Talk:Brazil/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

What discussion should we be having?

Some of the most frequently cited scholarly sources are being neglected:

• Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant. 1999. “On the Cunning of Imperialist Reason.” Theory, Culture & Society 16(1):41-58.
• Burdick, John. 1995. “Brazil's Black Consciousness Movement.” In Fighting for the Soul of Brazil. Kevin Danaher and Michael Shellenberger, eds. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Fry, Peter. 1991. “Politicamente correto num lugar, incorreto noutro? (relações raciais no Brasil, nos EUA, em Moçambique e no Zimbábue).” Estudos Afro-Asiáticos, no. 21.

• 1994. “O Que a Cinderela Negra tem a dizer sobre a 'política racial' no Brasil.” Revista da USP, 28.
• 1995. “Why Brazil is Different.” Times Literary Supplement. December 8, pp. 6-7.
• 2000. “Politics, Nationality, and the Meanings of 'Race' in Brazil.” Daedalus 129(2): 83-118.

• Goldstein, Donna. 1999. “‘Interracial’ Sex and Racial Democracy in Brazil: Twin Concepts?” American Anthropologist 101(3): 563-578.
• Guimarães, Antonio Sérgio Alfredo. 2001a. “The Misadventures of Nonracialism in Brazil.” In Hamilton, Charles V. et al., eds. 2001. Beyond Racism: Race and Inequality in Brazil, South Africa, and the United States. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers.
• Hanchard, Michael George. 1994a. Orpheus and Power: The Movimento Negro of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, Brazil, 1945-1988. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

• 1994b. “Black Cinderella?: Race and the Public Sphere in Brazil.” Public Culture 7:165-185.
• 2003. “Acts of Misrecognition: Transnational Black Politics, Anti-imperialism and the Ethnocentrism of Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant.” Theory, Culture & Society 20(4):5-29.

• Harris, Marvin. 1964. Patterns of Race in the Americas. New York: Walker.

• 1970. “Referential Ambiguity.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 26:1-14.

• Hutchinson, Harry. 1957. Village and Plantation Life in Northeastern Brazil. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
• Lovell, Peggy A. and Jeffrey Dwyer. 1988. “The Cost of Being Nonwhite in Brazil.” Sociology and Social Research 72:136-142.
• Maggie, Yvonne and Peter Fry. 2002. “O debate que não houve: A reserva de vagas para negros nas universidades brasileiras” Enfoques [1]
• Maio, Marcos Chor. "UNESCO and the study of race relations in Brazil: regional or national issue?" Latin American Research Review, 36(2):118- 136.
• McCallum, Cecila. 2005. “Racialized Bodies, Naturalized Classes: Moving through the City of Salvador da Bahia” American Ethnologist 32(1): 100-117.
• Marx, Anthony W. 1998. Making Race and Nation: A Comparison of South Africa, the United States, and Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mitchell, Michael. 1985. “Blacks and the Abertura Democática.” In Race, Class and Power in Brazil, Pierre-Michel Fonataine, ed. Los Angeles: UCLA/CAAS.
• Nogueira, Oracy. 1985 [1954]. Tanto preto quanto branco: Preconceito racial de marca e preconceito racial de origem. São Paulo: Queiroz.
• Sansone, Livio. 2003. Blackness without Ethnicity: Constructing Race in Brazil. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Sheriff, Robin E. 2001. Dreaming Equality: Color, Race, and Racism in Urban Brazil. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

• 2003. “Embracing Race: Deconstructing Mestiçagem in Rio de Janeiro. Journal of Latin American Anthropology 8(1):86-115.

• Silva, Nelson do Valle. 1985. “The Costs of Not Being White,” In Race, Class, and Power in Brazil. Pierre-Michel Fontaine, ed. Los Angeles: Center for Afro-American Studies, University of California.

• 1988. “Cor e processo de realização sócio-económica,” In Estrutura social, mobilidade e raça. Carlos Hasenbalg and Nelson do Valle Silva, eds. São Paulo: Vertice.

• Skidmore, Thomas E. “Race and Class in Brazil: Historical Perspectives.” In Race, Class and Power in Brazil, Pierre-Michel Fonataine, ed. Los Angeles: UCLA/CAAS.
• Sweet, James H. 1997. “The Iberian Roots of American Racist Thought.” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, 54(1):143-166.
• Tannebaum, Frank. 1946. Slave and Citizen. New York: Vintage.
• Telles, Edward 2002. “Racial Ambiguity among the Brazilian Population.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 25(3):415-441.

• 2003. “US Foundations and Racial Reasoning in Brazil.” Theory, Culture & Society 20(4):31-47.
• 2004. Race in Another America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

• Telles, Edward E. and Stanley Bailey. 2002. “Políticas Anti-Racistas e Opinião Pública: Comparações com os Estados Unidos.” Opinião Pública 8(1):30-39.
• Telles, Edward E. and Nelson Lim. 1998. “Does it Matter Who Answers the Race Question?: Racial Classification and Income Inequality in Brazil.” Demography 35(4).
• Twine, France Winddance. 1997. Racism in a Racial Democracy: The Maintenance of White Supremacy in Brazil. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Wacquant, Loïc J. D. 1997. “For an Analytic of Racial Domination.” Political Power and Social Theory 11:221-234.
• Wagley, Charles. 1952. “Race Relations in an Amazon Community.” In Race and Class in Rural Brazil, Charles Wagley, ed. Paris: UNESCO.
• Warren, Jonathan W. 2001. Racial Revolutions: Antiracism and Indian Resurgence in Brazil. Durham: Duke University Press.
• Winant, Howard. 1992. “Rethinking Race in Brazil.” Journal of Latin American Studies 24:173-192.
• Wood, Charles and José Alberto Magno de Carvalho. 1988. The Demography of Inequality in Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The table constructed above, and much of the "data' presented, seems to assume that (1) races are discrete/exclusive, (2) are marked by diferent colors, (3) which signify descent from people from distinct parts of the world. In fact, these are all matters of scientific debate. These three basic principles are part of an ideology that emerged in Europe in the post-Colombian period. Today it takes the form of related ideologies in Europe, Hispanophone America, Lusophone America, Anglophone America, each of which are different because of different histories. The question of how best to represent how people identify themselves racialy is also a matter of debate. States (and some scientists) generally try to reduce and simplify racial categories. This does not make such categories "real" and the degree to which people actually think in these terms is a matter of still another debate. I don't think throwing around percentages means anything until there has been a discussion of the debates that have informed how race is represented, and how representations of race are understood. Which is what the most recent sources above are doing. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, unfortunately you are not helping dealing with the matter. We are not in here discussing ethnicity in Brazil and we are not fighting to show who has more sources. And no, your books are not considered the most frequently cited sources. At least they are not in Brazil, as none of them are used in Schools or Universities. And based only in the titles, the books you cited must be devoted mostly to Racism matters or similar. Not the case in here. What is being discussed is simple: Opinoso said that in Brazil the word "Caboclo" does not exist and even less it is used by scholars. Plus, he said that Caboclos are not the majority of the population in the northeast (where I do live, BTW), but instead, Blacks. So, it would be nice if you could keep the focus on the matter, if possible. Also, the books I cited were not 50 years out of date. The oldest is from 1971 and the youngest from 1996. Do the math. And even if they were 50 years old, that would't make them unworthy. A book is not considered out of date because of its age and even less because of your personal opinion, which is the case right now. Books are not Computer hardware. Unless, of course, you can prove to us that the books I cited, that exist in every Public Library in Brazil (or you thought I had them all?) are considered "out of date" and that the books you cited are the one most used. It would be interesting to see a writer saying that Caio Prado Júnior is out of date. Perhaps Adam Smith is also out of date in studies about Capitalism? --Lecen (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Lecen, I already addressed the issue between you and Opinoso: the dispute can be easily resolved if both of you were to adhere to our NPOV and V policy. Wikipedia is not about presenting "the truth" so the question is NOT whether Blacks or Caboclos are the majority in Bahia or another state in NE Brazil. The question is, what are the significant views - emphasis on the plural - in reliable sources. There is no reason why the article cannot say, According to X, the majority of people in NE Brazil are Black, but according to Y, they are Caboclos. This is simple. But there is a bigger question which is, what discourse do these words belong to? What other discourses of racial or ethnic identity are there in NE Brazil? How did these discourses develop and how are they used? This is a highly relevant set of questions that many of the readings I suggest address. You are correct that a book at is thirty, forty, fifty years old or more can have merit, I am glad to be corrected by you - but books or articles, no matter how old or how widely they are relied, on operate within particular contexts and those contexts should be spelled out. By the way, Adam Smith never wrote about capitalism. The word capitalism never appears in The Wealth of Nations. Perhaps you meant to say "markets" or "international trade." Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Also I do not think Ninguem is useing MtDNA data correctly, and some of the readings I provide as sources address these issue. Leccen, I am sorry you think this is a game about showing off who "has" more sources. I am suggesting these as useful references for improving the article. If you think I unfairly insulted some of the sources you have used, that is one thing, but it should not prejudice you against these sources. They aren't "mine," they are written by a wide range of scholars many of whom disagree with one another; they do not represent "my" view, they represent a range of scholarly views on how people (including us, by implication) talk about race/use racial categories; these are serious cholars who put a lot of time into their research. This is not a game of "who has the most sources," it is always a good thing to bring more reliable sources to an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rubenstein, while I think that we certainly should have a discussion about ethnicity, race, color, etc., in Brazil, I would say that this article is not the place for it. It should be discussed in Pardo, Caboclo, White Brazilian, African Brazilian, Black Brazilian, Crioulo, Sarará, Mameluco, Cafuzo, etc, and, especially, in Ethnic groups in Brazil. Here we should just say what the available sources state about the issue - caboclos are the majority of the population of the Northern Region and Northeastern hinterland. The readers who want to know what a caboclo is, whether the word exists and is used by Brazilians at large or by anthropologists, and what are the newest discoveries and discussions by anthropologists, historians, ethnographists, geneticists, etc. concerning this category, should be redirected to those articles. Ninguém (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, Wikipedia has an article about a word that "makes no sence": Caboclo. One of its contributors is... Opinoso. Who hasn't, on that article or its Talk Page, voiced the opinion that it doesn't make sence. Ninguém (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Here, a whole book (of 2006) about "nonsence": [2].

