Talk:Immigration to Brazil

Brazil: History High‑importance

	Brazil portal 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the History of Brazil task force (assessed as High-importance).

Immigration in Argentina and Canada X Immigration in Brazil

I have changed the statement "Besides the USA, Brazil has received the largest amount of immigrants than anywhere else in the Western Hemishpere" to account for the fact that both Canada and Argentina have historicaly received more immigrants than Brazil For example, total immigration figures in Argentina between the mid-19th century and the mid-20th century are estimated to be in excess of 6,000,000 versus something like 4.5 million in Brazil.12:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The article appears to have been changed again and now claims "Brazil has received the third-largest amount of immigrants in the Western Hemisphere after the United States and Argentina". I believe the anonymous poster above was right though: total immigration into Canada surpasses the figures for Brazil (particularly if present-day immigration is taken into account). Could anyone post immigration figures for Canada or include a reference so that we may know for sure? Mbruno 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historically Brazil received more immigrants than Canada at the beginning of the 20th century. After Canadian independence and the World Wars immigration to Canada increased. I might be able to find references stating that Canada has received more immigrants than Brazil. I am going out on a limb here but I think for South America the countries that received the largest groups of immigrants were: Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Venezuela. All of them experienced strong immigration waves during the 20th century. So Brazil being in third place doesn't sound too farfetched at all. After all the largest group of ethnic Portuguese, Italians, Lebanese, Japanese, among others reside in Brazil. M P M 08:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Argentina received more immigrants than Brazil between the mid-19th century and mid-20th century. Your point about Canada may be right though. As of today of course, Canada is one of the world's top destinations for immigrants whereas Brazil actually has a net negative immigration ratio (see the Brazilian diaspora article for further information on Brazilian emigration). I also advise you to take historical immigration data from the Brazilian census bureau (IBGE) with a grain of salt as IBGE's figures normally do not take into account re-emigration from Brazil back to the country of origin or to a third country (e.g. Argentina). Mbruno 12:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina received in fact more immigrants; but a huge number of them, in contrast with Brazil, went back to their homelands or another country (as Brazil or USA).

This last comment is hugely erroneous and wrong based. There is not and there were never an important flux of Argentinians to the USA and even less to Brazil. Put data to hold such an incorrect thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.69.60 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC) I will complete the last statement by mentioning the fact that Argentina is THE ONLY latinamerican country that still holds a positive net migration rate. The returns to europe and the migration to third countries is actually a phenomena much more common among brazilian people.[reply]

I wonder if they're including the African slaves when they say Brazil was second. I've just changed it back to fourth. SamEV 05:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racist statements in the article

I was reading the article on immigration to Brazil today and I couldn't help noticing the paragraph that says:

Another consequence of strong immigration from North and South Europeans and Asiatics was the development of a work ethics and education-based personal progress which were lacking in the Brazilian ethos so far, as well as the importation of much needed skills acquired by these people in their countries of origin. As a result, distribution of wealth, economic resources and education has been largely apportioned to the states in the South and Southeast.

The statement above is clearly racist and non-encyclopedic, and should be removed. As the text stands now, it indirectly implies that Brazilians with African, native American or primarily Portuguese ancestry lack (or used to lack) a work ethic as opposed to Brazilians with a different European or Asian ancestry. Second, it is also implied that southern and southeastern states in Brazil are wealthier because they are "more European" (a.k.a "whiter") than their northern and northeastern counterparts. 200.177.0.128 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. For my part, rather than remove it I just inserted a "likely" and a "perhaps." You could say I punted. But the last paragraph was beyond the pale and I felt I just had to remove it. SamEV 17:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I desagree in terms. Important Brazilian authors, such as Gilberto Freire, Caio Prado Júnior and Celso Furtado, point differences between the Iberian ethos developed in Brazil and prothestant ethos in other parts of the world. No one may say which is better or worse, but is a fact that the immigrants brought a different way to face work and life. In the other hand, the new waves of immigrants indeed answered part of the demands of qualified workers, and helped to better distribute the wealth -- populating the cities, for example, considering that until the begining of the 20s Brazilian population was most concentrated in rural areas. Most of this is due to the broken of the rural system based on slavery that helped Northeastern states to keep the almost economic and political homogeny until the ends of the XIX century. The industrialization and growing rural activity in the Southern states rase the need of workers -- qualified or not. It is not racist, maybe not very well written. Tonyjeff 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More figures

