Talk:Race and ethnicity in Brazil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ethnic groups in Brazil)
Jump to: navigation, search

==ng the only problem. It was badly written, poorly sourced, and contained absolutely no definition of the terms it employed. It took for granted that everyone knows what an "ethnic group" is, and piled "data" on race and on immigration, without any critical appraisal. It also dealt extensively with the genetics of skin colour, as if this had anything to do with "ethnic groups".


Now a huge amount of this garbled article has been merged into "Race in Brazil", which, in consequence is now called "Race and ethnicity in Brazil". But since "Ethnic groups in Brazil" never dealt with "ethnic groups" (other than wrongly implying that "pardos" or "Italian Brazilians" would be "ethnic groups"), it is now still an article about race in Brazil - and perhaps even more so than before, because of its "genetic" emphasys.

Summing it up, it seems to me that this merge considerably degraded the article on "Race in Brazil", which is now quite more confuse than it was before the merge. The only real improvement in my opinion is the fact that the article on "Ethnic groups in Brazil" no longer exists; but unhappily much of its sloppiness has spilled into the former article.

I would like someone to do two things: first, explain what would be an "ethnic group" in the context of Brazil; second, to put up a list of "ethnic groups" in Brazil - just so that we understand what we are talking about. It is my impression that neither such definition nor such list is possible; reading Livio Sansone's Blackness Without Ethnicity: Constructing Race in Brazil would perhaps help explain why. Ninguém (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems generally reasonable although there of course is a sense in which ethnicity and race are related - the article should however do a much better job of explaining that.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

They can certainly be related.

The article on ethnic groups tells us that An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy. It quite seems to follow that this "common heritage" may well be the perception of belonging to a common "race". On the other hand, if the article on ethnic groups isn't misleading us, it seems obvious that people of different races may share a "common heritage" that includes a "common language", a "common religion", a "common culture", a common history and a shared future. By the same reasoning, it seems to be possible that people of the same race don't see themselves as sharing a "common heritage" if they have different languages, cultures, religions, and lack an ideo(mitho)logy of common ancestry.

So, while these subjects can certainly be related, it doesn't seem such relation is univocal and unequivocal, if you pardon me the alliteration; and the terms consequently cannot be used interchangeably (as, for instance, in Race in Singapore). Maybe this is common parlance in English (American English?), but at an encyclopedic level, they shouldn't be confused.

Explaining the relations between "race" and ethnicity in Brazil would require a minimal understanding of each of these terms, that seems to be lacking. It would also require a more than minimal understanding of what these relations are in Brazil, and of in which sences these relations are specific of Brazil or, on the contrary, reflect general, wide-world, trends. In other words, it would require the awesome notion that Brazil is a specific country, with a specifice history, not merely the United States transported to the Southern hemisphere and translated into Portuguese.

Besides, the fact that two different subjects are related doesn't seem to imply that they should be discussed in one single article. In fact, if the article on ethnic groups is correct, such groups can also be related to, for instance, religion - but I think no one would suggest we should merge Religion in Brazil into this article. Ninguém (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the respective academic definitions of race and ethnicity thanks. I have also read rather widely about the relations between race and ethnicity in Brazil and the rest of Latin America. If for example Quilombo ethnicity would not require an explanation that also takes the racial history of brazil into account then I don't know how you would even begin to describe it. Race and ethnicity should be discussed together because they are intertwined but separate and often confused and as an encyclopedia it is our job to disentangle those concepts in order to let the reader achieve an understanding of what each of them is and isn't.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me - or would be fine with me, if the article actually did that. But what it does is quite different, and the history of this and other articles on Brazil and Brazilian demography shows a consistent trend to confuse, or entangle, the concepts. For instance, the whole section on "Racial makeup and genetic studies" of this article was originally in the article on "Ethnic groups in Brazil", though its relation to ethnicity seems to me tangential at most. On the other hand, another confusion is even more prevalent - the idea that people of Italian (Russian, German, Arab, whatever) descent in Brazil constitute "ethnic groups" - "Italian Brazilians", "Russian Brazilians", etc. The article on São Paulo, for instance, tells us:

Today, people of many different ethnicities make São Paulo their home. The main groups, considering all the metropolitan area, are: 6 million people of Italian descent, 3 million people of Portuguese descent, 1.7 million people of African descent, 1 million people of Arab descent, 665,000 people of Japanese descent, 400,000 people of German descent, 120,000 people of Chinese descent, 40,000 Jews, 60,000 Bolivian immigrants, 150,000 people of Greek descent, 250,000 people of French descent and 50,000 people of Korean descent.