Deal with the present matter and end it - Please, all editors should share their opinions

In the demographics section of this article, there is a passage I wrote:

The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officialy called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (of Blacks and Indians) [dubious – discuss] The Caboclos forms the majority of the population in the Northern,[dubious – discuss] Northeastern [dubious – discuss] and Central-Western [dubious – discuss] regions. Bahia and Maranhão are the exception, as there is a large Mulatto population in both states.

As you can see, there are dubious tags in it. The reason claimed by another editor is that:

1. Caboclos are not the majority of the population in the Northern and Northeatern Brazil. Blacks are, with 85% of the total population according to his newspaper source.
2. Caboclo is not a name used or recognized in Brazil.

However, at least eight different Brazilian authors disagree with this view. To them, not only Caboclo (a descendant of a white and a Indian) is a name commonly used but it is also the majority of the population of those regions. One of those authors is Caio Prado Júnior, still a main reference up to this day to matters related to the Brazilian people formation and the other is Melhem Adas whose book is used in Brazilian high schools and the newest edition is from 2004.

So, it's simple: the passage should stay or should it be removed and changed for the 85% black population info? --Lecen (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply include the tables from the Brazilian census, and if there is a discussion to be had, a brief referenced note that usage of the term is disputed by x, y or z. Rich Farmbrough, 11:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC).

I like the idea of including the tables from the Brazilian census. But, when it comes to demographics, I'd rather have official sources like IGBE or state government sites being used for statements. The reason is that IGBE has the special task of dealing with demographics and this is the field that their supposed to be the most adept, reliable and most accurate in because this is their main job. From experience, mostly newspaper sources, are sometimes unreliable especially when it comes to demographics. They typically use one source and stick with it. That source has a chance to be unreliable (sometimes really unreliable) and might not be from official sources. Authors who write books typically use multiple sources and I generally accept them as reliable because they typically use multiple sources in which they are able to compare and write about a subject. However, I haven't seen the IBGE use Cafuzos or Caboclos from their site though. But I wouldn't count them out as incorrect yet because I know in Latin America there are many different names for mixed races. Sorry, but I have insufficient knowledge at this time based on what I currently know to discuss more about the demographics. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The demographics section should be reverted to its original content (before Lecen decided to include the Caboclo informations). It had only the IBGE census data and some informations about the formations of the Brazilian population. It did not claim who is the majority in North or Northeastern Brazil (this is not the place to give details about the people in only two areas of Brazil). By the way, to claim who is the "majority" is dangerous since different sources claim different things.

About the 85% Blacks in North or Northeastern, this is because IBGE counts Blacks and Pardos as Blacks. It's not a surprise, since light Mulattos are counted as Whites in Brazil, only the dark Mulattoes are counted as Pardos and only the Congolese-looking people are counted as Blacks. Strange in a country that imported over 4 million slaves from Africa, and only 6% of the population is self-reported to be Black, while the country received only 5-6 million Europeans, and nearly 50% are self-reported as White.

Nobody needs to look Norwegian or Finish to be White in Brazil. If you are a little light, then you're always non-Black and usually White. But to be Black you have to look as if you came straight from Congo or Nigeria. The "Whiten" ideology is really alive here.

• Most Pardos are of African descent, and look to be of African descent (mixed or not). Many Whites (if not most) also look to be part African:

In Brazil black is the very dark black, the mulatto is the Pardo and then is half white, and if the skin color is a little lighter, the person is incorporated into the white community (Darcy Ribeiro)

• The IBGE does count Pardos as Blacks. It's not wrong to count Pardos as Blacks, because the majority of them are Blacks or partly Black, while the light brown mixed population is included in the White population. Even though there are "some people" trying to sell the idea that most White Brazilians look European, they don't. Most look mixed and have light brown skin, not really an European look. Moreover, Ribeiro describes Pardo as synonymous for Mulatto:

"The blacks have reached a maximum of 5.6 million, while those who define themselves as Pardo (Mulatto) would be 13.7 million, and the whites (who are mainly mixed) amount to 32 million." (Ribeiro)

• Caboclos are usually counted as Whites:

This also explains, in part, the whitening of the Brazilians, since mixed people of European and Indian heritage make up a light brown type, that in the eyes and sensitivity of any Brazilian, seem to be pure Whites. (Darcy Ribeiro).

• The theory by Darcy Ribeiro is confirmed in a survey in Rio de Janeiro: most Caboclos in Rio claim to be Whites, not Pardo (brown). On the other hand, most Mulattos claim to be Pardo (brown), not Whites.:

Self-reported ancestry of people from Rio de Janeiro, by race or skin color (2000 survey) (Telles-Race in Another America: the significance of skin color in Brazil)
Ancestry	White	Pardo	Black
European only	48%	6%	-
African only	-	12%	25%
Amerindian only	-	2%	-
African and European (Mulatto)	23%	34%	31%
Amerindian and European (Caboclo)	14%	6%	-
African and Amerindian	-	4%	9%
African, Amerindian and European (juçara)	15%	36%	35%
Total	100%	100%	100%
Any African	38%	86%	100%

Moreover, in Rio de Janeiro, the majority of Pardos claim to be a mix of African, European and Amerindian. They are not Mulattos or Caboclos, but a mix of them. Then, the binary classification of Pardos in Mulattos on one side and Caboclos on the other side is ridiculous, since most people in Rio, and possibily in the rest of Brazil, are and claim to be a mix of African, European and Amerindian. And yes, Darcy Ribeiro does use the Caboclo term in his book, but more as a cultural term, not as a racial word. A large part of people in Northern Brazil are descended from Northeastern migrants, who "became" Caboclos after settling in the Amazon Rainforest. Moreover, there is a large population of African descent in Northern Brazil, even though this is usually ignored.

• Black slaves were many in Northern Brazil:

In 1833 the Province of Pará (Northern Brazil) had 119,877 inhabitants, being 32,751 Amerindians and 29,977 black slaves. Mixed-race people were 42,000. The White minority was 15,000, over half of them Portuguese.("A hora da desforra", por Júlio José Chiavenato, Revista História Viva, nº 45, páginas 84 a 91)

As one can see, the Northern region historically had a majority of Amerindians, Blacks and mixed people, and a really small minority of Whites. It's wrong to claim people from Northern Brazil to be racially only a mix of Whites and Indians, since historical censuses show that Black slaves were very numerous there and they did not "disappear", their descendants still live there, racially mixed with other people. With the more recent influx of Northeastern migrants to the North, it's not a surprise that the Black element grew even more. By the way, Northern Brazil is home to only about 10% of the Brazilian population, and they have a small impact in the ethnic compostion of the whole Brazil.

Conclusion: the Caboclo majority is not true, since this group is historically mixed with Black people. Moreover, the minority that is of strict European and Amerindian ancestry is mostly counted as Whites, not as Pardos. Most Pardos are of African descent and are counted as Blacks by the IBGE. By the way, stop trying to devide the Brazilian people in different races or ethnic groups, because this is not possible since everybody is mixed and racial categories are not well-defined in this country. Leave the census data and some informations about Amerindians, Black slaves and European/Asian immigration. The definition of who is a "majority" or "minority" is dubious and often wrong. Opinoso (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about reporting right views, or not reporting wrong views. Wikipedia is not about right or wrong, true or false. it is about views - majority view and minority views, or just different views. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not want to share my opinion because I thought I had said enough and I really wanted this thread to be something simple, like "I chose this one", not a place for heavy long debates that will drive other editors away. But now that Opinoso has turned to another direction, let's see what we can do.

Opinoso wrote: The demographics section should be reverted to its original content (before Lecen decided to include the Caboclo informations).

Fine, that's your vote.

It did not claim who is the majority in North or Northeastern Brazil (this is not the place to give details about the people in only two areas of Brazil).

I disagree because Brazil is a country of the size of a continent. To say that Europe has only whites and that's it is to ignore that a Turk is different from a British who is different of an Italian. All whites, but all diferent at the same time. In Brazil, there are whites, blacks, Indians, Pardos and Mongolic Asians. Even more complicated and diversified than Europe.

By the way, to claim who is the "majority" is dangerous since different sources claim different things.

What sources? At least since the 1960s up to 2000s all experts says exactly the same about Brazilian ethnic groups. In fact, the book used on Brazilian High Schools say that too. So, are you saying that millions of Brazilians students are learning wrong?

About the 85% Blacks in North or Northeastern, this is because IBGE counts Blacks and Pardos as Blacks.

You still haven't brought to us a single source from IBGE that says that Blacks and Pardos are the same. In fact, this is view has obvious flaws. Why count 2 different categories if they are in fact the same one? And more: juat becauae IBGE is the official government agency does not mean that it should be taken for granted anything it says. If that was the case, I would have to believe that when Saddan Hussein was "re-elected" in 2003 with 100% of the votes it was to be taken as the supreme truth and could not be contested at all.

since light Mulattos are counted as Whites in Brazil, only the dark Mulattoes are counted as Pardos and only the Congolese-looking people are counted as Blacks.

Oh, so, are you saying now that the IBGE treats whites, pardos and blacks as the same? Because if light mulattoes (black+white) are treated as whites and dark mulattoes (black+white) are treated as Pardos and Pardos are treated as Blacks doest that mean that Brazil has 100% blacks? And again, does IBGE says that? That it counts light mulattoes as whites and only dark mulattoes as Brown? Why to divide mulattoes in two different categories? And why to add two different categories (pardos and blacks) into one? Isn't that arbitrary? Pardos and Blacks are the same, but MULATTOES AREN'T THE SAME EVEN AMONG THEMSELVES? I am sorry, it's just very, very hard to follow yours thoughts.

Strange in a country that imported over 4 million slaves from Africa, and only 6% of the population is self-reported to be Black

Maybe because most of them died in captivity? If black slaves (or any kind of slave) were a self-grown population, why bothering to bring hundreds of thousands each year from Africa?

while the country received only 5-6 million Europeans, and nearly 50% are self-reported as White

Maybe because they came in the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century and well... err... they were not beaten to death, starved to death or forced to work like animals as the poor black slaves had to?

Nobody needs to look Norwegian or Finish to be White in Brazil.

