Talk:Fernão de Loronha

Leases
Removed editorializing "This is incorrect. There was a first lease for three years, followed by another for ten years. See Harold Johnson, 'The Leasing of Brazil, 1502-1515: a Problem Resolved' in The Americas (January, 1999), that the writer has not taken into account. Vogt misunderstood the matter." from the running text. It may be right and deserve inclusion, but certainly not in this format. — LlywelynII  22:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC) There was NO lease from 1502-1512. Please cite your evidence for this. There was a three year lease, 1502-1505 followed by a ten year lease 1505-1515 after which the Crown took direct control of Brazil and the leases ceased. Well then don't correct Vogt and let his erroneous presentation stand. This is typical of Wikipedia where people who don't know much about the topic are the ones who have the final say. Johnson is correct; Vogt is wrong. So of course Wikipedia goes with Vogt. Typical and good reason not to support Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what's making you upset. Johnson's interpretation is right there: "One possible reconciliation is that the latter reflect not the original terms, but new terms that were negotiated upon the renewal of Loronha's charter in 1505".  In Wiki, we don't make judgments of right or wrong, but rely on secondary sources.  Vogt is one interpretation, Johnson is another.  Both are given, as should be done in any encyclopedic survey. Do you happen to be Harold Johnson?  17:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone with a brain should be able to see that Johnson's interpretation is the correct one. Vogt gets the financial terms of the second lease wrong and has no idea that there were two leases one following the other. What is stupid about Wikipedia and why I refuse to give it any money is that it has no brains when confronted with conflicting interpretations. It gives equal credence to both the wrong and well what is correct. Disgusting stupidity. The article is also utterly wrong when it says Bixorda got the lease in 1512. Since the second lease running from 1505/6 to 1515/16 was a TEN year lease, nothing was transferred in 1512. Where that idea came from God only knows.
 * God only knows? But surely "anyone with a brain" should also know how to read?  It comes from Damião de Góis: p.70.  Everyone, including God, knows that.  Johnson's article is precisely dedicated to resolving the "Bixorda" issue by conjecturing Bixorda was merely a Loronha subordinate and that Gois "misspoke".  It is intriguing, quite possible but also quite speculative and far from conclusive.  But maybe I just don't have a brain and am just disgustingly stupid in believing that other hypotheses other than Johnson's speculations ought to also be noted? Walrasiad (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Johnson doesn't say Gois mis-spoke. He says Gois probably had no reason to go into any elaborate account of the members of the consortium. J did not "conjecture" that Bixorda was a subordinate; he found clear evidence that he was an ASSOCIATE. So don't invent stuff. It is very conclusive if you put it together with the rest of his arguments that are evidently too complex for you to understand such as that the Crown would not pile one lease on top of another and that the solid info we have re the leases comes from Italian reports that made it clear there were two and one came AFTER the other, as was understood by Duarte Leite. And the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE at all except in the imagination of this brainless one that there was a transfer of anything in 1512 (for which he cites NO evidence because there is NONE), The Crown leased out Brazil for thirteen years after its discovery (1502-1515). It did so via two leases; the first for three years to discover the value of the trade and the second for ten after it could decide on a fixed sum for the lease. In 1516 it decided to discontinue to lease arrangement. It is Ignoramuses of the kind who write articles in fields where they are not expert and don't have the brains to know which historians to credit more than others that typify Wiki and its failings. Cortesao was an imaginative but reckless historian. Leite was a precise and careful one. So of course you, ignorant imbecile, prefer Cortesao to Leite. Typical Wiki stupidity. What would we do if Wiki were not so often so stupid? We might even give it some money but we aren't going to give money to a thingy that propagates stupid interpretations,now, are we?