That's just an example, but I think many can be found, if we peruse such pages. Ninguém (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Genetics: Splitting to Population genetics in Brazil[edit]

I have a problem with the large section on genetics. The question of whether there is any meaningful relation between Race and genetics is very much open. The article seems to suggest that issues of genetics are directly relevant for issues of race which is highly problematic. In most other articles the genetic structure of populations is treated apart from issues of race and ethnicity. I think the same ought to apply here. If it is included there should definitely be a much better explanation of the propblems with assuming that there is a meaningful relation between genetic heritage and race - especially in the brazilean context which is famous for its lack of correlation between phenotype and racial categorization.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Notice that those "genetic studies" are too focused on European ancestry, but in fact most of those genetic studies come from patternity studies, and most people who can afford for them are wealthy White or mostly White Brazilians, so the European ancestry is often overestimated. There are other genetic studies about Brazilians which show higher degree of African ancestry, but those specific ones are being ignored by the users who wrote this article (maybe an agenda?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think Branqueamiento is the term for that.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they cover the whole spectrum of the population. Whatever you call it, the conclusion is that European ancestry is the most important in all regions in Brazil. The researchers are far from biased, and they did aim to cover the whole population (if they have something it would be anti Eurocentrism). To claim they tested "whites" alone is a lie, and one cannot extrapolate the methodology of one study (Callegari Jacques 2003) to all other studies. Whatever the interpretation of the results, they are interesting, as it is possible to more or less track what happened since the Europeans first invaded, took the land from the Native Americans, and brought Africans to work for them in plantations. Check out the methodology of this fresh study from 2011, with nearly 1000 samples from all over the country covering all segments of the population: To have an agenda is to dismiss or to try to dimiss the majority of the autosomal studies focused on the Brazilian population because its conclusions go against something some people would want it to be. Nearly all genetic studies on Brazil have been posted in one way or another. Grenzer22 (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be the case that some of the later studies use different methods. However you simply removed the statement saying that it was unsourced, but it was clearly sourceable. But the concern here is that the genetics material doesn't belong here at all - race is not about genetics. Genetic studies work at the level of population not race - I suggest that the material be removed to an article on population genetics of Brazil. It is not relevant here.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have no problem in removing the whole section on genetics. The reason it is like that is that we used to have edits that insisted, against all evidence, that Whites were a minority in Brazil, that European genetic contribution was minor (and only related to recent immigration from the 19th century on, not to Portuguese colonisation), and that those people who call themselves "White" are in fact Blacks or Amerindians ashamed of being so. Then other users included genetic studies to show that this was not true, and, as each study included was nitpicked and subject to attempts to discredit it, more and more studies were included.

Now, this information is certainly valuable, and while it is not the same as "race", nor does it explain what "races" are, I wouldn't go as far as saying they are unrelated to the topic. But they certainly are not related to "ethnic groups" - the existence of which in Brazil, by the way, this article isn't able to demonstrate. And talking about that, why is assumed that "ethnic groups" and "races" are related subjects, so intimately related indeed that they need to be discussed in one article instead of two discreet ones? This is certainly confusing. Ninguém (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

None of the books that i have read about race in Brazil include surveys of population genetics.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Either such surveys are too recent to have been reflected on published books, or most authors believe they are irrelevant to their subject.

Anyway, such surveys seem to be useful only in establishing that there is no relation between what is perceived as "race" and actual ancestry. The genetic make up of Brazilians varies more within the "racial groups" - "pretos", "brancos", "pardos" - than between them, and it is impossible to predict the race of any individual from their genetic sampling, or the other way round.