So, to be white someone must be blond and have blue eyes? Weird concept you have of "white". What about the Arabs? They are probably blacks then?

If you are a little light, then you're always non-Black and usually White. But to be Black you have to look as if you came straight from Congo or Nigeria.

Oh, oh! I got it! So, a male white has a child with a black woman. Their child is a mulatto (50% white and 50% black on this particular case). He is neither too white nor too black. So, he is to be considered white then according to you? Because to be black he would have, what you said? "look like if you came straight from Congo or Nigeria". So, why the mulattoes are considered blacks then if they are in fact treated as whites? God, it's so hard to follow Opinoso! He enters in contradiction too often!

The "Whiten" ideology is really alive here.

So, you're saying now that IBGE can not be trusted because it has a racist view of Brazilian ethnicity? Just a minute ago you said that IBGE was to be treated as a dogma, and now it is not worth a dime? So many contradictions!--Lecen (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Most Pardos are of African descent, and look to be of African descent (mixed or not). Many Whites (if not most) also look to be part African:

Most Pardos, if not almost all, are of white descent, so, why are they considered blacks and not whites? Since when the black category has primacy over the white category?

So whites in Brazil look like blacks? Wait, most? You said most? Most look like part African. So, whites in Brazil are in fact mulattoes and if they are mulattoes, they are blacks?

In Brazil black is the very dark black, the mulatto is the Pardo and then is half white, and if the skin color is a little lighter, the person is incorporated into the white community (Darcy Ribeiro)

What book? What page? Because if that's how we are going to discuss in here, I am going to write "Lecen is 100% correct (Joaquim Barbosa da Silva dos Reis Jaboticaba)". Here it is the online version of Ribeiro's book. Tell us on what page it is then.

The IBGE does count Pardos as Blacks.

You just said that IBGE treats Mulattoes as Whites because it has a racist view. Now it can be treated as a reliable source? Make up your mind once and for all, please!

It's not wrong to count Pardos as Blacks,

But it is correct to divide Mulattoes? What? Two different categories are treated as the same but one same category (mulatto) it isn't? After all, according to you, we have the "light mulattoes" and the "dark mulattoes".

because the majority of them are Blacks or partly Black

As they are white or partly white. Why aren't they considered white then? All, I forgot, whites are blacks too.

while the light brown mixed population is included in the White population.

Too arbitrary, why IBEGE does that? Why it divides a same category and treats two different ones as the same?

Even though there are "some people" trying to sell the idea that most White Brazilians look European

Who are those people? Do they have names? And White brazilians do not look european? They look like what then? Are you saying that if white Brazilians are not truly whites that means that IBGE is not a reliable agency as it uncapable of giving a true information about the ethnics groups in Brazil? --Lecen (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Most look mixed and have light brown skin, not really an European look. Moreover, Ribeiro describes Pardo as synonymous for Mulatto:

You said before that Caboclo is a name that does not exist in Brazil and it is not recognized by Brazilian experts on that field. However, Darcy Ribeiro has a whole chapter devoted to the Caboclos. So, he is wrong? Or he is right? Why your sources are wrong and right at the same time anytime it suits you?

The blacks have reached a maximum of 5.6 million, while those who define themselves as Pardo (Mulatto) would be 13.7 million, and the whites (who are mainly mixed) amount to 32 million."

Give us the page and book. So, Ribeiro says that Caboclo exists, but they are not Pardo? What are they? Whites? But didn't you say a couple of lines ago that whites were indeed "black-look-alikes"? Are whites in Brazil whites, Caboclos or light mulattoes? Perhaps white are all at the same time? So white in Brazil is a multiethnic category? Man, your thoughts are so full of holes that make a Swiss cheese look like a soccer ball.

Caboclos are usually counted as Whites

So whites are indeed a multiethnic category? But blacks aren't? After all, they have to team-up with pardos to be treated as a sole category, right? Oww.... headache....

The theory by Darcy Ribeiro is confirmed in a survey in Rio de Janeiro: most Caboclos in Rio claim to be Whites, not Pardo (brown). On the other hand, most Mulattos claim to be Pardo (brown), not Whites.:

But you said that there is no word such as caboclo and it is not even recognized as an ethnic group in Brazil! Now there are caboclos? Will you make up your mind or not? --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It should definitely stay. All sources agree that the majority of the population of the Northern Region is cabocla. All sources agree that the majority of the population in the hinterland of the Northeastern Region is cabocla. Ninguém (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

IBGE counts Blacks and Pardos as Blacks. (Opinoso)

That's just plainly wrong.

The IBGE counts people; this includes counting people regarding to their perceived "cor ou raça". When it does this, the IBGE gives people five options:

• Branca
• Parda
• Preta
• Amarela
• Indígena.

(Notice that "parda" and "preta" are two distinct options.)

Besides that, people also are counted as "Sem Declaração" (undeclared), when they, for any reason, reject those categories (or perhaps just forget to answer this item).

It is not the business of the IBGE to "count pardos as Blacks", and it doesn't do that.

Other Brazilian governmental agency, namely the SEPPIR (Secretaria Especial de Políticas de Promoção da Igualdade Racial) do, for their own reasons, group pardos and pretos (as people who need affirmative action from the Brazilian State). It doesn't by any stretch of imagination mean that pardos and pretos are the same thing. Ninguém (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

light Mulattos are counted as Whites in Brazil, only the dark Mulattoes are counted as Pardos and only the Congolese-looking people are counted as Blacks. (Opinoso)

This is again totally mistaken.

The IBGE doesn't count light Mulattos as Whites. The IBGE counts self declarations on "cor ou raça". If a light Mulatto considers him/herself White, he/she will be counted as White; but if he/she considers him/herself as Black, he/she will be counted as Black.

Whether light Mulattos count theirselves as White or not, the IBGE has no statement about it.

Sérgio Pena's paper discussed below seems to imply otherwise. According to it, people self-declared as pretos in Rio de Janeiro have, on the average, 50.9% Subsaharian genes; people self-declared as pardos have 23.6% Subsaharian genes. So apparently what is counted as pretos are Mulattos properly, and what is counted as pardos are what would be called in the United States "quadroons".

Evidently, this could be distorted by the fact that the genes for skin colour are a diminute part of human genome. But either there are actual sources to support Opinoso's weirdly phrased ("Congolese-looking"? I wonder whether any other editor could refer to people in this way without being reported into ANI and accused of something very dirty) claim, or it is mere original research, that cannot be taken into account when editing Wikipedia. Ninguém (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Darcy Ribeiro does use the Caboclo term in his book, but more as a cultural term, not as a racial word. (Opinoso)

Does he?

We cans see it here: [3]

A população neobrasileira da Amazônia formou-se também pela mestiçagem de brancos com índias, através de um processo secular em que cada homem nascido na terra ou nela introduzido cruzava-se com índias e mestiças, gerando um tipo racial mais indígena que branco. (The Neobrazilian population of the Amazon was also formed by the mixing of White males and Indian females, through a centenial process in which each man born on the land or brougth into it mixed with Indian and mixed-race women, generating a racial type closer to Indians than to Whites)

Doesn't seem more cultural than racial.

Desse modo, ao lado da vida tribal que fenecia em todo o vale, alçava-se uma sociedade nova de mestiços que constituiria uma variante cultural diferenciada da sociedade brasileira: a dos caboclos da Amazônia. (In this way, besides the tribal life that was in decline throughout the valley, a new society was rising, of mixed-race people who would constitute a cultural variety differentiated of Brazilian society: that of the caboclos of the Amazon)

It seems at least as racial as cultural: a society of mestiços originated from the mixing of Portuguese men and Indian women - which created a particular "cultural variety". Ninguém (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Telles' approach on Rio de Janeiro polls wrong according to Brazilian geneticist Sérgio Pena

According to Sérgio Pena, the main expert on Brazilian genetics, Telles is wrong to label "pardos" as a group of predominant African ancestry. According to a study conducted by Pena and Suarez-Kurtz among Rio de Janeiro "pardos", the "pardos" were found to be predominantly European, at a rate of about 70% (autosomal %, the overall pic, the sum of a person's ancestry; not mtDNA or yDNA, which gives indication of single lines, far back), and the rest made of African and Native American contributions respectively. Addionally, in a sample of about 335 Brazilians from Rio de Janeiro, the "blacks" tested would be on average 41,8% European and 7,3% Native American in ancestry, thus roughly 50% non African in ancestry, autosomal ancestry (the sum of the ancestors, the overall profile)(http://www.laboratoriogene.com.br/geneImprensa/2009/pensamento.pdf). Would it be appropriate to characterize them as "Africans" then? They have multiple ancestries. And the "whites" from Rio de Janeiro would be roughly 90% European, and about roughly only 5% SSA (the African on par with the Iberian source, and practically within the noise range of the test), this way contradicting the often quoted studies posted so far. It is a proof of the high levels of diversity in Brazil. Again, it is important to stress that the diversity of the Brazilian heritage is a result of European colonialism. Unfortunately the government and scholars (except for the leading geneticists) still use the "colonial terminology" too much extensively. "Pardo", "white" and "black" are words invented by Europeans, for their own purposes and agendas. They do not describe a biological reality, they are social constructs. It does not mean that the oppressed peoples of Brazil should be not protected. Of course they should and they have been given help by the Brazilian government. Most Brazilians are the result of a brutal process led by Europe, just like the rest of America, and much of the rest of the world. To give too much significance to the European invented terminology is to be a hostage of the European colonialist mentality. Telles is of no real help, he is a biased foreign scholar. Darcy Ribeiro is another story, he is a great anthropologist, and his works are still major reference when it comes to Brazil. The quotes by Darcy Ribeiro (when not distorted) are always welcomed.

Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC).

There's nothing wrong about Telle's survey. The answers were based on self-reported ancestry of the interviewed. He did not make up the numbers. By the way, he was probably not the one who conducted that survey. And the answers do match with the genetic resource. Opinoso (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, probably there is nothing "wrong" about Telles' survey. But there are many things wrong with your interpretation of it. Pena makes it clear:

O problema é que não faz nenhum sentido (exceto talvez um sentido político, que é um oximoro) tentar englobar pardos e pretos como uma única categoria de cor. ("The problem is, it makes no sence (except perhaps a political sence, which is an oxymoron) to try to mix pardos and pretos in one single colour category.")