Immigration to Brazil from 1819 to 1940

Nationalities	1819-1883	1884-1940	Total
Italians	96.018	1.412.263	1.508.281
Portuguese	223.626	1.204.394	1.428.020
Spaniards	15.337	581.718	597.055
Germans	70.781	256.435	327.166
Japanese		183.799	183.799
Russians	8.835	108.121	116.956
Poles		47.765	47.765
Frenchmen	8.008	32.375	40.381
Total	546.650	4.158.717	4.705.367

from História da vida privada no Brasil, vol. 3, p. 23.

Immigrants to Brazil (1881-1930)

Italy: 35%
Portugal: 28%
Spain: 13%
Germany: 5%
Japan: 3%
other countries: 16%

from Des origines de l'humanité au XXIe s., Atlas de l'histoire du monde. Sélection du Reader's Digest.

--Elnuevomercurio 16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions

Maybe they should be placed here, and re-written, and inserted in the article over time. SamEV (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distortion of history

User Opinoso is trying to omit that the French, the Dutch and the Spaniards settled in Brazil. This is a distortion of history. I therefore ask an administrator to please revert his edition on this article. --91.141.238.10 (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping ship to live among the Indians

Seems a quite interesting claim. Why should it go unsourced? Ninguém (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you always looking for troubles exactly on the same articles I usually contribute for? When are you stoping disruptions? Opinoso (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does not answer my question: why would the information that most settlers in Brazil, for a few decades after Pedro Álvares Cabral' trip, "jumped ship to live among the Indians", be accepted without sources? Ninguém (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turks

Opinoso, don't you know that "Turkish" immigrants to Brazil are actually Syrian and Lebanese immigrants who travelled under Ottoman passports at a time when both Syria and Lebanon were part of the Ottoman Empire?

[1]

Have you ever seen or heard about actual Turkish immigrants to Brazil? Ninguém (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Periodization

The article includes figures for immigration during the period from 1820 to 1876, but this is not a good periodization. The period of the Great Immigration starts from 1872, not 1877: the average anual number of immigrants for 1820-1871 is below 4,500, while the average number for 1872-1876 is already between 15,000 and 30,000. Moreover, the first Brazilian Census is of 1872 and reflects only the limited immigration up to 1871; the increased immigration of 1872-1876 will only be reflected by the 1890 Census.

So I am proposing to change the periodization so to include the 1872-1876 immigrants in a second period (1872-1889).

Is anyone against this change, and why? Ninguém (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What section are you talking about? The table under Statistics? Padillah (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both that and the sub-section "Imigration Under the Empire", in its third paragraph. Ninguém (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for Immigration

After independence from Portugal, the Brazilian Empire focused on the occupation of the provinces of Southern Brazil. It was mainly because Southern Brazil had a small population, vulnerable to attacks by Argentina and the Kaingang Indians.

This seems unlikely.

Argentina and Uruguay were sparsely populated, and militarily too weak to pose a threat to the Empire (the opposite is true: the Empire constantly interfered in the internal affairs of both countries, deposing "problematic" governments).

Initial immigration came to places as distant from the Southern boundaries as Espírito Santo and Bahia. Even in the case of Rio Grande do Sul, immigration was mainly directed to the central and northern parts of the (then) Province, certainly not to the border areas, which were more populated at the time. The concern - as long as it involved any military reasons - seems to have been logistic, not manpower.

German immigrants were not wanted as soldiers, but as farmers, and only in the XX century their descent's presence in the Brazilian Army became remarkable. Rio Grande do Sul saw repeated military action during the XIX century (Argentina-Brazil War, deposal of Juan Manuel Rosas, deposal of Manuel Oribe, deposal of Atanasio Aguirre, War of the Triple Alliance), and while the Gaúcho troops were a huge part of the Imperial Army in those wars, German immigrants played no significant role in them - nor in the two civil wars in XIX century Rio Grande do Sul, War of the Farrapos and 1893's Revolution. Ninguém (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long quote by Darcy Ribeiro

"This mass of mulattoes and caboclos, Lusitanized because of the Portuguese language that they spoke, for the vision of the world, were shaping the Brazilian ethnicity and promoting, simultaneously, their integration in the form of a nation-state. It was already mature when large numbers of immigrants arrived from Europe and Japan, which allowed them all to be assimilated under the condition of generic Brazilians (...) They even forgot from where they came from and the miserable lives they faced in their homelands (...) A mixed-race people in flesh and in spirit, because here race-mixing was never a crime or a sin."

