the original list.
Which prompted a further problem: who says that Black Brazilians have only excelled in those fields (which, by the way, are related to old and nasty stereotypes about Black people)? And so I further expanded the list, to include examples from erudite music, fine arts, literature, politics, and media. Which resulted in a list that is both enourmous and still very incomplete.
To sum this up: I am not really committed to the idea that such list should exist, and I am in fact closer to believing it shouldn't. But there certainly would be a problem with removing it while keeping similar lists of "Italian Brazilians" or "Spanish Brazilians".
1. The purpose of the "'Enciclopédia brasileira da diáspora africana'" (Brazilian Encyclopaedia of the African diaspora) is to document, well, the "African diaspora". It does not, as far as I can see, have entries on people that are not of "African ancestry" (I have checked a few people of no African descent who are of undeniable importance to the "African diaspora", such as Princess Isabel, Afonso Arinos, Artur Ramos, and Roger Bastide), so I think yes, if a person has an entry in it, it is meant as a statement that such person is of African descent (what it doesn't necessarily mean is that such person is Brazilian; but this is usually stated in the first line of the entry, as in the case of Djavan - "'compositor e cantor brasileiro nascido em Maceió'"). I don't see how this encyclopaedia is a "weak source" or how is it in any way unreliable; nor do I think I am, in any of these cases, reading what is in my mind instead of what is written in it.
On the other hand, while I have tried to provide strong sources for all those people, since I was politely demanded to, I certainly disagree with the idea that a strong source is needed to support the idea that a person is a Black Brazilian. For instance, I couldn't find any source, good or bad, that tells me that Jadel Gregório is Black. I think however there Jadel Gregório.jpg should be no doubt that he is, and see absolutely no problem with keeping him in a similar list without any source. Of course, if we were saying that he is of Bantu descent, or that his ancestors were from Mali, it would be a very different thing, and a good (not celebrity-gossip magazines, or an interview with the subject, for instance) source would be evidently necessary. Or, on the contrary, a statement that Vanessa da Mata is Black would need a very good source
Vanessa da Mata.jpg
, because she is obviously a White woman. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. Consequently, banal claims need banal sources, if any; outrageous claims need outrageously good sources. Ninguém (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

lol...Vanessa da Matta a "White woman"? If this is White now I know why user Ninguém is always claiming that most Brazilians are Whites or of "colonial Portuguese ancestry". Probably because he considers Mulattoes like da Matta as "White". Poor Ninguém, needs to take a trip to Europe to know what a White person looks like. Or needs to leave the computer and walk on the streets to know how human-beings look like. Like Darcy Ribeiro was always claiming, "average" Brazilians cannot make a distinction between light Mulattoes and White people (Ninguém is the example). Maybe that's why Ninguém seems to hate Ribeiro so much: "the reality hearts" like we say in Brazil. I wonder if Ninguém has ever seen a real-life Portuguese in his life.Opinoso (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
So exactly what is your point? That Vanessa da Mata doesn't need a source, because she is obviously Black, but Jadel Gregório needs a good one, because he is not?
Your personal attacks continue. Can you stop them? Ninguém (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed, or tried to fix, the references. For some people whose entries in the "'Enciclopédia brasileira da diáspora africana'" fall on pages that cannot be accessed via Google Books, I have provided other, more accessible - if inferior - sources. And I think this is more than what I can be actually demanded to do. Wikipedia accepts offline sources, so it should also accept offline excerpts of sources that are only partially online. Now I won't move this to the article; let people see for themselves if the job is well done or not, and complain and remark about its possible inaccuracies. But please be objective; tell me something like "the source for 'Zé da Silva' doesn't work, or is no longer online, or cannot be considered reliable, or does not say what is reported in the article". Ninguém (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I see there is little discussion about the sources. There were undefined and unexplained complaints that the sources are "spam" and that they are too weak. Nobody was able to substantiate those complaints, and since it was explicitly asked for such substantiation, there were no responses. So I conclude there are no longer objections to the section as it is below, and I will proceed to readding it into the article in the next weekend. Please, if anyone has any objections to that, explain them here and now. Ninguém (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


Who is Black[edit]