A análise que fizemos da ancestralidade genômica de indivíduos não-aparentados do Rio de Janeiro mostra que não faz sentido englobar pretos e pardos como uma única categoria de cor. (The analysis we made of the genomic ancestry of non-related individuals in Rio de Janeiro shows that it makes no sence to mix pardos and pretos in one single colour category.")

Salta aos olhos que a ancestralidade africana dos indivíduos pardos (0,236) é intermediária entre a dos brancos (0,069) e pretos (0,509), estando de fato mais próxima dos primeiros do que dos últimos. Assim, pela análise desta amostra, não há qualquer fator que justifique a agregação proposta de pardos e pretos em negros. ("It is striking that the african ancestry of "pardo" individuals (23.6%) is intermediate between that of brancos (6.9%) and pretos (50.9%), in fact being closer to the former than to the latter. So, by the result of this sample, there are no factors that justify the proposed aggregation between pardos and pretos into negros.")

And, evidently, a genetic research trumps a survey on perceived ancestry: as you said yourself, most Brazilians don't actually know their ancestrals. Ninguém (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's right. Most Brazilians do not know their ancestry and do not care. They do not live in an extremely racialised society like the societies of the Anglosphere. Luiza Brunet used to define herself as "Native American" (and be perceived as such by the Brazilian population), and yet she is predominantly European, at 80,5% European, and only 15,5% Native American, definitely not Native American then. On the other hand, the "Índia Aigo", another "Native American" celebrity, is predominantly Sub saharan (at 58,4%), and the funny thing is: she looks somewhat Native American! (she has Native American ancestry too). Tiazinha, from the interior of Paraíba, is 99,9% European (and she did not know of any European ancestors!). Telles projects a racialism that simply does not exist in Brazil. People here define themselves in different ways, different than in other countries, and they are not better or worse; as long as all groups have equal share in society (which the Brazilian government has been promoting). As Sérgio Pena has said, each individual has the right to define himself as he wants to. Each individual is unique, even more so here, where, from the point of view of ancestries, each individual carries a certain % of African, European or Native American most likely not shared by his girlfriend, his relatives, or his co-workers. We have to deal with our diversity with tolerance and intelligence. What needs to be done is to bring education for the Brazilian people, who has suffered way too much so far (we don't have lobbies to even push films to show our brutal past, the crimes that European comitted here; not even apologies or financial compensations should be expected). Fortunately we live in the XXI century, where most of the most renowned scientists have told clearly that from the biological point of view there is no "race". Poor Count Gobineau, he thought that the Brazilian population would soon be sterile, when he visited Brazil in the XIX century: we are already at 200 million people, more fertile than ever. The botanist Augustin de Saint-Hilaire, an often quoted European visitor of Brazil, thought that Brazil had no future because of the lack of a "white majority": though still with many problems, Brazil has made remarkable progress, just like the rest of Latin America. Hopefully, it will get even better.

Instead of Telles, I prefer Darcy Ribeiro and Joel Rufino dos Santos.

Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22

What Sergio Pena? His DNA tests are flawled and biased. His tests can only detect European, Subsaharan African and Amerinidan ancestry, and not any other. For example if someone who is part White and part Jew gets tested at Sergio Pena's laboratory, he will come out as 100% European because his tests cannot detect any asian genes. He's a ripoff. Go visit his website and check that for yourselves. His method is unable to find out Asian, Pacific Islander or Aboriginal genes, probably not even Berber nor North-American Amerindian. Sergio Pena's method is only good to create artificial full-blooded whites out of Gypsies, Jews, Turks and Moorish-South-Europeans. Biased. Suits very well the needs of Portuguese and Spaniard who want to hide their Moor, Jew and Arab ancestry. How convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.21.136 (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're new to Wikipedia, 189.25.21.136.

You ask "What Sergio Pena?" Perhaps he's the Sérgio Pena who cowrote and coedited this book, published by Birkhäuser, which I had thought was a reputable publisher, and also the Sérgio Pena who cowrote a considerable number of papers (such as this), listed (though no doubt mixed up with papers by others) here. Some of the papers are from highly reputable organizations and publishers. Now of course not all that comes from reputable organizations and publishers is good; indeed, when such papers openly disagree with each other (as does happen), it's likely that one or other is wrong. Clearly reputable institutions can and do sometimes publish material that is "flawed and biased". But what gives you the certain knowledge that his material is based on methods that are "flawed and biased"? (Cite reliable sources, please.)

You say: "Sergio Pena's method is only good to create artificial full-blooded whites out of Gypsies, Jews, Turks and Moorish-South-Europeans." It's only good for that, not good for anything else? This is shocking. Tell us more. (Cite reliable sources, please.)

You stray beyond the usual boundaries of academic discourse when you say of Sérgio Pena, "He's a ripoff." Who has been ripped off by him? How? (Again, cite reliable sources, please.)

If you can't cite reliable sources for your allegations, don't make them. -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For example if someone who is part White and part Jew gets tested at Sergio Pena's laboratory, he will come out as 100% European because his tests cannot detect any asian genes.

But, shocking as it is, Jews are (usually) Whites - and in the case they are not, the are Black, or Asian, or Amerindian, or some mix of those. There is no such thing as a "Jewish race".

His method is unable to find out Asian, Pacific Islander or Aboriginal genes, probably not even Berber nor North-American Amerindian.

Perhaps there are no such things "Asian", "Pacific Islander", "Aboriginal" or "Berber" genes?

Sergio Pena's method is only good to create artificial full-blooded whites out of Gypsies, Jews, Turks and Moorish-South-Europeans.

Or perhaps, on the contrary, Gypsies, Jews, Turks, and Moors are White people, or people of mixed but predominantly White "race"?

Biased. Suits very well the needs of Portuguese and Spaniard who want to hide their Moor, Jew and Arab ancestry. How convenient.

But why would the Portuguese and Spaniards want to "hide" their Moorish, Jewish or Arabic ancestry? What would they have to gain by "hiding" that? And from whom would they "hide" it - especially when it is a fact that everybody already knows? Ninguém (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'd guess that Brazil has some degree of "racial" prejudice. After all, most societies do. But please, don't goad each other to continue such talk. If you want to discuss such matters, please do it in a cafe or bar.

On the other hand if somebody dismisses the value of work that might be added to the article, it seems reasonable to demand reliable sources for such a dismissal. -- Hoary (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Biased information by user Opinoso

A couple of days ago user Opinoso complained of a supposed partiality in the text written by me in the section “History” (Sections: Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers; Territorial expansion; Independence and Empire; and Emperor Pedro II reign were done by me. I was going to start working on the sections about the Republican Era when this issue appeared). Yesterday night I decided to erase or transfer (to other articles) the controversial passages and thus prevent a greater problem among us. I also considerably diminished the size of the text, leaving it simpler, direct and straightforward. However, user Opinoso added informations that in my opinion are incorrect and are unnecessary. Below I transcribe them followed by my opinion:

1) “but against the uneven social structure that it imposed”

The above phrase would indicate that the rebellions in the regency were caused by unequal social structure imposed by the monarchy. Forms of government cannot be guilty for Brazilian social issues, or else, we should blame the republic for problems that still exist today, which would be unfair. Or we could also blame the republic for many popular rebellions that occurred in the Spanish American countries. None of them would be correct. The Latin American society, no matter under what form of government, has the same social issues, caused by other motives. To blame the monarchy reveals partiality by user Opinoso in simplifying the rebellions causes, that in reality occurred disputes over power between the liberals and conservatives in the provinces. Conclusion: partial passage.

2) “from 30 to 40% of the population of the Province of Grão-Pará was killed)”

The above phrase of will make the unwarned reader that around 30% or 40% of the population of the province were killed by the government troops in repression for the rebellion. In reality, the deaths were caused by famine and illnesses that were resulted from the provincial anarchy and economical collapse. Conclusion: partial and incorrect passage.

3) War of the Triple Alliance,[120] which left more than 300,000 dead)

This is wrong. 300,000 civilians and military Paraguayans died in the war, not Brazilians. 50,000 Brazilian soldiers died in the war. This information shouldn´t be in here. No reason to add war casualties to this section. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

4) “During the reign of Pedro II, the Brazilian economy was dependent on the export of coffee. The economic center was concentrated in the provinces of Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. The rest of the country had a poor and stagnant economy.”

The above phrase contradicts the remaining of the section that indicates that there was a great prosperity in the country after 1840. The correct information is missing. In the article Economy of the Empire of Brazil there is a highly detailed text about that period. All the regions of the country had a great economic growth, as it can be seen in exports table to the right:

Year	Cacao (tons exported)
1820s	11,000 tons
1880	73,500 tons
Year	Rubber (tons exported)
1827	81 tons
1852	1,632 tons
1900	24,301,452 tons
Year	Coffe (tons exported)
1821-60	3,377,000 tons
1861-89	6,804,000 tons
Year	Sugar (tons exported)
1821-25	41,174 tons
1881-85	238,074 tons

The income per capita in Brazil in 1880, just 9 years before the end of the Empire was similar to the one of the United States. The economy grew to such level that in the 1950s Brazil would have a similar income per capita to Germany, which cannot be described as a stagnated country with a miserable population. Again, read the article about the economy of the Empire. Conclusion: incorrect passage.

5) “Work force on coffee plantations was based on African slavery.”

Slavery is already mentioned previously and also its need in Brazilian farms. There is reason to be so accurately specific in this section to where this kind of man power was used. And that fact is already told in the article Economy of the Empire of Brazil. Conclusion: redundant passage.

6) “The reign of Pedro II was the period that Brazil imported the largest numbers of slaves from Africa”

Slaves were imported during the reign of Pedro II from 1831 up to 1850, when traffic was abolished. Hard to believe that in 19 years more slaves were imported than in 331 years.