Pathetically clueless. If the lease was renewed in 1506 it was renewed for TEN YEARS so how could it end in 1512?. You don't know the sources at all. Amateur who can't even sort out the evidence. Your nincompoopery is characteristic of Wikipedia in which people who are not expert undertake to write things they don't understand. Damiao de Gois merely said that Bixorda "had" the dyewood contract; Bixorda was ONE of the members of the consortium that held the contract, so by what silly nonsense do you claim he ALONE held the contract? If you had the brains to know the details of the voyage of the Bretoa in 1511 you could see that the contract was held by a consortium, not just one person. There is no evidence of any transfer of ANYTHING in 1512. That is your stupid imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thus far, I have been indulging your rude tone and insults. You deserve all the rudeness you can get for your blind stupidity. The evidence you are wrong is overwhelming but like most nitcompoops the more evidence that piles up against them the more they did in their heels and persist. But you've just about worn my patience.   Walrasiad (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Well people who are determined to be ignorant and think they know better than experts deserve rude tones and insults. Why should an expert suffer fools gladly? Is that a Wikipedia requirement??????? What are YOUR qualifications? Have you a PHD in history? Have you been a professor of Brazilian history at a major university?????? If so, please elaborate. Please don't think I want you to go away. I cherish your presence here as a good reminder never to give Wikipedia any money due to its using ignoramuses as authors. By the way, there is NO evidence that the 1503/4 expedition created any more than ONE factory (at Cabo Frio, meaning in the bay of Rio de Janeiro). Since you don't have enough background I won't bother to explain all that to you. You would have to read the Historia Naval do Brasil. I suspect you can't read Portuguese.

Whoever is writing this needs to read what Duarte Leite, an unsurpassed historian of Portuguese expansion, says about the leases on page 278 of the second volume of the Historia da Colonizacao Portuguesa do Brasil, in his chapter "O Mais Antigo Mapa do Brasil". There he indicates his belief that there were TWO leases the first for three years (1503-1505) and the second for the next ten years (1505-1515). He gives his reasons that are completely convincing. He is not confused by the mention of Bixorda that got Cortesao off on the wrong track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC) You should also realize that Vogt never responded to Johnson's critique of his ideas. Never another word from him re the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Just pathetic example of Wikipedia's amateurism that can't sort out whom to believe and whom not to believe. So it mixes wrong with right in a miserable mishmash that benefits no one. The idea that there was a change of lease in 1512 has NO evidence whatsoever to support it. Dumb know nothing who doesn't pay any attention to Leite, much less Johnson. Ignoramus imposing his confusions on a topic he knows nothing about and never researched at all. Good going, Wiki. Keep it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Still stupid and wrong. Written by an ignoramus. Statements made without the slightest evidence. A case example of why Wikipedia is not to be trusted. Know nothings or know very littles writing articles. Nobody stops them nobody who corrects them carries any weight. Go ahead, Wiki, and make a fool of yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.2.45 (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC) WHOEVER IS THE NINCOMPOOP WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ARTICLE IS SO STUPID HE THINKS THE PORTUGUESE CROWN PILED A TEN YEAR LEASE FOR 4000 DUCATS A YEAR OVERLAPPING ON TOP OF A THREE YEAR LEASE WITH PAYMENTS IN PERCENTAGES. THE PORTUGUESE CROWN MIGHT HAVE HAD ITS FAULTS BUT IT WAS NOT THAT STUPID ALTHOUGH THIS AUTHOR THINKS IT WAS. HE ALSO IS DUMB ENOUGH TO THINK THAT JAIME CORTESAO WAS AS GOOD AN HISTORIAN AS DUARTE LEITE. HE WAS NOT. THE NINCOMPOOP ALSO CITES NO EVIDENCE AT ALL FOR ANY NUMBER OF HIS CRAZY ASSERTIONS SUCH AS THAT A LEASE WAS GRANTED IN 1512. NONE WAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.2.45 (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I will make sure to refer people to this page for an entertaining look at how stupid Wiki can be and how blind and how impervious to arguments and evidence. As well as its hilarious belief that the people who write its article are experts in much of anything. Certainly not in the history of early Brazil. I hope this page stays as it is so the stupidity of Walrasiad is kept fresh for people to see and enjoy. Now maybe he will tell us where he has gotten his profound knowledge of the first 15 years of Brazilian history. I'd love to know. I looked at Walsy's page and he seems to "specialize" in Moorish and African history. Odd that this would make him an expert on early Brazil. He's a nincompoop, says retired more or less. I suggest he retire completely and let someone who knows more rewrite the Loronha article. More bad news for Walsy. V. M. Godinho, Os Descobrimentos e a Economia Mundial, vol. 2, p. 257 Bixorda is described as a "parceiro" (partner) of Loronha. The two were members of the consortium that held the second lease, period. End of story. Now, Wiki, don't correct your miserably wrong article. Just keep it as is so people can see how incompetent Wiki is.