Fellows, like in most countries (even in the US, since the one drop has been deemed unsconstitutional by the supreme court decades ago), the official criteria in Brazil is self-reportation, so, Black is who self-reports to be Black instead of self-reporting that they are Pardo. Thus there are 13,252,000 Black people in Brazil, 6,9% of the population. There is a Pardo only article and thats where the information about the Pardos should be.--CEBR (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This article count Black and Pardo as one group, which is wrong. Caboclos, for example, are the descendants of Whites and Indians and are parto of the Pardo category. In sum, this article should focus soley on the negro (black) category. --Lecen (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a clear effort to squeeze Brazilian reality into North-American categories, starting by the title. Brazilians do not use "Afro-brasileiro" in the way implied here. "Pretos" are people of certain phenotype, not of a certain heritage; they are certainly descended from Africans (though most are also descended from Europeans). Many people of African descent are not "pretos". "Pardos" are people of a different phenotype; many of them are descended from Africans and Europeans, but many are also descended from Brazilian aboriginal inhabitants and have no African descent. "Negros" is either a synonim for "preto" or a term that encompasses both "pardos" and "pretos", but in this case the intent is to sum up the populations that have historically been victim of racial prejudice, not to establish genealogies. "Afrodescendente" is the term that refers to people of African descent, regardless of phenotype or social categorisations, but it is unusual. "Afro-brasileiro" is not the equivalent to "African American", but to "Afro-American", and is rarely used regarding people. This has been repeatedly argued and reargued, but it seems that it is impossible to realise that Brazil is not a Portuguese translation of the United States.
There was once an article about Black Brazilians, but it was deemed a "POV branch" of this one and deleted. So we have an article entitled "Afro-Brazilian" which then proceeds to talk about "pretos", "negros", and "pardos"... Ninguém (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Americans are very sensitive about race. If you say the word "black" they get freaked out expecting a racist remark or something. Is quite weird but wanting or not, we are on their ground. Afro Brazilian or Black Brazilian does matter less than putting "pardo" and "black" as one category. Quite interesting, Machado de Assis is cited as an example of Portuguese Brazilian and of Afro Brazilian. People must decide: is he black or white? Or is he a mulatto (this one is the correct answer)? --Lecen (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, stupid, I'm black, I'm from the USA, and I'm proud to be black. What are you talking about? B-Machine (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
My God. Don't you have manners? Since when you can come in here and call me "stupid"? --Lecen (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Afro-Brazilians are Brazilians of either full or partial African descent?[edit]

What is the source for this sentence? Does it mean that a person who has, for instance, one part of African "blood" in 1024 is an "Afro-Brazilian"? If so, probably all Brazilians are "Afro-Brazilians", except those of very recent and unmixed immigrant descent. In which case one has to wonder why the article goes ahead to discuss figures much lower, as if almost 50% of the Brazilian population was of pure, unmixed European ancestry... If there is a source for the notion that "Afro-Brazilians are Brazilians of either full or partial African descent", then it must be refered in the article. And it has to be a source that explicitly says exactly that "Afro-Brazilians are Brazilians of either full or partial African descent": that every Brazilian that has a single "drop" of "African blood" is an "Afro-Brazilian". Else the sentence should not stay. Ninguém (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The citation request came when I removed "term used to describe" from the definition. This came with the edit summary "Absolutely no source for this ridiculous misinformation." I'm having trouble understanding where you (and the anon) are coming from. Are you doubting this definition as the anon editor was or are you seeking more rigorous citation? If it's the former, how would you define the term and if it's the latter, why does the source need to duplicate the wording verbatim? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, going through the edit history I see one of your edit summaries was "Afro-Brazilian is 'Wikipediese', not English or Portuguese." If I understand correctly, you and the anon challenge the very existence of the word but not the category of people.
Telles (2004, cited in the article) explicitly says "I could have also used the term 'Afro-Brazilian' or 'Afro-descendant,' translations of Afro-Brasileiro(a) and afrodescendente. Although these are not commonly used in the discourse of ordinary Brazilians, they are increasingly used by college-educated persons and activists in the black movement." (pp. 22-23). So it's clear that the term is not "Wikipediese" and it's also clear that it's a common enough term to use in the article.
If you feel that some better nuance is needed to shy away from connotations of the one-drop theory, I can work with that, but WP:LEAD tells use to avoid excessive citation in the lede and I think the fact tag in the lede is indeed asking for such an excessiveness. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]
I doubt Telles thinks that "Afro-Brazilians are Brazilians of either full or partial African descent". Whether he is right or not on the term being "increasingly used by college-educated persons and activists in the black movement" (I don't think so; "afro-descendente" is, but not "Afro-Brasileiro", which anyways should not translate into "Afro-Brazilian"), I am pretty certain that he realises it (or any of its synonims or quasi-synonims) is used regading people who are socially recognised as "pretos", "negros", "pardos", "mulatos", etc., not regarding "Brazilians of either full or partial African descent" (which would include many, possibly most, "brancos" too). His book is certainly not about "Brazilians of either full or partial African descent", it is about people who are regarded, in Brazilina culture, within Brazilian social constructs of race, as "pretos" and "pardos", or "negros", or "morenos", "mulatos", "chocolate", "escuros", "crioulos", or any such other terms. So, please, either a source that says that "Afro-Brazilians are Brazilians of either full or partial African descent", or let's remove or change the sentence. Ninguém (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Change it to what? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 20:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a problem, because the article's name is itself wrong: it should be "Black Brazilians", not "Afro-Brazilians". Anyway, I would suggest something like "Afro-Brazilians are Brazilians who self classify as 'preto' or 'pardo' in Brazilian censuses", or, better, "Afro-Brazilians are Brazilians who are socially recognised as Black or 'pardo'". Or anything else that can be reasonably sourced, or at least isn't obviously false. Ninguém (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so there are two issues with two separate debates:
One is the term we should use, which I'm not completely sure about; the cursory searches I've made so far seem to prioritize Afro-Brazilian. If black Brazilian is a common alternative, then we can at least say that the terms are semantically equivalent. Thus, if we find a source with a definition for "black Brazilian" but decide that "Afro-Brazilian" is term to use (or vice versa, we can still use it as a source. I think this issue is tangential to the fact tag in question; a challenge to the name of the article would be better suited in the form of a move proposal.
The second issue, the one that's really at hand, is the wording of the definition. I agree that the two suggestions you put forward still need some work, but I see in them the problem you are having with the current wording. It's not so much the actual ancestry of an individual, but the perceived or socially recognized nature of such an identification. I agree that this is an important distinction. Perhaps this can be remedied with a reword as simple as "[Afro-Brazilians/Black Brazilians] are Brazilians recognized as having either full or partial African descent." This would then be neutral to questions of biological race, admixture, and even whether the recognition is official or social. What do you think? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 16:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Ninguém, even if the IBGE still has the century-dated habit of not taking into account Amerindian x non-African non-Amerindian miscegenation as well as acculturation of non-mixed Amerindians, they exist, and such persons identify as pardo. Pardo started to mean freed slaves and their descendants in contradiction to pretos, those that were still slaves, and back then they were all negros (black people), but since it coincided with words for colors, it shifted to mean just brown and black people. It is non-factual information to say that pardo equates black or Afro in any way, even if our censuses still use the 1840 classification (Brazil...). If it was to be true, we would expect a much greater African impact on the historic of northern Brazilian population that sources indicate to not exist (well, I don't have them, but they should exist). Lguipontes (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

By Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]:

Perhaps this can be remedied with a reword as simple as "[Afro-Brazilians/Black Brazilians] are Brazilians recognized as having either full or partial African descent." This would then be neutral to questions of biological race, admixture, and even whether the recognition is official or social. What do you think?

I think this is still false. Many Brazilians that consider themselves White pretty much know (or imagine) they have African ancestry; it doesn't make them "Afro-Brazilians" in the sence this article intends. Brazilian concepts of race and "colour" are weakly, if at all, related to ancestry. This is a nation of illegitimate children, who actually do not know from whom they descend; it would be humanly impossible to determine the complete ancestry of the immense majority of the Brazilian people. It is really impossible to understand this if we keep trying to make the issue a mere Southern Hemisphere, Portuguese-speaking equivalent of the American one-drop system.

And, of course, it would prompt the question: recognised by whom? Ninguém (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

By Lguipontes:

Ninguém, even if the IBGE still has the century-dated habit of not taking into account Amerindian x non-African non-Amerindian miscegenation as well as acculturation of non-mixed Amerindians, they exist, and such persons identify as pardo.

Very true. And this again shows the mistake of characterising these people as "Afro-Brazilians", which they are not. Some Brazilian governmental agencies - especially the SEPPIR and the IPEA - group "pardos" and "pretos" into one category, usually "negros". This makes sence in sociological terms: the life conditions of "pardos" and "pretos" are strikingly similar, and even more strikingly different from the life conditions of "brancos" or "amarelos". But it makes no sence in historic terms: "pretos" are people who descend from Africans (though usually mixed with Europeans and Amerindians); "pardos" are a residual category that groups people who are a mix of European, African, and Amerindian ancestries, with people who are of predominantly Amerindian ancestry, but don't recognise themselves as "indígenas". So, again, this article goes by a very mistaken title. Ninguém (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing some of the important nuances of the suggested wording. For one (as I already implied), it's neutral to whether people are actually of recent African ancestry; this means that it doesn't matter if people know who they really descend from. It also doesn't require knowledge of one's "complete ancestry." Finally, the "recognized by whom" is easily answered in the next sentence when it talks about the government census. I'm also not sure how "partial African ancestry" equates to an equivalence of the "one drop system." If someone has a few distant ancestors from Africa but identifies as branco on the census, it seems like that would not meet the definition of Afro-Brazilian, but then maybe it's the identification that we should focus on and not the recognition. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 02:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
It is neutral to whether people are actually of African ancestry... but it is decidecly not neutral on whether people are considered of African ancestry. It would need to be neutral towards that, too. As I said, many, if not most, "White Brazilians" know or imagine that they have African ancestry (the "grandmother in the senzala" is a common trope in Brazilian racial mythology, helping White Brazilians to enjoy White privilege while denying its existence); as Lguipontes reminds us, many "pardos" are not of "African ancestry", and know it; so it is not a matter of being perceived as having African ancestry or not (it is a matter of being perceived as "negro", Black). And no, the census doesn't answer the "by whom" question, as Lguipontes hints: "pardos" are not necessarily of "African descent".
And obviously "partial African ancestry" does point directly to a one drop rule, and has nothing to do with identity. Rather it would be necessary to state clearly that unlike the United States, Brazilian "colour" identity has little to do with real or imaginary ancestry. But even such "identity" is very different from American "identities": it is mostly based on non-stated assumptions.
If we want to talk about people of African ancestry, we can't lump "pardos" into the subject without enormous caveats, for many of them are not of African descent at all; if we want to talk about Black people, we must both do that and dismiss entirely the "Afro-Brazilian" definition, for many people that have "partial African ancestry" - and know that - are "brancos".
The articles on race and ethnicity in Brazil are all tainted with a strange, idiosincratic ideology: that most "White Brazilians" are not "real White", that only those of very recent immigrant descent are "real Whites", and consequently that the people who enslaved Africans (and exterminated Amerindians) in Brazil where not "real Whites", but just Blacks and "pardos" who lie about their race - to arrive to desired consequences: that racism in Brazil is not a problem of Whites, but of "pardos" who lie about themselves, and that "real Whites" have nothing to do with slavery, having arrived here only when it was being abolished, or with racism, except as victims of a supposed anti-German and anti-Italian discrimination. I have tried to remove this strange bias, but I was certainly not very successful. Perhaps we should have them completely rewritten, preferably by someone who has actual knowledge of both Brazil and anthropology...Ninguém (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps the problem is in the meaning of "black." When you suggest that an Afro-Brazilian/Black Brazilian is someone who is "socially recognised as Black or 'pardo'" I automatically assume that you are using "black" in the same way that it is used in the United States.
Traditionally, racial categorization grouped people together based on shared physical traits that were thought to be distinct from those of other groups. But, it turns out, the categories are arbitrary and impose artificial boundaries where human variation is a continuum. While science has thrown out the categories, they still exist socially. This means that there is going to be regional (i.e. cultural) variation in what terms mean. So, in the contemporary United States, a "black" person is someone identified with their African ancestry. This is neutral to whether it's full or partial, though appearance plays a part.
So, when you say "black" I have automatically assumed that you mean it the same way I do, making "black" a semantic middleman and worthy of removal. If the Brazilian definition is different, then it is especially important that we not use the term.
So, in short, what do you mean when you say "black"? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 16:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In the United States, being "Black" and being "African American" (not, notice, "Afro-American") are very closely interrelated; if the two terms aren't interchangeable synonims, they are almost that, differences between them being mostly of etiquette. In Brazil, "afro-brasileiro" is a weird term, never used in common discourse, except, perhaps, with sarcastic intent. When we force Black Brazilians into the category of "Afro-Brazilians" (which is what the article does), we are exactly reinforcing the idea that the Brazilian social construction of race is equal or very similar to the American social construction, up to the idea that "African-x" is a synonym for "Black x".

When Taís Araújo became the first Brazilian Black actress to star a fotonovela, I thought, "finally, we have a Black woman ("uma negra") starring a soap opera"; I didn't think, "finally we have an Afro-Brazilian woman ("uma afro-brasileira") starring a soap opera". When the Brazilian press reported it, they didn't call her "uma afro-brasileira", they called her "uma negra". And I am pretty sure she considers herself "negra", not "afro-brasileira".

So, if you think that "Black Brazilian" would make Americans think that the racial categories, or racial rationale, in Brazil would be the same as in the US, we should probably use the Portuguese term untranslated. Because "Afro-Brazilian" confuses the issue in the same way, if not more. Ninguém (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