According to historian Thomas Skidmore, in his book A history of Brazil (Skidmore, Thomas E. Uma História do Brasil. 4. Ed. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2003, p.93) around 50,000 slaves were imported to Brazil between 1500 and 1600. Between 1601 and 1700 more than 560,000 were imported. Between 1701 and 1810 more than 1,891,400 were imported. Total so far: 2,501,400 slaves. Now between 1811 and 1850 around 1,145,400 slaves were imported. Let’s say that half of them were brought between 1831 and 1850, that is, 572,700 slaves. In the period between 1500 and 1831 more than 3,074,100 slaves were imported thus. Still thus, let’s say that it was during the reign of Pedro II the biggest amount of slaves were brought per year (I don´t know, the book doesn’t say anything about it). Even so, it is redundant information in here that should be in the article about slavery in Brazil. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

7) “and in 1864 as many as 1,715,000 people were living under slavery in Brazil.”

In the United States there were almost 4 million slaves in 1860. So what? Why is such information is in here if not even the population is cited at all? Ok, it could be in the demographics or slavery in Brazil articles or in something similar, but not in here. The impression that it gives is that Pedro II was a “bad guy keeping so many in slavery”. That is completely unnecessary, in my opinion. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

8) “Brazil was the last Western country to abolish slavery”

I erased information that was much more important, such as the fact that Brazil was the fifth country in the world to have sewers and the amount of factories that were opened. This information is unnecessary, and its true reason is only to create a negative view toward the emperor. If someone considers it important, it could be transferred to the article regarding the slavery in Brazil but it shouldn’t be in here. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

9) “because the Emperor did not want to risk antagonizing slave owners, who formed the elite of the country”

That is a naive simplification of the political issues of that time. It would be the same as to say that Abraham Lincoln did not abolish slavery because he did want to displease slave owners. The impression that it gives is that the Emperor was against the end of slavery. Just take a look at the link provided by the citation and we can see that the complete passage is “Pedro II was opposed to slavery, but he did not want to risk antagonizing slave owners; accordingly, he felt that the nation should abolish it by degrees.” In the article on Pedro II, in the section Racial thoughts and abolitionism, it can be clearly understood Pedro II’s role on the abolitionist movement. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

10) “By the end of the 19th century, most of the Brazilian population was composed of people of African descent.”

Another information that is wrong. Take a look in link in the citation: there were 6 million whites, 2 million blacks and almost 6 million pardos. User Opinoso simply added pardos with blacks and concluded that they were descendants of Africans. That is not correct. The category “pardo” includes mulattoes (descendants of Africans and Europeans) and caboclos (descendants of Indians and Europeans, the vast majority of Brazilian population in the north and northeast). And even if such information was correct (which it is not, at least in the ways he put it), there is no reason to be included in the history section, but instead in an article on demography of Brazil or slavery in Brazil. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

Conclusion: All passages should be erased or transferred to other more appropriate articles. And if, it is ok to everyone, I would like to continue writing the text about the history of the republican era (I already finished the colonial and imperial era as you can see). --Lecen (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but for a different reason: if there are 6 million whites, 6 million mixed (3/3) and 2 million blacks that means that the MAJORITY, 9 million, were whites (6+3) while descendants of Africans were at most 5 million (2+3), really less because among the "mixed" there are many who were half indian.--79.154.37.79 (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply by User:Debresser

1. POV language.
2. Rephrase to "was killed in the war or feel to famine and illnesses".
3. Should not be here.
4. This is a factual contradiction. decide based upon external sources. If both parties have a source, include both statements.
5. Relevant short mention can be kept.
6. Seems factual correct, because it means "per period", not in absolute terms. So this is a relevant short mention and can be kept.
7. Is relevant, but if figures are not mentioned for other periods, then neither should it be done here.
8. Very relevant short mention should be kept.
9. Is this sourced? Even if it is, too detailed.
10. Incorrect.

Debresser (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

After Lecen posted a reply on my talkpage, I'd like to add the following:

2) If this is too detailed for a relatively unimportant war the remove.

4) This is the correct course of action unless Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would disqualify the source used by Opinoso.

6) Might be of minor importance, but 8) should definitely stay. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply by User:Eusourei

Some comments of the things you wrote there, lets see:

“Work force on coffee plantations was based on African slavery.”

Slavery is already mentioned previously and also its need in Brazilian farms. There is reason to be so accurately specific in this section to where this kind of man power was used. And that fact is already told in the article Economy of the Empire of Brazil. Conclusion: redundant passage.

Wouldn't it be important to also cite the very important European mão-de-obra in the Western São Paulo? (damn, forgot the english word for it :~ thankfully you're brazilian)

“Brazil was the last Western country to abolish slavery”

This part in my opinion is important, it shows how long it actually did take for the processos to happen here, showing, also, how deeply rooted it was in the society. Maybe American countris, instead of Western countries, would be better.

“because the Emperor did not want to risk antagonizing slave owners, who formed the elite of the country”

This part isn't so wrong, I'd say. With some extra information it is very important to, once again, show how slavery was an important part of the society. Maybe state that Pedro II did want to abolish, but thought it should be done gradually, so that there weren't any anthagonisms with slave owners. --eusourei^(talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply by User:Opinoso

It's funny how the negative points of the Empire (large-scale use of slavery, poverty of the majority of the Brazilianm population, Brazilian economy remained agragarian and dependent on coffee exports while the "civilized" countries were going under a process of industrialization) are being removed from the article, while only the supposed positive points are still there.

1)Cabanos war was against the social structure imposed by the Monarchy, which was the same structure imposed in colonial Brazil or in the early Republic: a small minority of the country manipulating its richness, while the vast majority of Brazilians were living under poverty. Darcy Ribeiro described it as "a genocide with the goal of slaughtering the caboclo population". Caboclo were the native inhabitantd of the Amazon. It was against the "but against the uneven social structure that it imposed". Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

2)The deaths were caused directly by the war. The sentence by Lence "In reality, the deaths were caused by famine and illnesses that were resulted from the provincial anarchy and economical collapse" is his unsouced personal opinion. Even if the people died because of illnesses or famine, the deaths were brought by the war. Many Jews died of famine in concentration camps during World War II, but the causes of the death does not erase the fact that it was brought by the war, nothing else caused the deaths. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

3)It does not say that only Brazilians died in the war. During this war, the majority of the Paraguayan population (mostly civilians) was smashed by the Brazilian troops. Some sources claim that 90% of the male population of Paraguay died, another horrible aspect of the Empire as well as thousands of Argentines and Brazilians, which is ommited here (what a surprise). Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

4)Original resources conducted by user Lecen. The fact that the economy of Brazil had a great growth during the Empire was natural, since the population of the Empire increased by millions, and its capacity to produce more and more also grew. This is natural. However, the growth of the economy does not mean anything. The richness remained concentrated in the three richest provinces of the country, due to coffee exports, while the rest of the country had a decadent economy and great poverty. According to Darcy Ribeiro, in the 1890s coffee exports represented 61.5% of Brazilian economy, and all the production was centered in Minas Gerais, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. The other productions represented together only less than 40% of Brazilian economy. Then, Brazilian economy was based on coffee, since over half of it came from this product. Other products, such as sugar, cacau or cotton had a minor importance in Brazilian economy. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

5) Very important information. This part of the article only talks about the Emperor or the elite of the country. The Emperor was a single person, and the elite were a few thousands. Old conception of History. The modern History talks about the life of ordinary people. The history of the Africans in Brazil, and their importance, is trying to be ommited there. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

6)Yes, it was. The Brazilian History is divided in different periods, such as Capitanias do Mar (1516-1532), Capitanias hereditárias (1532-1549), Governo-Geral (1549-1580) and many others. The period of reign of Pedro II was the period, in all Brazilian History, that imported the largest numbers of slaves and the period that more people were used as slaves in Brazil. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

7) We're talking about Brazil, not the United States. If there were 4 million slaves in the USA this is their problem. The USA is not a model to be followed, and no other country is. We're talking about Brazil, and the figure about the slaves is very important. If there are figures about economy, figures about human being being used as slaves are even more importants. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

8)Brazil was the last Western country. User Lecen replaced "Western" by "American", probably trying to diminish the how latecomer Emperor Pedro II was to abolish slavery. Correct passage changed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

9)The information is sourced (Enciclopedia Britannica), and you cannot make original sources and erase sourced informations. The Emperor was afraid of abolishing slavery, because he did not want to lose the support of the elite of slave owners that fed him and his luxurious way of life, while the majority of Brazilians were starving to death. He could abolish slavery as soon as possible, but he waited until 1888 to abolish it, the last country in the Wester world. Pedro II even decided to take a trip to Europe and sent his daughter, Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, to abolish slavery, because he was afraid to do so for fear of reprisals from the elite.

10)Another original resource conducted by Lecen. Where is your resourced to claim the Caboclos are the majority in Northeastern Brazil? The main mixture in Brazil was between Whites and Blacks, and most Pardos were Mulatos (African and European mixture). Caboclos are only found in significant numbers in Northern Brazil, not in Northeastern Brazil. Most people in Northeastern Brazil are either Black or Mulato (where may have some Amerindian mixture). Caboclos in Northeastern Brazil are mostly found in the Sertão, which is not as populate as the coastal region, where the African element in predominant. Why is Lecen trying to remove informations about the history of Black Brazilians? The history of the ordinary people, which includes Black Brazilians, are much more important than details about the personal life of Emperor Pedro II, which was a single person. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

Conclusion: user Lecen is doing original resource with books that are not avaible for us to read. Then, he is choosing to post only the positive points of the Monarchy from these books, while the negative points, which may be listed on those books as well, he choose not to post. Lecen is removing my sourced contributions, because they show that the Monarchy was not so wonderful as he is trying to sell and he is trying, in this talk page, to demoralize my contributions. However, he does not use sources to demoralize my contributions, but his personal opinions and original resourced about History (which is not allowed at all).

It's obvious that user Lecen has some kind of obssession with the Empire of Brazil and with Emperor Pedro II, since all his contributions in Wikipedia are dedicated to talk about the Monarchy of Brazil and his positive points. From this perspective, his contributions are biased, since he has a personal admiration for the monarchy. He should use his knowledge about the subjetc, which he claims to be huge, to post neutral informations about it. However, he choose to post biased informations about the Monarchy (only citing the positive points, and trying to remove the negative ones). On the other, when it comes about the Republic, Lecen choose to list only the negative points of it, and ommited the positive points. This is quite obvious when you read the part about the Emperor (good things only) and when you read the part about Republic (negative points only).