Other problem is that it is quite difficult to explain the technical terms. Particularly "Y chromossome" and "MtDNA" tend to be misinterpreted as "paternal ancestry" and "maternal ancestry" respectively. Ninguém (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think they are useful and related to the topic, as supplementary data at least. The genetic studies are helpful in showing not only what happened but the demographic dynamics. They aren't perfect but they provide a somewhat basic picture of the population. In particular in populations made up of groups who were geographically distant from each other, as in Brazil.Grenzer22 (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


It is not like "some of the later studies use different methods". Most of them used different methods, and studies from 1965 included have been posted(based on blood polymorphisms). The text was not really sourced correctly. If you look at it accurately, it was posted as a quote of another study (as if it were present in an autosomal study from 2009, which is not). The Callegari Jacques study and its possible skewed results are explicitly mentioned in the article already:

[quote]According to an often quoted autosomal DNA study (from 2003) focused on the composition of the Brazilian population as a whole, "European contribution [...] is highest in the South (81% to 82%), and lowest in the North (68% to 71%). The African component is lowest in the South (11%), while the highest values are found in the Southeast (18%-20%). Extreme values for the Amerindian fraction were found in the South and Southeast (7%-8%) and North (17%-18%)". The researchers were cautious with the results as their samples came from paternity test takers which may have skewed the results partly.[/quote]

Now, to use it as a weapon to disqualify all other genetic studies is wrong to me. The other studies are valid, and they cover the whole population. This is what the User talk:|talk] said:

[quote]Those studies are mostly with White Brazilians, that's why the so high European admixture[/quote]

That's a LIE! The aim is to disqualify all the studies, which I do not agree with. I have an interest in it, as I am Brazilian and thoroughly connected with the history of this place. Grenzer22 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the quote from the 2003 study to its right place, this should take care of the issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, however the aim is to disqualify the other studies. This is what the User talk:|talk] said (he is responsible for the text):

[quote]Those studies are mostly with White Brazilians, that's why the so high European admixture[/quote]

This is an obvious lie. Cheers. Grenzer22 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No the authors of the 2003 study are responsible for the text. The IP and I both agree that the quote should be included.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not say the text is wrong. What I said is that this claim here is false:

[quote]Those studies are mostly with White Brazilians, that's why the so high European admixture[/quote]

As I said, the way it was framed it was framed so as to disqualify the other studies. I don't care about it, now that the text is addressed to the correct study. As I said, and as you have probably seen, it was already mentioned in the article. To use one study to extrapolate to all others is definitely wrong.Grenzer22 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And that is not what is happening so we don't have a problem now, do we?·Maunus·ƛ· 22:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
We don't. :) By the way, the correct word would be "branqueamento". It describes a "social process", so to say, which was initiated and conducted for the most part by Europeans, those who arrived here, who took control of the territory, and their descendants. The "whitening" process took place, as we know too well, also in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in a much more rigorous and stricter way (Australia had a "white policy" almost until recently, and so did Canada, and also the United States), as well as in Spanish speaking Latin America. Had they had an option to decide, I would bet the real owners of this place would have preferred it to remain 100% Native American. Cheers.Grenzer22 (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Not quite correct (except for the spelling of course). "Whitening" is also used to describe the process by which people who move up in society, by acquiring higher socio-economic status are simulateneously seen by others and them selves as being "more white" than they were before. And its most general meaning is about claims downplaying the blackness or indianness of the population. Also there was no comparable whitening in Australia, USA or Canada where race policies did not favor miscegenation but rather racial segregation. Whitening is unique to those Latin American countries such as Mexico and Brazil whose governments insituted policies promoting racial mixing and which had a policy of classifying people as relatively more white in contrast with the US policy where even small amounts of black traits would cause people to be classified as black.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You are quite wrong here. Real "white policy" took place only in the Anglosphere. Strict racial laws, lynchings, non citizenship for "non white" immigrants, etc. Latin America has a different dynamic and it favoured Europeans for a number reasons. Europeans also invaded and took possession of Latin America, in the first place. They and their descendants favoured Europeans over others. Then religion was also important. Instead of importing pagans, the leaders of Latin American countries favoured importing Catholics and to a lower extent other Christian denominations. And then at play there are also two other issues: the land was sparsely populated (like in Brazil, where people were needed to settle it), and qualified labour power was in high demand. The European input of the whole population is a result of a conquest related process, since European males controlled the societies, and therefore had offspring with Native American women and African women, thus increasing the proportion of European ancestry in the population. "Whitening" happened everywhere where Europeans displaced Natives. The United States and Canada were 100% Native American just until a few centuries ago. The change in the composition of the population cannot but be described as the result of a "whitening" process, consciously and deliberately pursued. Read on White Policy in Australia, learn the history of the United States and Canada. These countries are totally still stuck in the "white paradigm" for the most part. Grenzer22 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
No I am not wrong, this is what experts in racial history write about the topic. The difference between anglosphere and latin america was that in the Anglosphere white dominance was asserted through segregation in Latin America it was asserted by "whitening" the population by introducing more white people and encouraging them to intermarry with the non-whites. This is completely basic knowledge within race studies and latin american history and there is not a single source you will be able to produce that will support your version of that history.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