To show I am not exagerating, googling for primeira atriz negra I get 963,000 results. If I ad square quotes, "primeira atriz negra", I get 8,440 results. If I google for primeira atriz afro-brasileira, I get 37,700 results; if I add square quotes, "primeira atriz afro-brasileira" I get no results at all. Ninguém (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the issue of terminology is separate from this particular discussion. By focusing on a tangential issue, you've ignored my question, so I'll ask it again: When you say "black" (that is, in the Brazilian sense), which I'm assuming is the same as negro, what do you mean? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
What's the issue? The difference between "Afro-Brazilian" and "Black Brazilian" is that Afro-Brazilian is a wider category that includes Brazilians who do not look completly black, but who do have black admixture and identify with their black origin. Black Brazilian is a smaller category that usually only includes those who look obviously Black, even though some mixed people in Brazil do identify as Black as well.
The fact that Brazilians do not use the "Afro-Brazilian" (Afro-Brasileiro) term very often doesn't mean we have to change this article's name. In Brazil people use many words to refer to Black people (negro, preto, crioulo, sarará, afrodescendente, afro, escuro, escurinho and several others). The more used words are negro and preto, even though the latter is considered offensive, it is still widely used in day-life. We also have the word "crioulo", which is considered very offensive, similar to the "nigger" term in the USA, but some people still use this word as well. What I mean is that it doesn't matter which word you want to use, if its Afro, or Black or Negro or Crioulo. The word crioulo is much more used in the past and currently in disuse. Some words go, others come. It doesnt matter the word you use. In the end, they all mean the same thing. The term "Afrodescendente" is more and more being used in Brazil.
The racial vision of Brazilians is changing now. Many people who would not see themselves or be considered by others as Black are now assuming their Black side. It doesn't matter if it is American or Chinese or Swedish influence. It is a fact. And I see it as very positive, because many Brazilians who were ashamed of embracing their Black side and now doing it in a natural (and positive way).
I dont know why the other user is so worried about the one-drop rule being used in Brazil (maybe because he is afraid of losing his "white status" if Brazilians start to put everyone with African ancestry in the same group?). The one-drop rule doesn't even exist in the US anymore. Most Americans do not consider Mariah Carey black, many people called her "white singer trying to act Black" when she first appeared and even though she embraced her black side of the family many Americans would still resist to call her black. We also have many immigrants from Puerto Rico or from the Dominican Republic who are obviously part-Black, but they are still labeled as "Latinos". The one-drop theory is from the early 20th century. So, Brazilian user, if you're afraid of being thrown in the black category in the US, don't worry, you can fit in the "Latino" one as well.
Anyway, most African-Americans embrace their Black identity because they want to, and not because they are forced by Whites to do so. The same may be happening in Brazil now and this scares some people because it was so natural for Brazilians to deny their black side that they became surprised when in recent years Black people decided to come out and get involved in politics e.g clamoring for quotas in universities. Some people of this surprised group may say this is American influence, American Imperialism and blame the US because black Brazilians finally woke up.
Many people in Brazil get scary when they see a black person using the "100% negro" T-shirt or when black people start to get involved in politics to fight for their rights. The same way homophobics get scary when they see gays fighting for their rights, the same way sexists get scary when women fight for the rights, etc, etc. Whenever a historically discriminated group tries to change the game rules the more conservative people who are happy with their lives will get scary and make up theories such as "this is American influence" or this is the "Anti-Christ coming to Earth". Humans are selfish and do not like to "share a piace of the cake" like they say in Brazil.
What is happening in Brazil is not American Imperialism. The society is only changing. Brazilians always claimed that the US was a racist land and that they lived in racial democracy. But remember that the US was able to elect a Black president. I wonder when and if Brazil is going to do the same.
Eh? The term afrodescendente, unless in left-winger, educated environments is used very ironically by those that are not black persons. You forgot moreno, the only one to which I would protest because it is dangerously euphemistic. If people call me *insert slur against queers, bisexuals, Latin Americans, mestizos or Portuguese people here*, or say if I was 10, 15, 20 tones darker, those used to offend black people, I would say "I proudly indeed am, and you just can't do nothing about it. I'm here, I'm queer, I'm fabulous and I won't go away". As you, I am proud that haters consider me problematic for their social wiring or whatever.
But you should not go all accusing others, it is extremely inpolite, especially in such collegiate environment like Wikipedia. As a likely aspie who spent part of his life doing what anyone wasn't supposed to do, I always have the impression out of my not-knowing-what-to-expect-from-others that tons of people probably regard me as a complete idiot who entered here without even have a reasonable knowledge of English, only does dumb things and adds common sense, and lacks manners to even debate like a civilized person, and they would have their reasons, but they don't accuse me of doing any of it in bad faith. And Ninguém is CLEARLY not a racist. He talks about white privilege, something you won't see coming from everybody.
