Talk:Indigenous peoples in Brazil

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2021 and 27 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mamajama747, OTA2211.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Minaseoo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment
Are there any objections to the moving of this article to Indigenous peoples in Brazil? I find the word "in" to be more suitable than "of" because the indigenous peoples pre-date what is now the country. Additionally, it is preferrable to avoid any wording that may imply belonging to a country. The choice of the word "in" is currently used for Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada, ali was bornand articles and sub-categories within it. Kurieeto 00:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I for one would support such a move. Also, the plural "peoples" (not singular "people") should be used in the article title, since the article is discussing many distinct groups, and does not imply these groups form a single unit (and nor should it). In this context, "peoples" is the correct plural form of "people", the latter being a countable noun when used (as here) to refer to an entire populace or ethnic group.--cjllw | TALK  02:05, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

Total Population
Superinteressante, a Brazilian maagazine, claims there are 431 000 Native Indians in Brazil. They supposedly took this info from FUNAI, which is the Brazilian official organization that protect the Brazilian Amerindian population. PMLF 23:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Prejudice
"Indigenous man could not be made to assimilate any agricultural or other knowledge"

Besides the obvious prejudice, (Since when are indigenous incapable of assimilating knowledge?) this is contradicting the fact that the indians already knew agriculture, stated before in the article. If I recall, the portuguese introduced black slaves because then they would get profit from the slave commerce, but I don't have time to find a source now. --200.222.30.9 02:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, since the article states itself that millions more Brazilians have indigenous ancestry without practicing an indigenous culture, it sounds like the indigenous Brazilians have been highly adept at assimilating. --74.103.150.125 (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, indigenous Brazilians were highly adept to assimilate. Many conversions were political acts - such as the german princes, more interested in breaking with Rome than "finding the true faith" - research the history of Niterói, when Temiminós and Portuguese formed an aliance against Tamoios and French. In many regions indigenous made aliances with europeans to defeat other indigenous enemies, since there were many indian nations here. Temiminós, for instance, turned cristians, and in symbol of aliance many portuguese married their sisters - thus becaming part of the "tribe". These aliances are part of the brazilian formation. Politics rules humans since ever. And by "without practicing an indigenous culture", this is unfair. We do not practice indigenous RELIGION, ou an EXCLUSIVE INDIGEOUS CULTURE, but brazilian culture is formed by many aspects of indigenous, african and portuguese cultures, many of them not perceived even by brazilians. As an example, brazilians take bath about twice a day, just like the indians (europeans take a long break between showers), we use a lot of indigenous words, concepts and expressions, fairytales, food, etc., but since we're in majority christians some assume there's nothing indian on us. Cultures mix and transform, I think it's complicate to treat miscigenation as "extermination", white supremacists use these arguments to say that "whites are being exterminated", it's ridiculous. SOrry for my lame english. 187.124.128.142 (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you, and I apologize for my wording. By "without practicing an indigenous culture," I did in fact mean it in the exclusive sense. It is especially clear to me that indigenous Brazilians have had a huge impact on Brazilian cuisine, similar to other areas of the Americas. --98.114.176.218 (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal status of indigenous peoples
There is no mention in the article of the citizenship status of Brazilian indigenous people. Are they citizens of Brazil ? Can they vote in Brazilian local, state and federal elections ? If so, since when ? It is not clear either who owns land on Brazilian Indian reservations (Canadian English "reserves"). Is it the federal government, the Indian tribes themselves, or individual tribe members ? Is all land on reservations communal land or are there privately-held allotments ? Can Indians sell or lease reservation land to non-Indians ? Are non-Indians allowed to live on reservations ? Does the federal government keep a national register (like in Canada) of people with legal indigenous status and therefore eligibility to live and/or "own" land on reservations ?

All the aforementioned questions should be answered in the article ! 187.34.77.68 (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion figures are wrong
Census of Brazil can't be used for knowing the religious demography of Brazilian Indians. In many cases, the census takers don't actually interview the people in remote areas. They just enter the form themselves using their guess. For example, in the State of Amazonas, according to the Census, 100% of the American Indians are Christian, which is highly improbable since there are some 1,000 - 2,000 uncontacted Indians living there. Also, many of the contacted Indians (like those in Javari) are Shamanist. Axxn (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Some questions of the census, including religion, are asked to limited sample of the population, so it is possible that those shamanists were in such a small number that none was in the sample. The most important questions, however, are done in every house possible. And IBGE doesn`t enter forms "using their guess", or at least it is not permited. If anyone did this during the census it was a fraud and they could face legal consequences if they were caught. However, it is true that, after trying to make an interview in a particular house several times without success, IBGE would assume to that house the avarage of that area. It never happens because an area is remote, it happens because they couldn`t find any person in the house in several different days and times. I only agree about the uncontacted people. I doubt IBGE interviews them, otherwise they would be kind of contacted! Anyway, those uncontacted people are not actually Brazilian Citzens, they have their own rules and laws. We need another source for those people, as IBGE will not count them189.127.150.51 (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Indigenous peoples in Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150514190044/https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2458535528890183948 to https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2458535528890183948

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Number of tribes?
Can someone please tell me are uncontacted tribes counted in these estimated 200 tribes, or not? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.240.32.0 (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Indigenous peoples in Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141217123428/http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/ to http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indigenous peoples in Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510204204/http://64.40.115.138/file/lu/6/52235/NTIyMzV9K3szNTc2Nzc%3D.jpg?download=1 to http://64.40.115.138/file/lu/6/52235/NTIyMzV9K3szNTc2Nzc%3D.jpg?download=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Bering Strait Myth
Can we avoid talking about the bering strait theory as a strong rule? It had been proven to be a political myth to reinforce the idea that indigenous peoples of the Americas haven't been there since time immemorial.

http://www.nativecircle.com/bering-strait-myth.html

Arnosoheil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indigenous peoples in Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928200701/http://www.amazonia.org.br/noticias/print.cfm?id=2691 to http://www.amazonia.org.br/noticias/print.cfm?id=2691

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indigenous peoples in Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420055859/http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o to https://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=95702149

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

religions and material culture??
as far as I see there's practically nothing by way of an anthropological description of religions and material culture, traditionally and 'modernized'...?? a big gap imho which a competent person should fill, no? HilmarHansWerner (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

POV check request for 2.4 The Jesuits: Protectors of the Indians
Request for a POV check for this (permalink) unreferenced and inappropriately titled section, which seems to be framed exclusively from a received Jesuit pov.

I believe the culturally sensitive historical events alluded to in this section require appropriate npov consideration. 86.191.67.245 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks to some unbelievably (to me at least :-) rapid assistance by Johncdraper, I feel this is much improved. I've also tried to rewrite/reword a bit . For now, I've left the 'pov check' tag, in case others wish to help out (adding: perhaps inevitably, it still only represents one side of the story). 86.191.67.245 (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Seeming non-sequitur in opening paragraph
“Christopher Columbus thought he had reached the East Indies, but Portuguese Vasco da Gama had already reached India via the Indian Ocean route, when Brazil was colonized by Portugal.”

While on the surface this sentence looks sort of related to the preceding passage, upon closer examination the astute reader will find themselves exclaiming “WTF does that have to do with anything?!” It’s actually just a non-sequitur. 2601:1C2:5000:1472:9833:EA32:A4AB:F715 (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)