[quote]The enormity of government-funded sterilization has been compiled by a masters' student in history, Sally Torpy, at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her thesis, "Endangered Species: Native American Women's Struggle for Their Reproductive Rights and Racial Identity, 1970s-1990s," which was defended during the summer of 1998, places the sterilization campaign in the context of the "eugenics" movement. No one even today knows exactly how many Native American women were sterilized during the 1970s. One base for calculation is provided by the General Accounting Office, whose study covered only four of twelve IHS regions over four years (1973 through 1976). Within those limits, 3,406 Indian women were sterilized, according to the GAO. Another estimate was provided by Lehman Brightman, who is Lakota, and who devoted much of his life to the issue, suffering a libel suit by doctors in the process. [I]His educated guess (without exact calculations to back it up) is that 40 per cent of Native women and 10 per cent of Native men were sterilized during the decade. Brightman estimates that the total number of Indian women sterilized during the decade was between 60,000 and 70,000[/I].[/quote] :| [url][/url]

Grenzer22 (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You are proving my point - in Latin America the fertility of non-white women was not limited, because of the policy of miscegenation. In the anglosphere dominance was exerted by segregation and by limiting non-white fertility.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
"Mixing" also took place in the United States, as well as in Canada, and other places, like South Africa. A few ethnic categories from the United States and Canada:
- Melungeons
- Louisiana Creoles
- Métis

What I am saying is that it is unfair to single out Latin America and say it had a "whitening" ideology, as "whitening" permeates and it is important in all European conquered lands, first and foremost in the Anglosphere. That the Anglosphere countries received millions of Europeans immigrants in a much greater scale than Latin America does not imply it is not a "whitening" process at all. And "mixing" took place in the Anglosphere, with the European paradigm been at play here as well.Grenzer22 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not about being fair, it is just about stating the facts the way they are described in reliable sources. You will not find the concept of whitening applied to non-latin American countries in any sources. Suggesting that whitening occured in South Africa simply shows you have no idea what the concept means. Mixing did take place in the US, canada and South Africa, but it was not encouraged by political ideology as it was in some parts of Latin America, and the "mixed" people never became white as they did in Mexico and Brazil. You are failing to understand what the concept of Whitening actually means and you apparently haven't read alot about racial policies in 19th and 20th century Latn America.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It is about being fair, yes. You are used to reading Anglosphere material. Their terminology shows their point of view first and foremost, and it is biased. One can learn through it, but having their biased point of view is wrong. "Whitening" is a word which describes the Europeanization of conquered lands. The way the word is played in the Anglosphere is irrelevant to me. I am more concerned about understanding historical processes as they truly happened instead of adopting unilateral biased point of views. "Mixed" people did become "white" in Canada, the US and South Africa. Read on Eva Krotoa, the Khoisan woman present in so many illustrious genealogies from South Africa. Or the so many descendants of Pocahontas and other Native American women in the United States. Genetic studies show Native American maternal lineages in the colonial Canadian population. It is just a matter of degree. "Whitening" has always been a policy of the Anglosphere, as the Anglosphere countries have never been 100% "white". To make them the "whiter" they could be can only but be described as a "whitening" process. Cheers. Grenzer22 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
No that is not what Whitening or Branqueamento means. I cannot discuss with you if you refuse to accept the commonly agreed upon definitions of terminology and prefer to use your own revisionist definitions. Get some sources that spport your redefinition of the term and we can have a discussion.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that you would think that there is any consensus on the subject, even less on the terminology. I am not "revisionist". I am telling you what happened in the countries conquered by Europeans. "Mixed" people in the United States, Canada and South Africa did become "white", in many cases. Here is a quote for you:

[quote]Sociologist and anthropologist Robert Stuckert examined census and fertility data to estimate how many blacks in America had passed as white, and how many whites had African ancestry as a result. His statistical tables showed that during the 1940s, 15,550 light-skinned blacks per year crossed over to live as whites, for a total of about 155,500 for the decade. Based on these figures, he determined that by 1950, some 21% of whites (about 28 million people then) had black ancestry within the last four generations, and he predicted that this number would only grow in the decades to come.[/quote] (Stuckert, 1958)

Now, the Anglosphere has never been 100% "white", and a "white policy" has definitely played a huge role in the history of these countries, surely a lot more than in Latin America.Grenzer22 (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, and "passing" is not the same as whitening. Passing in the US is done in spite of the prevailing ideology that holds that passing is not possible. In Brazil and Mexico passing is the norm. The anglosphere has of course had "white" policies - but not policies of whitening. The US has had a strict policy of segregation through most of its history, only surpassed by Aparthedi South Africa. (this is on page 56 in Shcaefer's encyclopedia of Race and ethicity)·Maunus·ƛ· 00:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I would have preferred Brazil to remain 100% Native American, as it was in 1500. Latin American societies are a product of European colonialism and as such they must be viewed. The genocide of Native Americans, the mass slavery of Africans, and the current ethnic problems in all European conquered lands, are a direct consequence of colonialism. And so are the "racial tensions" in the US, Canada and Australia, which have a direct impact even on scientists (William Shockley, James Watson, pseudo psychology like that of Philip Rushton, etc).Grenzer22 (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely, but that still doesn't alter the fact that the way in which white dominance was exerted in the anglisphere and the latino-sphere were different and that the concept of "whitening" is only every applied to the latter.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Blacks and Amerindians are not only "victims" in Latin American society. In fact, new resources in Brazil are showing that a very large proportion of slave owners in Brazil was composed of former slaves, Blacks and Mulattoes. In some areas of Brazil Black and Mulatto slave owners were more numerous than White ones. Slavery was widely practice in Africa centuries before European colonization, and it was only changed from the African Continent to the Americas. And Amerindians killed more other Amerindians than the Portuguese ever did. Even before European colonization, Brazilian Indians fought against each other and some native ethnic groups hated each other for centuries. Some Indians used the Portuguese technology to exterminate rival tribes. They used to become allies of the Portuguese to have access to weapons and then exterminate their Indian enemies. Many of those Indians were not forced to fight for the Portuguese, they wanted to do that because of historic conflicts between different native tribes. And the Portuguese used this historic conflicts to exterminate the tribes who were against them. Both Portuguese and Indians became allies to exterminate other "undesirable" Indians.

The idea that Africans and Amerindians were simple victims of the Europeans is old-fashioned and only people who have no access to recent History analyzes believe it. Some scholars report that this new view of History is good for both nowadays Black and Brazilian Indians, because they now are not only the descendants of "submissive victims" that people should have scorn and pity, but of people who played an important role in all the history process. Those new studies show that the ancestors of Black Brazilians were not only the submissive people who were turned into slaves and were inferior to Whites. In fact, many Black and Mulatto Brazilians were important slave owners themselves, in some areas even outnumbering Whites. They participated in the process of slavery in Brazil at the same level as Europeans did. And for the Indian-descendants, their ancestors were not victims of the European power, but in fact they were the ones who helped the Portuguese to establish themselves here, were allied to them and helped them to exterminated other enemie tribes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this has been the thesis, for months and years, in articles about Brazil: that the real responsibilty for racism in Brazil bears on non-Whites. Reality shows otherwise. While Amerindian tribes have evidently used or tried to use European technology in their fights against each others, the result was not the establishing of a Tupian State, or even a Tupian-Portuguese condominium, but the utter conquer of Brazil by Portugal. And while Mulattoes, and even Blacks, have been slave owners in colonial Brazil, this was under Portuguese, not Yoruba or Kimbundu rule, and part of a system of general enslavement of Black Africans by Portuguese colonists, not a joint venture of Portuguese and African rulers. To say that Blacks "participated in the process of slavery in Brazil at the same level as Europeans did" conveniently leaves aside the well established fact that only Africans, and no Europeans, where enslaved in Brazil.
And please, what is your source for these ideas? "Some scholars report", as you may realise, isn't good enough here. Ninguém (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ninguém completely. It is true that recent scholarship has shown the ways in which Africans and Indigenous peoples had a degree of agency that allowed them to sometimes turn the colonial process to their advantage, bt I know of no scholarship that would suggest that colonialism on the whole did not negatively affect Indigenous peoples and Africans and positively affect Europeans. Suggesting that African's benefited asmuch form slavery as Europeans is ridiculous.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup. This is most certainly a misinterpretation of some source. Evidently people are never merely passive victims of actions and situations; they fight back in the most varied ways, and they also strive to turn the system to their own advantage. But this doesn't mean slaves and slaveholders "participated in the process of slavery (...) at the same level". Quite probably some source that shows ways in which slaves and Indians have been able to circumvent the most dreadful consequences of slavery and genocide is being misinterpreted as meaning that slaves and Indians are "responsible" for slavery and genocide on "the same level" as European colonists. These misinterpretations were quite the rule in articles about Brazil until recently: Schwartzman's criticism of those who try to equate the Brazilian "racial" system to the American one reported as an endorsement of such equation; Darcy Ribeiro's mythology of a deracialised Brazil misunderstood as an objective narrative on Brazilian Whites not being "actual Whites"; Magnoli's attempts to ridicule the idea of summing up "pardos" and "pretos" into one "racial" category misreported as an actual support for the sum up; Miguel Angel García's reporting of 60% of immigrants to Rio Grande do Sul being Italian mistranslated into an assertion that 60% of the population of Rio Grande do Sul is of Italian descent; etc. Careless or biased reading, perhaps, which tries to make the texts fit the reader's prejudices, instead of understanding what the writer is actually trying to convey. Ninguém (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Highly relevant information[edit]