You shouldn't also compare VEEEEEEERY different kinds of prejudice (in Brazil there are lots of non-hetero people who are kind of supportive for European white nationalism; no, I'm not one of them). We marrying, having kids and being protected from discrimination by law as a dozen of other groups do so for almost 30 years and being remembered in sex ed or biology classes as a completely natural thing because we are just exact normal beings as all others though many don't agree has nothing to do with, say, some of you guys going to University out of reverse discrimination, lack of meritocracy (unless it is a quota inside the social one respecting the exact racial proportion of the age of the average vestibulando in each state) and faux welfare state of a ridiculous party affiliated to the Foro de São Paulo because of a historical debt out of events past at least 8 generations of ours and 12 of yours proposed mostly by "commie and anarcho pinko fag sociologists, outed or not, who see white people as evil bourgeois exploiters of good savages", and harming those that actually studied hard to obtain their place because people will judge how they entered there in the first place (something dumb as those that entered in affirmative action generally are better students than those that did not according to research). This may be not my point-of-view as I am neither the most versed person on the subject to judge if it is right or not (though, as both a Brazilian and a communist an anarchist a leftie newbie youth, I hate the Workers' Party with passion) nor one of those crazy right-wingers, but it is that of zillions of Brazilians, white or not, and you should respect them – as human beings – as it has nothing to do with racism whatsoever, unless you can prove.
It is problematic to see people identifying with races because as soon minorities start doing so, the majority starts too, and it can become like Europe, United States, Japan or Israel. Even because Brazilian is a single ethnicity, easily attachable to other Latin Americans or to the Portuguese, and as Aeusoes1 points out, human genetic variation being a major reason for societies being different from each other or an argument for social organization X is already something very scientifically dismissed. We AREN'T, and if dumb coitadistas are somehow taken out of the areas on public decision policies, will never become like those places where you see people trying to make the point that "even Latin Americans are hypocrates themselves because like the system they are racist against white people and try to lump multiculturalism to make the place become a third world hellhole". Revista Veja is not Fox News and we don't even have a serious right-wing party, just Evangelicals trying to steal money as always. Also, this anti-white bullshit is a strawman relatively easy to do, difficult to argue against, and the victim mentality is something natural to human beings (as you seem to already know), especially if we are in disavantage. See, my family didn't identify with our Polish and Swiss roots 3-4 generations ago (my European ancestors are 5 away), they never learned either of the languages and married multiracial and black persons mostly as completely usual for poor people in Espírito Santo and Rio de Janeiro. But soon, in this generation or next, it will become like Argentina or Chile, because it is a global trend. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay the consequences.
Analyzing IBGE data it seems that black people are better off than pardo people in Brazil. Perhaps because of the benefits in living in states such as Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and São Paulo. Imagine it now unattractive to tourists because we have a mentality similar to those of the average American or Eastern European. It would be much better to see the country become developed rather than eliminating a good trait we inherited from the Portuguese with something that isn't taken seriously as white privilege and how much it will take to disappear (perhaps the general problem is inequality? I ask, does this government something really good about it? I see persons living with 1000 reais as almost miserable, still they call it middle class, imagine a country without our political elite vampirizing us and selling our natural treasures like Niobium).
Finally, I wish good luck for both you and Brazil. If we can't elect decent politicians out of a 100% of the population, I wonder how we will do so out of a 8-20% minority. I don't wish a gay president neither like Clodovil Hernandes nor like Luiz Mott, it would be much better to have a straight but not narrow one that would be actually good for the country in general. Lguipontes (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"Anonimous", thanks for your "contribution". You keep trying to make a political issue here, and, worse, to make your "side" of such political disagreement stand alone here, as if it were encyclopedic truth. This is very bad policy for you, since you notoriously cannot understand that Diogo Mainardi is a right winger, and you idolise Darcy Ribeiro as the end all of Brazilian anthropology (despite misbelieving he was a sociologist instead of an anthropologist) and at the same time despise Getúlio Vargas, being apparently unaware that Ribeiro was for a long time the number two in the hierarchy Brizola's PDT (the ideological and political heir of Vargas' legacy), as well as fundamentally misunderstanding Ribeiro's positions regarding Portuguese colonialism. In other words, you know nothing about politics, so attempting to turn a discussion about "race" in Brazil into a political discussion will get you confounded and exposed.