Johnson argued that Bixorda was not the sole leaseholder of the dyewood trade; his opponents want us to believe he alone controlled it. So take this pill and swallow it: "Prominent Portuguese merchants include Jorge Lopes Bixorda; Bixorda also sent ships....to Asia in 1509 and again in 1523 [he also] controlled the trade in Brazilwood ' WITH TWO PARTNERS..."' SANJAY SUBRAHMANYAM, THE PORTUGUESE EMPIRE IN ASIA, 1500-1700, PAGE 47. SO WE HAVE A MAJOR HISTORIAN OF THE PORTUGUESE EMPIRE SAYING THAT BIXORDA HAD PARTNERS IN THE BRAZILTRADE AND DID NOT HOLD THE LEASE ALONE. HE WAS PARTNERS WITH OTHERS IN THE SECOND LEASE, 1506-16. NOW TELL ME SUBRAHMANYHAM DOESN'T KNOW HIS SUBJECT OR WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. GO AHEAD, TELL ME HE IS AN IGNORAMUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.2.45 (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Somebody needs to rewrite and clean up this mess of an article before it stinks up Wikipedia beyond endurance. As is, it is a prime example of Wiki's stupidity and its writers incompetence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.2.45 (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

@107.2.2.45 I would be delighted to help improve this article. But since your preferred means of communication is personal insults, verbal abuse and invective tirades, it makes dialogue rather difficult. Walrasiad (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC) I have made myself clear. So just go ahead and do what I say. There were two leases one after the other. The first of 3 years; the second for 10. The whole issue is in the Johnson article. Clinging to stupid positions seems Wiki's preferred position. Only a moron would think the Portuguese Crown would give a lease for three years and then overlap it with another for ten. Both Rondinelli and Ca Masser are equally authoritative, meaning a three year lease (Rondinelli) was followed by a ten year lease (Ca Masser). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.2.45 (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, as I averted before, LAY OFF the insults, or I shall cease replying to you. Secondly, there is no proof Rondinelli and Ca Masser statements are correct, or even referring to different contracts; Thirdly, Damiao de Gois says Bixorda.  Fourthly, all attempts to reconcile these three statements are conjectural and speculative; there is no corroborating proof, nor any consensus in the secondary literature. The evidence is too slim.  Various scholars have made various attempts to reconcile the statements, which an encyclopaedia article needs to account for. Even Johnson himself merely proposes it as a possible resolution.  Just because you like his thesis, and it is attractive, does not mean it is absolutely true. You seem to have a tendency of choosing a particular view and calling everyone who posits differently "morons", rather than actually making a correct assessment of the thinness of available evidence, acknowledge the lack of consensus or account for competing interpretations. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, not original research.  I've caught you already once in a lie and misinterpreting sources (re. Juan Diaz de Solis).  I advise you to first acquire some better skills at communicating.  After that, learn how to actually conduct scholarship. Walrasiad (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

History is concerned first with correct facts and interpretation, not mere "communication." You make a fool of yourself with your lack of knowledge. Every historian who has dealt with early Brazil from Varnhagen to Couto accepts the testimony of Rondinelli and Ca Masser. Just because you have no professional experience in the topic you don't know that. I do agree that Wiki is unable to do archival research but if its writers had any good sense they would know what secondary source are worthy of credit. Your attitude is rather like someone who says Darwinian evolution is one idea but equally valid is creationism. Such a person would be laughed out of the major universities of the world. I never "misinterpreted" the "sources" for Juan Dias de Solis. I said that Medina was correct and the others wrong. And if you go back and take a look at the talk page re Solis almost everyone agrees that he was born in Portugal as Medina say and as I insisted. So where is the "lie" and "misinterpretation" of the sources? So of course you prefer the wrong historians because you don't have the brains to tell who understands something and who does not. As for scholarship I am a professor of Latin American history at a major East Coast university with two degrees from Cambridge (UK) and a PHD from U of Chicago and author of several books on early Brazil. And you? You? Tell me something that doesn't make me laugh. In fact I am entirely disgusted with you and won't communicate further with you. I have never suffered fools gladly and see no reason to start doing so with you. PS Damiao de Gois was writing long after the fact, in 1566 and he had no reason to go into the intricacies of the consortia who held the lease and he did not. You also appear dumb enough, I repeat, to think the Portuguese Crown was crazy enough to give out one lease for three years and then another later that went back and overlapped the earlier lease. Pure stupidity and the Crown was not stupid. You are, however. So wallow in your ignorance and be a happy fool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.2.45 (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, you misinterpreted sources. You asserted the 1512 Vasconcellos letter "unequivocally" said something that it did not say and insulted anyone who doubted it.  Here, like then, you should learn a little humility.