O Povo Brasileiro, Darcy Ribeiro, pag 16.^[1]

This text seems misplaced here; it certainly does not help us to understand the subject of this article. Is anyone opposed to simply removing it? Ninguém (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Darcy Ribeiro, O Povo Brasileiro, page 16

Crazy or Stupid?

Since you took the time to go to my talk page and ask me if I am crazy or stupid, let me ask you what exactly do you think is stupid or crazy in the edits I have made to this page. And please sign your comments. Ninguém (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I conclude from your silence that you don't think there is anything stupid or crazy about my edits? Ninguém (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slave-immigrant transition

The article has a section with the title, "Slave-immigrant transition". It includes some false and self-contradictory information:

The Brazilian government thought that Brazil would only achieve progress by bringing in more European immigrants. It thus strongly encouraged immigration from Europe, Lebanon, Syria, and Japan.

(Evidently, if the Brazilian government "thought" that Brazil would only achieve progress by bringing in more European immigrants, why would they strongly encourage immigration from Lebanon, Syria, and Japan? Didn't they know their geography?)

It also contains some apparently unrelated info:

The Lei Áurea or Golden Law set off a reaction among slave owners, which contributed to the erosion of the political foundations of the monarchy. After a few months of parliamentary crises, the Emperor was deposed on November 15, 1889, by a military movement that proclaimed the abrogation of the monarchy and the establishment of the Republic. This institutional transformation, albeit profound, was carried out without bloodshed. The Emperor and his family were asked to leave the country and went into exile in France. Most of the leading figures of the country lent their support and collaboration to the new regime. Among them was one of Brazil's most outstanding statesmen, the Baron of Rio Branco. It was his wisdom and skillful diplomacy that enabled Brazil to end, by treaty or arbitration, nearly all its outstanding frontier disputes.

(While all this is true, at least at a superficial level, one wonders what does it have to do with the "slave-immigrant transition".)

And finally, it comes to discuss the subject:

At the same time, Brazil's economy, which was eminently agrarian at the time (coffee, cotton, tobacco, rubber and sugar cane being the main crops), needed able laborers once black slavery was ended. The choice of European immigrants was due to a long political discussion about the ideal worker to substitute slaves after abolition and determined the changes of the Brazilian racial composition in the late 19th and early 20th century.

(Probably. But what we wanted to know is what "long political discussion" was this, who took what side, and what led to this final decision - why did one side win, and the other lost, etc.

So this section essentially says nothing about "slave-immigrant transition". I am proposing removing it completely, since it serves no purpose. Is anyone opposed to this, or is anyone willing to rewrite the section, in order to eliminate nonsence, contradictions, and unrelated stuff, and to actually explain something about its subject? Ninguém (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated information; is it necessary to keep it repeated?

The following text

Brazil's receiving structure, legislation and settlement policies for immigrants were much less organized than in Canada and the United States at the time. Nevertheless, an Immigrant's Hostel (Hospedaria dos Imigrantes) was built in 1886 in São Paulo, and quick admittance and recording routines for the throngs of immigrants arriving by ship at the seaports of Vitória, Rio de Janeiro, Santos, Paranaguá, Florianópolis and Porto Alegre were established. The São Paulo site alone processed more than 2.5 million immigrants in its almost 100 years of continuous operation. People of more than 70 different nationalities were recorded.

is featured twice in this article, the first in the lead, and the second in the subsection "Second Period: 1877-1903". I have tried more than once to remove one of them, but it has been systematically reversed. So: is it really necessary to keep this repetition? Why? If there is no reason, can we reach a consensus for the removal of this repetition? Ninguém (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. I hope it isn't reinstated again without a very good explanation (in this Talk Page) of why it absolutely must appear twice in the article. Ninguém (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty

This section is unhapilly completely unreadable. I thought it was a problem of mistranslation of a source in Portuguese, but in fact the source itself is in "English" - or, more exactly, in a language that uses English words with a weird, ununderstandable, grammar. Is anyone able to find a source in Portuguese, or proper English? Or to translate the text into proper English? Ninguém (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it used to look like, but it's even more acceptable now. Large parts of it are plagiarized from the cited source. Furthermore, the source is a blog (although it's at least a generally respected blog). --Lacarids (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic map

This map is being challenged by user Opinoso. I would like to see arguments defending it, a description of the methodology used, etc, so that we can stop what promises to be another edit war. Hentzer? Ninguém (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics and Consequences

"Statistics" and "Consequences" were edited to improve their accuracy.--CEBR (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article totally ignores the analogous ethnocentric history of Brazil's immigration policy

From this article, one would reach the conclusion that Brazil never really had any racial preferences in their immigration policy and that it followed a totally race blind policy. Not the case, from the article Japanese Brazilian

In the government's conception, the non-White population of Brazil should disappear within the dominant class of Portuguese Brazilian origin. This way, the mixed-race population should be "whitened" through selective mixing, then a preference for European immigration. In consequence, the non-white population would, gradually, achieve a desirable White phenotype. The formation of "ethnic cysts" among immigrants of non-Portuguese origin prevented the realization of the whitening project of the Brazilian population. The government, then, started to act on these communities of foreign origin to force them to integrate into a "Brazilian culture" with Portuguese roots. It was the dominant idea of a unification of all the inhabitants of Brazil under a single "national spirit". During World War II, Brazil severed relations with Japan. Japanese newspapers and teaching the Japanese language in schools were banned, leaving Portuguese as the only option for Japanese descendants. Newspapers in German or Italian were also advised to cease production, as Germany and Italy were Japan's allies in the war.[18] In 1939, research of Estrada de Ferro Noroeste do Brasil, from São Paulo, showed that 87.7% of Japanese Brazilians read newspapers in the Japanese language, a high figure for a country with many illiterate people like Brazil.[28]

So indeed Brazil had an ethnocentric immigration policy just as America did at times. It wasn't uniform or constant, it shifted back and forth of course, but just like America the focus was on bringing in immigrants who would assimilate and who weren't black. This article shouldn't ignore this aspect of history since the article is not simply a list of who came to Brazil, but an account of the history of immigration to Brazil, so it should endeveour to explain why this group of people came instead of that group of people. As such I will gradually work to include this aspect in this article. ProgressiveThinker (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Maltese Brazilian, into this article

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltese Brazilian, I support this merger.

Emigration vs immigration

Do 'we' as editors write from within or from the outside? Do I write from within Brazil and say "x millin people immigrated to Brazil", or do I write from the outside and say "x million people emigrated to Brazil"? I changed the caption on the first image (map) to "European and Arab countries from where there was significant emigration to Brazil" as it seems to make more sense. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Immigration to Brazil. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Immigration to Brazil. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Immigration to Brazil. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Immigration to Brazil. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CITATION 28 IS OBVIOUS SPAM

it's a Chinese link and it has nothing to do with Bolivian immigration to Brazil 2804:431:C7D9:4DEE:94D3:AE9E:4502:E7B6 (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

immigration vs colonization re settlers

There is an issue, I think, when a distinction between colonization and immigration is abused to link to this article with a confusing header in other articles. An example: the city of Porto Alegro was, according to its Wikipedia article, legally founded by “immigrants”.

 “Porto Alegre was founded in 1769 by Manuel Jorge Gomes de Sepúlveda, who used the     pseudonym José Marcelino de Figueiredo to hide his identity; but the official date is 1772 with the act signed by immigrants from the Azores, Portugal.”

These original “immigrants” were sent by the Portuguese Crown to set up missions in the area, thus settling it, and working completely within the legal bounds of, in fact in concert with the prerogatives of colonialism. This is the case for many “immigrants” to Brazil. In fact, the time frame this is assumed to apply to and the pioneer status of these “immigrants” seriously calls in to questions whether a distinction can be made between immigration to Brazil and colonialism as this article does, particularly when those immigrants are moving to frontiers or newly acquired terrories. 157.131.206.151 (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Darcy Ribeiro, O Povo Brasileiro, page 16

[1]