You, as usual, carefully avoid the discussion about sources, since they do not favour your pet personal theory that places the blame for racism (and even Black slavery and Amerindian genocide) on non-White people. This article, however, opens with a very mistaken and unsourced sentence: Afro-Brazilians are Brazilians of either full or partial African descent, and then discusses "pretos" and "pardos". Now, as Lguipontes argues, there is a big amount of people who self-classify as "pardos" but are not of African descent (Amazonian caboclos and acculturated Amerindians), and, as I have argued, and is comproved by, for instance, Sérgio Pena's research, there are even more people who are of African descent but do not self-identify as either "pretos" or "pardos", but just plainly as "brancos". So, back to the point: bring me a credible source that explicitly states that "Afro-Brazilians are Brazilians of either full or partial African descent", or propose another formulation that doesn't run directly against widely known facts. Ninguém (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

To [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]:
When you say "black" (that is, in the Brazilian sense), which I'm assuming is the same as negro, what do you mean?
Very basically, a person who does not enjoy White privilege. Someone who would have trouble finding a job (and in finding one, earns a smaller wage for the same job), joining a club, getting education, or avoiding police brutality, because of some factor that remains always unspoken, but "everybody knows" is race or skin colour. Someone who doesn't brag about a great-grandmother in the senzala to make the point she or he isn't a racist. Ninguém (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
So a person who is black is someone who is not white. That doesn't seem accurate, since it's my understanding that Brazil has more than two racial categories. It's also kind of tautological. I'm looking for more of a dictionary definition. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 16:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
It's a person who doesn't enjoy White privilege (unlike "brancos" or "amarelos"), but is integrated to Brazilian mainstream society (unlike "indígenas"). There is no other way to lump together "pretos" and "pardos" in any meaningful way. If Brazil has more than two racial categories, why does this article try to lump two of the three more important ones, if not to reduce it to two racial categories?
Maybe my definition isn't good; but it is still better than "Afro-Brazilians are Brazilians of either full or partial African descent", which is either a false definition of the subject of this article, or a definition for an sociologically unimportant category that this article does not discuss. Ninguém (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Just in the case any person new to the subject end up not getting facts right, institutional racism is present in many other societies of the world and would be avoided if Brazil was a decent country with real commitment to human rights and reduction of inequality. Look at Portugal, the culture most next to ours, that is probably the European country with the least number in far-right activists. Nevertheless, Brazilian policies are not the case when the elected commissioner for it is some church-scam scoundrel that sent some homophobic and ethnocentric-to-a-racist-point comments by his Twitter account. Brazil still is the eternal future's world leader. I would do anything to see a revolution where people like those end up in a very bad way just as happened to some of their equivalents in the Middle East this decade. Mexico, Venezuela and Portugal have similar problems, but it is not to the extent of what goes on here. They mostly don't need corruption because they can steal us legally, with nothing or nearly nothing happening unless major shit happens and media exploits it. Of course racism emerges in doomed societies or fallen civilizations, but I would say Brazil got no race problem but social inequality, education (both public and particular), dumb drug prohibitionism, violence, political and ideological problems. Sadly it won't go away even if all of our Universities full up only with black people in the next 20 years.
Also, are pardo people discriminated against in Northeastern and Northern Brazil?! This doesn't make any bit of sense. AFAIK people with Indigenous features are treated more like white people than like black people as far south as Rio de Janeiro. Niterói is full of such people and it is richer than any other city in Southeastern Brazil (at least when not counting São Paulo). Lguipontes (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
So according to Ninguém black people in Brazil are only those who have ever faced discrimination? This guy only writes nonsense. I know Black people who have never faced discrimination, so they are not Black because of that? Black actress Sheron Menezes claimed in an interview that she never faced discrimination in her life So is she "White" now?