I've just added a highly information concerning the 2010 autosomal study:

The samples came from free of charge paternity test takers, thus as the researchers made it explicit: "the paternity tests were free of charge, the population samples involved people of variable socioeconomic strata, although likely to be leaning slightly towards the ‘‘pardo’’ group".

This is the study published at the American Journal of Human Biology:

"Am J Hum Biol. 2010 Mar-Apr;22(2):187-92. Genetic composition of Brazilian population samples based on a set of twenty-eight ancestry informative SNPs. Lins TC, Vieira RG, Abreu BS, Grattapaglia D, Pereira RW. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Genômicas e Biotecnologia, Universidade Católica de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil. Abstract Ancestry informative SNPs can be useful to estimate individual and population biogeographical ancestry. Brazilian population is characterized by a genetic background of three parental populations (European, African, and Brazilian Native Amerindians) with a wide degree and diverse patterns of admixture. In this work we analyzed the information content of 28 ancestry-informative SNPs into multiplexed panels using three parental population sources (African, Amerindian, and European) to infer the genetic admixture in an urban sample of the five Brazilian geopolitical regions. The SNPs assigned apart the parental populations from each other and thus can be applied for ancestry estimation in a three hybrid admixed population. Data was used to infer genetic ancestry in Brazilians with an admixture model. Pairwise estimates of F(st) among the five Brazilian geopolitical regions suggested little genetic differentiation only between the South and the remaining regions. Estimates of ancestry results are consistent with the heterogeneous genetic profile of Brazilian population, with a major contribution of European ancestry (0.771) followed by African (0.143) and Amerindian contributions (0.085). The described multiplexed SNP panels can be useful tool for bioanthropological studies but it can be mainly valuable to control for spurious results in genetic association studies in admixed populations."

The 2011 autosomal study samples came from blood donors. The lowest classes are the blood donors in Brazil: Profile of the Brazilian blood donor:

  • Only 1.5% of Brazilians donate annually
  • Among them, 75% are of low income
  • 60% of them have income lower than 3 Minimum Wages
  • 70% of them are between 26 and 45 years old
  • 58% of them haven't completed High School
  • Only 8% of them have completed University
  • Men make up 78% of donations

And the 2011 autosomal study samples also came from public health institutions personnel and health students, thus representing well the Brazilian population.

Grenzer22 (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

To claim that Brazilians have only 14% of African and a mere 8% of Amerindian admixture in quite ridiculous. Brazilian census shows that over half of the population claim to be Brown or Black and less than half as White. If non-European ancestry account for only 23% of Brazilian genetic make up, at least 80% of Brazilians would have to be White in the census. In fact, genetic studies show that Argentieans have 77% of European ancestry, and according to Argentinean census Whites are 88% of the population. If Brazilians had the same level of European ancestry than Argentines, Brazil would have to be as White as Argentina is, which of course Brazil is not. Brazil was never inundated by European immigrants like Argentina was. Argentinean population was literally "replaced" by European immigrants in the 19th century. Nothing similar happened to Brazil. And now somebody is trying to claim that Brazilian has the same level of European ancestry as Argentina? Don't make me laugh. People should be carefull before posting genetic studies in a tendentious way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As it has been many times explained, there is no direct correlation between "race" and ancestry.