 * But above all, learn manners! Your communication skills make it hard to believe you had any interaction with other human beings.  My background is none of your business. I have no need to wave (or lie about) my credentials, or insult other people, to make a point.
 * We have three fragments which say conflicting things, and very little else to go on to sort them out. There is a lot of conjecture and speculation and several hypotheses. There is no corroborating evidence and, above everything, there is no consensus.  I don't mind giving the Johnson hypothesis a little more light than currently, but not to the exclusion of others.  Chicago must really be slipping its educational standards if it is teaching kids to make absolutist assertions on the basis of only three ambiguous fragments of conflicting text, with no corroborating evidence. If that is your standard of evidence, your books (if they exist) must be howlers.
 * That said, I am done with you. Evidently you can't communicate without foul invective and insults, and are provoking the same. Whatever you might have of interest to say, is muddled by your recourse to fulsome hollering.  I don't know if you suffer from Tourette's syndrome, or whether it is a gambit to conceal your inability to articulate a substantive argument.  Whichever is the case, I am not going to put up with it, so I won't be responding anymore. Walrasiad (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Moron: What is the "Vasconcellos letter of 1512"? Please tell me where I mentioned it. Please tell me. You have some superficial conflicts that anyone with rudimentary brains can sort out. Since you don't have the brains to sort anything out you prefer the idea that it is all confused and impossible to solve. PhDs at Chicago at not "kids" except to those too mentally impaired to be able to go there. If I insult you it is due to your bottomless stupidity. Anyone like you who would think the Portuguese Crown would issue a lease for three years (1502-1505) universally accepted and then go and give a ten year lease (1502-1512) that overlaps the first is so mentally deranged there really is no hope. Or perhaps you think there was a ten year lease 1502-1512 and then one from 1513-1516; given your lack of brains I could well imagine your thinking that. The lease he was talking about was obviously beginning in 1506. PS the Ca Masser letter is from the year 1506 so very unlikely he would talk about a lease beginning in 1502; he was charged with giving his agents in Italy up to date information. So he would not wait until 1506 to discuss a lease that had begun four years earlier. In every way your thinking is deranged and loony. I suggest a head transplant as soon as possible. PS And do tell me, too, what historians of early Brazil reject the Rondinelli and the Ca Masser documents? Do please clue me in. When are you going to get a PhD from Harvard or Yale? You are so wise and knowledgable that should be super easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.2.45 (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC) PS I never wrote the entry about the Vasconcellos letter and did not know of it. So you don't even know who wrote what but simply make things up. I did look at the Navarette reference to the letter and I read there that a Portuguese who was in a group said Solis was his brother. I guess you think being a brother means Solis was Spanish? (You are stupid enougn to do so). Or if someone has a piece of evidence you don't like you say it is a lie or doesnt' exist. Go to a university and take your ideas about early Brazil and I am sure you will get a PHD immediately for your brilliance. Still hilariously confused and silly. Nincompoopery at its best. A ten year lease granted in 1506 that overlaps a previous lease that ran 1502-1505 so....what? The 1506 lease holder has to pay for years when he never had the lease? The Crown granted a lease for the years 1502-1505 twice, rather like selling one item to two different people? If the 1506 lease holder had to pay for 1502-1505 he'd be more than stupid to accept such a silly arrangement when those three years were already over. Like renting somebody a house and saying "by the way you have to pay for the three prior years when somebody else occupied the house and you didn't. Why? Don't ask. I just like to rent things twice to different people if they are stupid enough to go along. That way I really can make money. By the way there was a lease for the Mina (Africa) trade that I granted in 1469 and is now over. You'll have to pay for that one now too so I can get more money from it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.2.45 (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC) The idea that a lease holder would pay rent for years when he never held the lease is ridiculous. It is not smart to impose your stupidity onto historical people who were not stupid.