Moreover, you don't need to be Black to be discriminated in Brazil. Many Pardos are also victim of discrimination. Never heard of migrants from Northeast Brazil, most of whom are Pardos, being treated as garbage in São Paulo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It's funny to see Lguipontes repeating the fallacy that in Brazil there is no racial prejudice, only social. Sorry, Lguipontes, but this theory is as old as the racial democracy myth. You need to update yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
You should update yourself. While it is true that Anglophone and East Asian societies are more open to difference than they were 20 or 30 years ago, situation has worsened in the Southern Cone, Europe and their respective surroundings. If you think Brazil has a major race problem, I suggest you travel to areas where white people are hugely affected by economic problems and are involved in major ethnic tensions, or at least as I have done, search more. Of course we have, but I never heard of a major country that doesn't so. Even in India, where practically everyone is mixed and indigenous to there. Now stop your trolling. Lguipontes (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So what's your definition of Brazilian Blacks, or of whatever category that you think should be used to lump together "pretos" and "pardos", and where is the source for it? Ninguém (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Lguipontes, you said that Brazil has no racial prejudice, only social. This argument is so old that I cannot believe that any sane person would still repeat it. It shows you know nothing about Brazil. And to compare Brazil with other countries is not the point here. It's a ridiculous argument. Millions of people starve to death in Africa, it doesn't mean we have to accept that Brazilians may also starve. People are killed in Iran for being against the government, it doesn't mean we have to accept this in Brazil. To say that Brazil is less racist than other countries is your personal opinion.

And Ninguém, you are the one who is trying to rise a discussion of what is black and what is not black, not me. Your argument that only people who have been victim of discrimination are blacks is so pathetic that made me laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha, those two paragraphs of yours hugely contradict each other. First you say Brazil is racist, then you say there is no shared historic of social exclusion and discrimination by our black populations. Then Ninguém's argument is the pathetic one?! Faça-me rir, amiguinho! And about my knowledge or lack thereof about Brazil or its social situation, ignorado. Pode voar daqui, pombo enxadrista, você não vai nos atingir! De fato todos os países têm tragédias, mas falar que um país onde 22% das pessoas se casam com alguém de outra raça possui apartheid, ou outra versão de sistema racista transcedental em todas as esferas sociais, whatever, que é o que alguém com um mínimo de capacidade de raciocínio iria propor ao dizer que temos discriminação racial e não social, não é papo sério nem aqui nem na China. Pena da sua falta de vontade de contribuir com algo que preste. No mais, além da diversão que esse lugar oferece para pessoas como eu que gostam de ler mas não são muito apreciadoras de ficção, estou aqui pois gosto de expandir o meu conhecimento e o alheio, e já que não tê-lo é sempre associado a coisas ruins. Me decepciona ver pessoas com orgulho da própria ignorância, falando do que não sabem, e promovendo pontos-de-vista parciais infundados para quem vê de fora. De fato o Brasil tem muita coisa pra inglês ver, só que isso não se refletiria numa experiência geral de nossas relações sociais e históricas, atestadas pela vasta maioria de pessoas e autores que conheço, que veem o Brasil como multicultural, multiétnico, miscigenado, e extremamente tolerante para um lugar tão pobre, ignorante e mal-administrado em comparação com outros países. Até eu que sofri certo degrau de bullying por ser diferente não discordo disso. Vá catar coquinho!
Oh, I didn't mean to exclude monolingual English speakers BTW (though Aeusoes1 knows some Spanish, and since Spanish is hugely related to Portuguese, he will probably understand most things), but this silly anonymous user has nothing decent or construtive to propose here. I think he can be ignored from here on unless he starts to try to debate decently. Lguipontes (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
When did I say that "there is no shared historic of social exclusion and discrimination by our black populations"? And don't get desperate. You know nothing about your own country, deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
LOL, mau-caratismo at its finest! What Ninguém did say, criatura? The movimento negro sums up pretos and pardos together into the category of negros not because they all are of African descent but because they share a historic of social exclusion and discrimination, that is, what in developed Western countries people call white privilege. That is EXACTLY the definition that Ninguém proposed here. Trollagem é pouco, viu. Lguipontes (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Opinoso, the talk page is not a forum; so if you have no proposals on how to rewrite the lead, keep away from the discussion. And your tired allegation that other editors "know nothing about Brazil" is again one of your traditional personal attacks. Stop that before you make another racist comment and get blocked again.