All my contributions are sourced, and I do not use sources from books people cannot read, making it possible to manipulate informations to feed a personal point of view. I won't let user Lecen remove my contributions because he "does not like them". If Lecen wants to remove informations, he is free to remove his own contributions, not from others. In fact, he erased the entire History part of the article, which was already here for months, and replaced them with all these biased changes. I still think that the original History part should come back, and these biased and controversial changes should be removed. Opinoso (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Opinoso's comments by User:Lecen

1) As usual, Opinoso uses as source Darcy Ribeiro. And only him. About the Cabanagem, the details about the war should be handled on its article, not in here. The rebellion was not even important to Brazilian history outcome.

2) To compare the rebellion with the Holocaust is huge mistake. And no, it is not unsourced.

3) Casualties of war should be handled on its respective article, not in the small section about Brazilian history. And no, 300,000 Paraguayans were not killed by Brazilians but instead by famine and diseases. See Doratio, Francisco. Maldita Guerra. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2002 (best book about the War of the Triple Alliance in Portuguese). Anyway, you should talk about that on the article about the war.

4) It is not original resources. The work of famous Brazilian and British hitorians such as Roderick J. Barman, Pedro Calmon, Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, José Murilo de Carvalho and many others cannot be themed "original resource". Once again, you use Darcy Ribeiro as source. And it's always only him. I cannot believe that this author knows more about Brazilian history then all the historians I have mentioned before.

5) The life of Brazilian slaves should be told in the article Slavery in Brazil, not in here. Why only the slaves are important to Brazilian population? What about the Portuguese? Or the Indians? Or the European Immigrants (that are not even mentioned in the section and you don´t bother to ask for their inclusion!).

6) There is no period called "Capitanias do Mar". That kind of information should, once again, be on the article about slavery in Brazil. Or else, we are going to need to also put the number of how many immigrants came to Brazil. It just doesn´t fit in here!

7) But there are no figures about economy in the section! Why do you inssist so much to make the section about Brazilian history themed only on slavery?

8) No, it wasn´t. There was still salvery in African countries up to the end of the 20th century. And Africa is "Western", not "Eastern". Brazil was, indeed, the last american country to end slavery.

9) He couldn´t abolish slavey anytime he wanted. The country had laws, and lawas were created by a Parliament! My God, it is more than clear that you don´t known absolutly nothing about history of Brazil!

10) They were and still are. I am from the Northeast. I know the region. Large afro-descendant populations can be found in Bahia, Maranhão, Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais. All the remaining Northern and Northeastern states has a large caboclo population. You don´t even know the demographics of Brazil. Wonderful.

Lecen has some kind of obssession with the Empire of Brazil and with Emperor Pedro II

You were the only one who was against my texts. I was for a whole week changing the texts and no one else complained. All of these is happening now because of you and I trying to make peace in here but you keep attacking me for no reason.

And what obssession is that? Do I have obssession with the colonial era too? Because I wrote about it also. And you are the one who keeps trying to find "downside" opinions about this era of brazilian history at all cost. Why so much trouble?

since he has a personal admiration for the monarchy.

Do you know me to accuse me of such thing?

about the Monarchy (only citing the positive points, and trying to remove the negative ones). On the other, when it comes about the Republic, Lecen choose to list only the negative points of it, and ommited the positive points.

But I still did not begin working on the Republican era texts! I am desperately trying to end this issue on the monarchy era to begin working on the republic era!

All my contributions are sourced, and I do not use sources from books people cannot read, making it possible to manipulate informations to feed a personal point of view.

What? What about your Darcy Ribeiro sources?! You only use a pocketbook that was wrote by this author. Your author is good enough, but all those famous historians that I use aren´t? And I used several author so that I wouldn´t make the same mistake as yours, to use only one. - --Lecen (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As usual, Lecen using his personal theories to feed his point of view and claiming that an information should be removed because "they are not important" or because "I don't like them" or because "the author is not big enough". It's not up to you to decide what is important or not, or which author may be used as source or not.

If you have any problem with a source being reliable or not or if an information is not important enough, there are certain places in Wikipedia dedicated to discuss these subjects. You are not allowed to make your own conclusions, and remove (sourced) informations according to your desire. If you have some kind of personal admiration for Monarchy or not, keep it to yourself. You are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a way to sell the informations you want like, and hide the informations you deslike.

You use reliable sources from books to feed your personal point of view, collecting all the positive informations about Emperor Pedro II that you could find, ommiting the negative points you found there, and trying to remove the sourced (and real) contributions from other users, because they are not compatible with brand new History of Brazil that you are trying to create here.

This article already had a very good and stable History session, which was removed by user Lecen, without any justification. It is amazing how you desperately try to delete informations about African slaves or the absolute poverty of the Brazilian people. Perhaps because a country of blacks and poor is far from a prototype designed by some people. But I have to tell you: Brazil was, and still is, a country of Blacks and poor, not a country of nobles and Emperors living a luxurious life. These were, and still are, the tiny minority of the population. Their place in Brazilian History is reduced to their percentage small percentage in the population.

And yes, most Brazilians were, and still are, of African descent. According to a genetic study, 86% of Brazilians have DNA indicating African ancestry.[4] Most White Brazilians have African descent, virtually all Pardos and Blacks too. Only the descendants of more recent immigrants may not have African ancestry. When you try to diminish the African influence in Brazil, it only shows your biased and "strange" point of view.

I will conclude my participation on this discussion with the following information, taken from the best-seller book "1808" by author Laurentino Gomes (so I cannot be accused of only using Darcy Ribeiro as a source):

"In 1881, when the so called Saiva Law established for the first time the direct election for some legislative positions, only 1.5% of the population had voting rights. It was just the great merchants and landowners who could vote. Among the enormous mass of excluded people there were women, Blacks, Mulattos, the poor, the illiterate people and the destitute people in general".

Reign of Emperor Pedro II a period of prosperity and economic growth for Brazil? Maybe it was for the 1.5% elite of the country. For the 98.5% mass of poor, Blacks, Mulatos, women or illiterate people (the vast majority of Brazilians) it was a period of poverty and destitution. Opinoso (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Opinoso's comments by User:Lecen, second part

If you have some kind of personal admiration for Monarchy or not, keep it to yourself. You are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a way to sell the informations you want like, and hide the informations you deslike.

You should stop accusing and attacking me. I have been so far trying to be polite.

You use reliable sources from books to feed your personal point of view.

Oh, really? Let´s see:

Opinoso wrote: "The reign of Pedro II was the period that Brazil imported the largest numbers of slaves from Africa, and in 1864 as many as 1,715,000 people were living under slavery in Brazil"

According to Opinoso, he got the information from here. The problem is that the only thing that the website gives are statistics about the Brazilian population on the year 1864, 1874, 1884 and 1887. Nowhere it is said that Pedro II reign was the period when most slaves were imported. Just click on the link, even if don´t understand Portuguese you will be able to read it, because it´s only numbers.

Not only Opinoso "made up" an information that the sources does not tell, he also conveniently chose as an example of how many slaves lived in Brazil the year 1864 where it says 1,715,000 slaves. He didn´t pick the other years 1874 (1,540,829 slaves), 1884 (1,240,806 slaves) or 1887 (723,419 slaves). As you can see, he chose only the information that could "prove" his point.

What I wrote (and that he undone) I put: "Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887." That is data from the independence of Brazil until the end of Slavery.

Opinoso wrote: "but against the uneven social structure that it imposed"

According to Opinoso, his source says that the Monarchy was guilty of creating and imposing an uneven social structure. His source is a book written by Darcy Ribeiro, a sociologist (he is not even a historian!) called "O Povo Brasileiro" (The Brazilian People). I have found an [[5]] version of it and searched for his source. If you click on page six you'll see below a chapter called "AS GUERRAS DO BRASIL" where the author briefly discuss three Brazilian rebellions: Palmares (Colony), Cabanagem (Empire) and Canudos (Republic). He says about Cabanagem:

Assim, a luta dos Cabanos, contendo, embora, tensões inter-raciais (brancos versus caboclos), ou classistas (senhores versus serviçais), era, em essência, um conflito interétnico, porque ali uma etnia disputava a hegemonia, querendo dar sua imagem étnica à sociedade.

Translation: "So, the cabano struggle, having, however, inter-racial tensions (white versus caboclos), or classists (masters versus servants(, it was, in essence, an inter-ethnic conflict, because there an ethnicity disputed the hegemony, wanting to give its own ethnicity image to the society."

Nowhere does Darcy Bibeiro mentions issues against monarchy, but conclicts in that particular regional society in Brazil. He tries to make also a paralel between that rebellion and Palmares and Canudos, which is not our focus in here. The book is not even a history one. He barely mention the Empire and some pages are geared toward the colony. Most of it, however, focus in what the author sees as a constant war between afro-brazilians and whites. As you can see, Opinoso is not even faithful to his own source.

Opinoso wrote: And yes, most Brazilians were, and still are, of African descent. According to a genetic study, 86% of Brazilians have DNA indicating African ancestry.

Genetic studies also confirm the strong Portuguese racial influence in Brazilians. According to a study, at least half of the Brazilian population's Y Chromosome comes from Portugal. Black Brazilians have an average of 48% non-African genes, most of them may come from Portuguese ancestors.

And that´s only the Portuguese blood, I haven´t mentioned other European descandants. So, are we going to put them all on the section about Pedro II reign, too?

Opinoso wrote: "In 1881, when the so called Saiva Law established for the first time the direct election for some legislative positions, only 1.5% of the population had voting rights. It was just the great merchants and landowners who could vote. Among the enormous mass of excluded people there were women, Blacks, Mulattos, the poor, the illiterate people and the destitute people in general".

According to the Constitution of 1824, one of the most liberal of its time, voting was obligatory and elections occurred in two steps: in first phase, voters chose Electors. The Electors then chose senators (members of the upper house), deputies (members of the lower house), provincial deputies (members of the Provincial Assemblies) and councilmen (members of the town´s assembly). All the men 25 years of age or older could vote in the first phase with an income of at least Rs 100$000 per year or more, with some exceptions; married men 21 years of age or older could vote, as well. To be an Elector, it was necessary to have an income of at least Rs 200$000 per year.

Neither women nor slaves were allowed to vote in Brazil in the 19th Century.