Bring sources that support your views, instead of personal, racialist theories. Ninguém (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a correlation. Brazil has many Blacks and Pardos to have only 23% of non-European ancestry. This is not enough to produce a mostly non-White country. You like it or not, unlike Argentineans, most Brazilians do not look European, even though those studies claim that Brazilians and Argentineans have the same level of European ancestry. Unlike Argentina, Brazil was the country the more imported Africans in the New World and, despite the influx of European immigrants, it was not so great to make the African and Amerindian contributions so small. Brazil would have needed to import millions more Europeans to make the African contribution so small as that study claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Still no sources. Ninguém (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny enough, portuguese themselves have a considerable portion of african ancestry, from moor invasions. Something between 7-20% of african genetics... Not mentioning new christian (jews). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cor de burro quando foge[edit]

I have edited this into the article, hoping you won't remove it as "original research". First, "burro" means 'ass', not 'donkey' (jumento, jerico or jegue, in Portuguese). Burro is the male hybrid of a donkey and a mare. The female is a mula (mule). Actually the phrase does not refer to an undetermined colour, but to a colour that CANNOT be determined (since the ass has gone away). It is a humorous definition of infalsifiability. Moreover, equine colours in Portuguese are a mess, with a myriad terms that vary in definition from region to region and from animal to animal (a "baio" horse is not the same color as an ass of the same color). This adds difficulty to know the actual colour of a burro unless the animal is present. jggouvea (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Studies of race and ethnicity in Brazil are often brought up as examples showing that the concept of "race" is a social construct[edit]

There is a source for that sentence. But unhappily, it does not say that studies of race and ethnicity in Brazil are often brought up as examples showing that the concept of "race" is a social construct; it says that "race is a social construct". Ninguém (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Changed it back to what the source actually says. Ninguém (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Race as a social construct[edit]

The concept of "race" is a social construct,[1] so what is understood as "race" in one society is not the same that is understood as such in another.

As the introduction to Race (human classification) makes clear, there are both biological and social ways of defining race or ethnicity. "Race is a social construct" is only one point of view in a raging debate on this subject, so I removed the above claim. The remainder of the intro sticks more to facts that illuminate the diversity of the country. -- -- Beland (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The argument that "race is a social construct" is nothing more than a attempt to argue that there are no such thing as races. That is illogical. Only a fool would argue that races do not exist. (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Descendants of immigrants (Japanese Immigration)[edit]

"Notably, the first half of the 20th century saw a large inflow of Japanese (mainly from Honshū, Hokkaidō and Okinawa)"

I don't see the point of listing the areas, as these are 3 of the 4 islands of Japan, consisting of 95% of country's landmass. In other words "Most of the immigrants came from 95% of the country". Sounds pointless.

It would be relevant if immigration from one of the four islands was a notable source, or even a specific region, e.g. "Mainly from the Kansai region". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-kun (talkcontribs) 03:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

About the word "preto"[edit]

That is a particularly offensive word to refer to black people in Brazil. The correct term is "negro", or "african-brazillian". I am aware that "negro" is used in spanish in a ofensive matter, but that's not how things work in Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


What does "earned on average 1.8 minimum wages, while Whites averaged 3.4 minimum wages mean? Should this be "earned on average 1.8 TIME THE minimum wage", etc? (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

far right sidebar on race[edit]

The far right side bar at the start of the page - Why does that even exist? the history and whatnot of race? Also, why put the US or Uk history with race and no other countries? I just find that odd and feel like ti doesn't fit this page at all. Also, why mainly focus on just the United States. Again, that whole sidebar thing feels out of place in this article. It has nothing to do with Brazil. Bulbdude0005 (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Guido Bolaffi, Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity and Culture (London: Sage, 2003; ISBN 0-7619-6900-4), s.v. "Race", p.244. Here at Google Books (accessed 12 December 2009)