The opening sentence in the article is still unsourced, and it looks patently false, for the reasons me and Lguipontes raised above. Any suggestion of a source, or of another definition that is not patently false, or is sourceable? As it is, I am inclined to believe that the definition should be simply removed. Ninguém (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to add a little bit of complication, we also have the articles Afro-Brazilian literature and Afro-Brazilian history, both of which seem to circle around African ancestry in their stated or implied meaning of Afro-Brazilian. What we decide here would also impact those articles. Afro-American religion may also be relevant. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 20:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There isn't any problem, in my view, with "Afro-Brazilian" when used as an adjective referring to cultural aspects. "Afro-Brazilian literature", "Afro-Brazilian music", "Afro-Brazilian cuisine", "Afro-Brazilian religion", "Afro-Brazilian culture" are all OK, are the proper translation of the equivalent Portuguese phrases, all of them widely used in Brazil. Where "Afro-brasileiro" is not used is as a denonym. Ninguém (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Though evidently, calling the writings of Machado de Assis "Afro-Brazilian literature" is quite weird; it has very little, if anything, to do with Africa. Ninguém (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been a month since the issue was raised. There aren't any sources for the sentence, and it is obviously false. No convincing arguments have been raised to the contrary. I'm going to remove it from the article. Ninguém (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing the sentence doesn't solve the problem. Now there's no definition, putting this article in conflict with policies laid out in WP:LEDE. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that it is bad to have no definition, I would argue that it is considerably worse to have a wrong and unsourceable definition. Ninguém (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there's a tag we can add. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant attempt to start an irrelevant discussion[edit]

Shut up, Ninguém. A person like you, who already claimed that Clara Nunes was a "White woman" knows nothing about the subject and should keep away from any discussion. You're just a desperate white-washer — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia people describe Vanessa da Mata as mulata and Alice Braga as cabocla, while to me they both look as white in facial traits and whiter in skin tone than many of my relatives that are both of very recent European descent. Alice Braga is whiter in phenotype than my mother, that is 25% Central European, and >50% Portuguese in up to 4 generations, including our mtDNA! Each person has his or her personal credentials and that is why race in Brazil should always be self-assigned rather than other-assigned, it is too damn complex and we can't take autosomal and mitocondrial DNA tests on everybody; even if we did, it was no guarantee as human race, especially when we deal with large-scale human genetic admixture, is something socially build rather than a scientifical concept. Lguipontes (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Afro-Brazilian and black Brazilian are English terms - so EN editors can use EN usage[edit]

Trying to import Portuguese terminology into English wikpedia seems silly. Afro-Brazilian and black are English terms, used by English speakers according to the norms of the English language. Given that the majority of English speakers live in the US, where common usage of the term 'Afro-' and 'black' conform to the one drop rule of hypo descent, suggest that it is reasonable to use general English usage in this case. Therefore, the attempt to rule out discussion of people of multi-racial ancestry seems illogical.Ackees (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing for style in English[edit]

Have tried to make some sections less confusing in English, while keeping to a description of Brazil in Brazil's own terms. Parkwells (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Afro-Brazilians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect archived capture replaced with correct capture. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Afro-Brazilians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Correct capture x 1 +redirect capture x 1. Redirected capture replaced by correct archived capture. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Problems with the title?[edit]

Given that there has been no actual discussion as to the nomenclature used in this WP:TITLE, and that WP:COMMONNAME does not appear to have been established, could editors please use this talk page to present arguments for a change in the use of 'Afro-Brazilian' rather than some sort of misguided attempt to create their own WP:OR naming convention?

Just in the most recent editing history, it's evident that IPs are going through and making changes to 'Black-Brazilians', etc. dependent on what they believe to be politically correct. Editors do not determine what the COMMONNAME is. If, however, there is no English language common name for this ethnic group, it should be discussed here and a WP:CONSENSUS title needs to be established. Please stop just going through and changing the default consensus nomenclature without bothering to presenting any reliable sources or policy and guideline based arguments for your changes.

Going through Google Scholar, Afro-Brazilian yields Afro Brazilian is the most commonly used term in English. Ngram reveals the same here. If there are other arguments editors feel need to be addressed, feel free to express them here, on the article's talk page where they belong.

Much of the article is already dedicated to differentiating between the use of the term in English as opposed to the Portuguese Brazilian terminology. If anyone believes they can see a better way around presenting the content of this article, I'm sure there are plenty of other editors equally keen to find solutions rather than further complicate the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Afro-Brazilians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Afro-Brazilians. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afro-Brazilians. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Afro-Brazilians. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)