The income requirement was much higher in the United Kingdom even after the 1832 reform. The only countries at the time that did not require a certain income to vote were France and Switzerland, where universal suffrage was introduced only in 1848. It is probable that no European country at the time had such liberal legislation as Brazil. The income requirement was low enough that, effectively, any employed male citizen could vote. For comparison, in 1876 the civil employee with the lowest wage at the time, a janitor working in the public sector, earned Rs 600$000 annually.

Most voters in Brazil had a low income. In 1876, for example, in the town of Formiga, in the province of Minas Gerais, the poor were 70% of the electorate and in Irajá, in the province of Rio de Janeiro, they were 87%. Ex-slaves couldn´t vote, but their children and grandchildren could, as could the illiterate (which few countries allowed). In 1872, 13% of the free Brazilian population voted. For comparation, in 1870 in the UK, electoral participation was 7% of the total population; in Italy, it was 2%; in Portugal, 9%; and in the Netherlands 2.5%. In 1832, the year of the British electoral reform, 3% of the British voted. Further reforms in 1867 and 1884 managed to expand electoral participation in the UK to 15%.

Although electoral fraud was common, it did not pass unobserved by Pedro II, or the politicians and experts of that time, who considered it a great problem to be resolved. Some measures, like the electoral reforms of 1855, 1875 and 1881, had been taken with intention to eliminate, or at least to diminish, fraud.

OPINOSO IS NOT FAITHFUL TO HIS OWN SOURCES. HE CHANGES THEIR TRUE MEANING TO PROVE HIS OWN POINT OF VIEW. - --Lecen (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To compare Brazil with other countries is a poor idea. Only because there is a war going on in Iraq it does not mean that I have to start a war in Brazil as well. Only because Somalia or Haiti are poor countries it does not mean that Brazil also must be one. Just because few people voted in the UK, or in Micronesia or in Malawi it does not mean that Brazil had to have few voters as well.

And why are you using the genetic Portuguese influence in Brazil to dominish the Africa one? They do not erase each other. Why are you trying to hide the fact that most Brazilians have African ancestry? Do you have any problem with it? Also, why do you attack Darcy Ribeiro with such a big anger, trying to demoralize his intelectual capacity? It's not up to you to decide if an author is big enough. Keep your personal opinions to youself, they're not welcome here.

Now, I have to leave. I will date now. There's a life outside and I live in a beautiful country with many things to see. Bye-bye. Opinoso (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not faithful to your own sources. - --Lecen (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish you a nice date. :) When you come back, please reply to the issues raised here. And please try not to make any accusation or insinuations. Because those are surely not welcome on Wikipedia, see wp:civil. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

New change on the text

Taking in consideration the suggestions found in here, and also Opinoso's, I have made new changes on the text on the section about Pedro II reign. Here goes the changes:

• "but against the uneven social structure that it imposed" (Opinoso's) - removed.
• "from 30 to 40% of the population of the Province of Grão-Pará was killed" (Opinoso's) - removed
• "with all the freedom permitted by an extremely broad-minded and tolerant policy toward the press.” (mine) - removed
• "Brazilian economic growth, especially after 1850, compared "very well" with that of with the United States and the European countries" (mine) - removed
• "The absolute value of the exports of the Empire was the highest in Latin America" (mine) - removed
• "and the country held undisputed hegemony over all the region until its end" (mine) - removed
• "which left more than 300,000 dead" (Opinoso's) - removed

Added:

• "However, he "took too long to trespass the political obstacles" - mention to Pedro II conflict with the pro-slavery farmers.
• "and Brazil became the last american country to abolish slavery" - just changed the website source for an author.
• "Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887." - Opinoso's original mentioned only 1864. Now the information regarding the slave population in Brazil is more complete as it goes from the independence up to the slavery abolition.

Well, now the text is more simple and direct. I hope it can stay that way and please everyone. I'll begin working on the text about the republican era tomorrow. - --Lecen (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is how I believe the article should be. It´s simple, direct and straightfoward. It mentions slavery clearly and even has a "see also" banner to anyone who wants to know more about it. See below:

Extended content

Emperor Pedro II reign Main article: Pedro II of Brazil See also: Slavery in Brazil Emperor Dom Pedro II at age 27, 1853. For "the longevity of his government and the transformations that occurred in its course, no other Head of State has marked more deeply the history of the country." As the new emperor could not exert his constitutional prerogatives as Emperor (Executive and Moderating Power) until he reached majority, a regency was created. Disputes between political factions that led to rebellions resulted in an unstable, almost anarchical, regency. The rebellious factions, however, continued to uphold the throne of Pedro II as a way of giving the appearance of legitimacy to their actions (that is, they were not in revolt against the monarchy). The Cabanagem the Sabinada and the Balaiada, all followed this course, even though some declared the secession of the provinces as independent republics (but only so long as Pedro II was a minor). The "generation of politicians who had come to power in the 1830s, following upon the abdication of Pedro I, had learned from bitter experience the difficulties and dangers of government. By 1840 they had lost all faith in their ability to rule the country on their own. They accepted Pedro II as an authority figure whose presence was indispensable for the country's survival." Thus, Pedro II was prematurely declared of age and “Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress.” From then "onward the Empire’s stability and prosperity when compared to the turmoil and poverty of the Spanish American republics gave ample proof” of the emperor’s successful government Brazil also won three international wars during his long reign of 58 years (Platine War, Uruguayan War and War of the Triple Alliance). The emperor, who never owned slaves, also led the abolitionist campaign that eventually extinguished slavery after a slow but steady process that went from the end of international traffic in 1850 up to the complete abolition in 1888. However, he "took too long to trespass the political obstacles” and Brazil became the last american country to abolish slavery. Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887. Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country when the monarchy was overthrown in November 15, 1889. There was no desire in Brazil (at least among the majority of its population) to change the form of government and Pedro II was on the height of his popularity among his subjects. Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown.” After the death of his two male sons, he believed that “the imperial regime was destined to end with him.” The emperor did not care about its fate and did nothing (nor allowed anyone) to prevent the military coup that was backed by former slave owners that resented the abolition of slavery. The monarchist reaction after the fall of the empire “was not small and even less its repression”.

It is terrible, and it hides important facts about this government, particularly the social exclusion of the majority of Brazilian population, its poverty, and the manipulation of richness in the hands of the 1.5% elite. Opinoso (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Now start working it out. Make a proposal; try tackling one subject only; reach agreement; then move on. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict

Lecen is making things look too positive, while Opinoso is making things look too negative. Now how to be?

Both parties should at this point decide not to make any edits that do not have consensus. Otherwise the article will be protected, or users blocked.

How to have consensus when you disagree?

Settle on the opinions of uninvolved editors. I have outlined them above in detail for each of the ten points.

Note: please do not make personal accusations (even if they were correct), and respect each other's sources (in general a book is considered reliable unless it would be shown to be unreliable according to the policy guidelines). Without these two things you will never reach consensus. Good luck! Debresser (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to make it look too positive. During the first decade of Pedro II's reign several rebellions occurred and the country fell into anarchy. That is cited in the text. Once he was declared an adult, the country had peace for 40 years, until the end of slavery. What do I have to do? Do you want me to to put in citations and quotes from at least 5 respected historians about the subject for each point? I can do that. But I do not understand why in a section that tells briefly about something, the opinion of several historians had the same value of only one. - --Lecen (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be defensive. Try to accept alternative points of view. Perhaps have a look at Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#The_most_important_lesson. Debresser (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Economy

The economy information is totally biased. Its very obviouse that it only tries to show Brazil as a rich country. It uses GDP (PPP) information to state Brazil has one of the biggest economies in the world, but all informed people know that when comparing countries one should use the population variable and so it should be used GDP(PPP) per capita and not GDP (PPP). When using the correct information we can see that Brazil is even lower than many south american countries and are very far for being a rich country. The numbers can be easily found in the wiki List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. The information should be added or even substitute the corrent one posted on the article to erase the biase and misleading information. 81.84.191.232 (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong to assume that a GDP (PPP) figure telling that Brazil is one of the biggest economies in the world (which we truly are) is meant to say that Brazilians are a rich people. There are very obvious economic issues in Brazil, which are largely related to the brutal European exploitation of our lands, which not only decimated the indigenous populations of Brazil, but also brought the slavery of millions of Africans who were employed in farms to produce basic products for Europeans to consume (like sugar f.e). We are working hard to solve it, but it is a very difficult problem to be dealt with successfully. The GDP per capita is a useful reference, and it should be used. It varies in Brazil from region to region, from social class to social class. The vast majority of South American billionaires are Brazilians. And so are the vast majority of South American multinational companies, like Gerdau and Odebrecht. Our economy has been predicted to become one of the five largest economies in the world in the decades ahead to come, and the GDP per capita will follow and grow. http://wapedia.mobi/en/List_of_countries_by_future_GDP_(PPP)_estimates http://www.chicagobooth.edu/alumni/clubs/pakistan/docs/next11dream-march%20'07-goldmansachs.pdf Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

I only have this simple response to you:

1.º Brazil is an independent country since 1822, so don't blame the europeans and the slavery and so on and so on, but blame youselfs for the poverty and the corrupt society and politics you have.

2.º Its a fact that when you are speaking in a country economic reality you should use GDP (PPP) per capita, because using simple the GDP (PPP) is very misleading about the economy real "size". Cause again the GDP (PPP) doesn't take in acount the very important variable when comparing countries that is the population. So stating Brazil has one of the top 10 economies in the world and is the biggest one in latin america is misleading, cause only Brazil size represents more than 50% of south america, with a huge huge population and so its normal that it has a high GDP (PPP). And when you use the correct index you can easily see that many south american countries have a higher economy than Brazil. What i mean is that information about GDP (PPP) is not any achievment its simple because Brazil has a huge population.

So again the economy paragraph is misleading and does not represent the true size of brazilian economy. The numbers can be easily found in the wiki List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. The information should be added or even substitute the corrent one posted on the article to erase the biase and misleading information. 81.84.191.232 (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. Both GDP and GDP per capita are given in the infobox. Also, please remember to be civil. Academic38 (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Academic38. I don't know if the civil thing was for me but in no way i was rude to anyone and if i seemed to be i apologize 'cause that wasn't my intention at all. Im here just to discuss the GDP issue, not to fight. Ok, so you are right when you say the number of GDP (PPP) per capita is on the infobox but in the article itself it isn't used and its given preference to a less correct index GDP (PPP) to compare with other world nations and to state something that is cleary misleading. If someone is going to comment on the GDP of a country or you speak about the 2 indexs or if you want to speak about 1 you should use the GDP (PPP) per capita when you want to analyse the "size" of a country economy towards others. This is simple because GDP (PPP) is not any achievment for being commented, its a number easily explain by Brazil huge population and doesn't give you any information about the economy itself. If you want to analyse the economy, which is what the topic Economy is really about i think, one should use the per capita GDP, simple as this. I think the all paragraph about it was writen to give the impression that Brazil economy is very good, when in fact it isn't, for all the reasons i already stated in my previouse comments.

Let me just add that the infobox data is incorrect it says "GDP per capita US$ 12,105 (2008)" when the real value is 10,466 (International Monetary Fund) or 10,296 (World Bank 2008). Anf if you want to use the more correct index GDP (nominal) per capita the values are 8,295 (International Monetary Fund 2008) or 8,400 (World Bank 2008. To confirm simple go to wiki List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita and List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita.81.84.191.232 (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought your response #1 above was a bit rude ("blame yourselves" in particular). I think it should be possible for you to add the GDP (PPP) per capita in the Economics section, and I certainly wouldn't object. Since the infobox says most of its data is from the CIA World Factbook, I checked there, but that source also gives a per capita figure of just over $10,000, so it would be good if you fixed that. However, I do think you should stick with PPP for the per capita, as that is how most data sources list it. I see you are new, and I'll just mention that when you see an error like that you should just be bold. Thanks! Academic38 (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to ge involved in this discussion but I just wanted to say that what this unknown editor is arguing has a flaw: if so, China has a very low GDP per capita. So it should be considered a very poor country instead of the world's second greatest economy? --Lecen (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to inform that i've already add the info about GDP (PPP) per capita and changed the value on the infobox. Im not very good with editing so fell free to better organize the information. To the above user: Thats exactly why i stated the GDP (PPP) is a misleading information, cause when you say "worlds second greatest economy" one is lead to belive it is in a matter of wealth. So when you say China is the second you should say "biggest" and not "greatest" and even the word biggest is misleading cause its has nothing to do with wealth. What i mean is that China is indeed a poor country, actually a very poor country, we can see that with GDP (PPP) per capita or GDP (nominal) per capita where China takes the 89 place. The high GDP (PPP) that puts China in the second place in the world is a consequence of the number of the population it has, the same situation as Brazil. GDP isn't any achivement as i already said, its simple the consequence of a big population. Thats why if you want to analyse the economy of a country using GDP you should use the per capita unit. 81.84.191.232 (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Owww...!! So there is a difference between "biggest" and "greatest" now? A country can have a big economy but not a great one? Why is anyone bothering about this unknown editor, BTW?

81.84.191.232 said: "is a consequence of the number of the population it has, the same situation as Brazil. GDP isn't any achivement as i already said, its simple the consequence of a big population. Thats why if you want to analyse the economy of a country using GDP you should use the per capita unit"

Isn't what is written above POV or original research? And why am I losing my time with this discussion? --Lecen (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There most certainly is a difference, which anonymous has understood well. Bagunceiro (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Because I didn't. Let's see what his arguments about it:

81.84.191.232 said: The economy information is totally biased.

81.84.191.232 said: Its very obviouse that it only tries to show Brazil as a rich country.

81.84.191.232 said: When using the correct information we can see that Brazil is even lower than many south american countries and are very far for being a rich country.

81.84.191.232 said: but blame youselfs for the poverty and the corrupt society and politics you have.

Yep. As all of you can see the text in the article is biased but the unknown editor's motives are not. He is a very neutral character who just by chance want to prove his own point of view that Brazil is in fact a very poor country because of the .... "the poverty and the corrupt society and politics you have". So, it's clear by now that his motives are indeed very honest and all he wants is to correct a few mistakes. Yeah, right. --Lecen (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The GDP (PPP) is obviously a very important economic figure. It tells about the importance and size of the economy of a given country. China is a lot more important than Norway, even if the average Chinese earns a lot less than the average Norwegian. China is about to become the first economy in the world, and this will be a major turning point, just like it was when the US became the first economy in the world. Brazil is among the TOP TEN for sure.

Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk)

Well i can see that there is to much nationalism in here. Not only that but its crazy to read comments like the above user, stating personal views of something that should be unbiased and it cleary cames from someone that doesn't know basic economics. I don't understand why the defensive behaviour. The GDP concepts are very clear and all what i stated is easily verifiable and people try to defend their opposite views using a distraction method of discussing and accusing me of having other interests? I mean even if i had other interest what does that have to do with the facts about GDP per capita input i gave?

I just wanted to help this article, but i can see that there is many "interests" in selecting the information that one should put on this article. It cleary has many people around it defending some issues using biased interests. One should always stick to unbiased data.

To Lecen: Do i think this article has many biased information? Yes i do. But i don't know what that has to do with the discussion we are having. Actually you should learn to be civil.

So if people prefer to go against the truth of what i stated it's your call. I don't care what you do with the information, i just felt i could help the article. This is not my "war" and im not interested in a fight for something so clear as per capita GDP. So do what you guys want. cya 81.84.191.232 (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: where was I rude or not polite? Was I ironic? Yeah, I was. Pretty much, BTW. But I had to, because all I saw was POV and nonsense arguments like (I never get tired of repeating it!) but blame youselfs for the poverty and the corrupt society and politics you have. Just wonderful.

P.S.: I got interest in learning what other parts of the article you consider biased. --Lecen (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well yes you were and are. You are being very biased in your opinons and very rude aswell. Cause in no way i was rude to anyone and you are being. I just came here to say to you, that the phrase you are always repeating was a response to someones comment so don't bring it like it was something that came from nowhere. One user made a comment blaming the europeans and the slavery and etc on their present day economic status. What i just said was that he should blame brazilians and their current system on those things cause Brazil is an independent country for so long and the slavery ended officially in 1888. This is not a rude comment and even if it was perceived by other as such i said in the next comment: "in no way i was rude to anyone and if i seemed to be i apologize 'cause that wasn't my intention at all. Im here just to discuss the GDP issue, not to fight." so please if you are gonna do a citation of me do a correct one. You are cleary in search of a fight and again this is not my "war". cya 81.84.191.232 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To state that GDP (PPP) per capita is the real measure of the size of the economy of a country is a major error.

Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk)

Grezen22 i never stated such thing. How many times do i have to repeat myself? What i said was GDP (PPP) is misleading 'cause when you say one country economy is on a top 10 in the world it suggest its a good economy, when in fact it isn't. A good economy, a top economy is one that garantees a good quality of live to people (yes GDP is used for the quality of life if you didn't know). For example Switzerland or Norway may have a moderate GDP but its sufficient to ensure a top quality of life to is few habitants. What i mean is that countries that have a high GDP is due to the fact that they are big countries (ex. China, India, Brazil ...) with big population. So a high GDP isn't any achievement and it certainly doesn't reflect the countries wealth, its just a reflection of the size of the population and not a reflection of a good economy. A good and powerfull economy are the ones that have a high GDP per capita that ensures its habitants to have a good quality of life. Thats why you don't have Brazil or China or India in G8 even thought they are the top countries with higher GDP. Put in your head GDP show you nothing because its highly influenced by its country size. To analyse a countries economy you have to use per capita unit. Simple and clear as that. So i will stop commenting cause i think or people don't read what i write or they simple are blind. Just informe yourself people before putting a comment. 81.84.191.232 (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You did say it:

Quote"Its a fact that when you are speaking in a country economic reality you should use GDP (PPP) per capita, because using simple the GDP (PPP) is very misleading about the economy real "size".

Quote"If someone is going to comment on the GDP of a country or you speak about the 2 indexs or if you want to speak about 1 you should use the GDP (PPP) per capita when you want to analyse the "size" of a country economy towards others".

I have not denied that our economy has major problems. Nor do I think that the article implies that having one of the largest economies in the world is an achievement. It is a fact that our economy is one of the largest economies in the world, however. If you care to read the studies I posted you will see that we have been predicted to be one of the five largest in the decades to come. We are already at the G-20. And we have been placed, along with Russia, India, and China, at the BRIC category, and it did not come out of nowhere. Qatar and Liechtenstein have one of the highest GDP (PPP) per capita rates in the world, and yet they are of no importance. Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk)

First

G8 - Group of the major industrial economies, that is the most important and richest countries in the world (economically speaking)

G20 - Group of ministers from industrialized countries and countries in developing (20 in total) partecipating together with the role in driving forward work between advanced and emerging economies

So don't confuse G20 as an extention of G8. Being on G20 has nothing to do with importance or wealth. You should go and visit their webpage and go to the FAQ page and read "How does G-20 differ from G-8"

Second

Being along with Russia, India and China in a creation called BRIC is because of the size of the countries and again is a population thing. It has nothing to do with wealth. Its a futuristic vision that implies a possible bloc that this countries can be if they unite themselfs like Europe is doing, cause if they did that they would represent the biggest part of the world since they are very big countries, nothing more than that.

Third

Again when you say "Brazil has the largest economy in the world" thats spot on. And is nothing more than, you guess it, a population matter and so it isn't any achievement its a simple result of the country size and so it doesn't represent anything more than that.

And Finally

I find it funny the need to defend yourself and to show that Brazil economy is good by showing things like G20 and BRIC and so on ... No one is attacking Brazil so don't fell the need to defend it, im just speaking about GDP and GDP per capita and its usage in this article ... Like you guys have almost the need to show Brazil importancy "ohhh we can have a low GDP per capita but we are in G20 and BRIC and so on so on" ... No one here implies that Brazil isn't an important country, im speaking about the incorrect and misleading information of GDP and the real situation and status of Brazil economy when using this index. Please again inform yourself about the things before commenting. So don't came with things that don't even make sense and that shows exactly the "interests" that goes around this articles. 81.84.191.232 (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a very long discussion for a very small change in the article. WP:NOTAFORUM is very relevant here. 81.84.191.232's error fix is incorporated, and I have tweaked the wording slightly in the text. Academic38 (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)