Talk:Rio Grande do Sul

untitled
the spaniards are in that 5% of "others" in the ethnic groups? I thought we were as much as the portuguese, i think that 25% are of portuguese AND spaniards.

Actually, most people are indeed Italian and German descendents.

Ethnically speaking, Spanish influence is negligible.

Same-Sex Civil Union
Someone removed the which I attached to same-sex civil union topic. While I have no doubt that this fact is wikipedia-worthy but I would like to see a source or two about it. For now I'm replacing the 'citation needed' in a less conspicuous place. Corvokarasu 12:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference can be found at the Rio Grande do Sul State Court website at: www.tj.rs.gov.br/site_php/noticias/mostranoticia.php?assunto=1&categoria=1&item=30873 By GaJewcho
 * Thanks. I've added the reference to the article. Corvokarasu 13:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference is not enough; it's only about a judicial decision, not about a supposed law. Besides, Badauê seems to imply that stable homosexual unions are not exclusive of Rio Grande do Sul, nor they began there. Ninguém (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed. The information was distorted, Brazil is not a common law country; judicial decisions do not "legalise" anything, they merely create jurisprudence. Ninguém (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

HDI
Where did the 2004 HDI data come from? Brazilian articles claim a value of 0.854. Janiovj 02:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Culture
Who wrote about Rio Grande do Sul: "Samba and carnival are not popular as in the rest of the country and the internationally famous Brazilian mulatas are rarely seen." really doesn't know Brazil. This cultural character of samba and mulatas is only from Rio de Janeiro and the coastal Northeast. Fsolda 03:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, not even in coastal Northeast. Of course there are many "mulatas" there, but samba is just another popular style, but not a common one. Forró and other Northeastern rhythms are much more popular.201.9.204.144 (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)YgorCoelho

Curiosity changed to Statistics
Can anyone tell me how to change the template that includes a heading "Curiosity" into the entries for Brazilian states so that the heading is "Statistics"?

Redhill54 (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardo
Is "Brown" not the best or least bad equivalent word in English for "Pardo"?Redhill54 (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Origin of word "gaúcho"
Natives of the state are known as Gaúchos, named after the cattle herders and ranchers who settled the state's pampa regions.

Actually, this is an old but wrong myth. "Gaúchos" were originally, in the colonial period, thieves who walked throughout the pampas in their horses robbing cattle and other precious goods from that rural and colonial time. Only later it became a common denomination of all people from Rio Grande de São Pedro, which became Rio Grande do Sul. 201.9.204.144 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)YgorCoelho

european gauchos
The article contrasts the "gaucho cultural influence" with the "europan" one... What does that mean? Gauchos are not strictly native-americans for all I know. -- NIC1138 (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * mostly because the Gaucho is from spanish and/or portuguese descendence, while many cities in the north of the state were founded by german and italian immigrants... since spain and portugal settled the land in the 17th-18th century and germans and italians only arrived here in the 19th, the latest are referred as european since they had more in common with europe than the european descedents that were living in the state by that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.10.35.6 (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Spanish accent"
What is a "Spanish accent"? If it means speaking Portuguese like a Spaniard or other native Spanish speaker would speak it, then no, people in Rio Grande do Sul do not speak Portuguese with a Spanish accent (not even an Argentinian or Uruguayan accent, if it matters). Ninguém (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the first line of the article gives the pronunciation of "Rio Grande do Sul" there: ʁiu ˈgɾɐ̃de do ˈsuɫ.

Now if we go to IPA for Spanish, we will see that "ʁ", "ɐ", and "ɫ" aren't even Spanish phonemes (a person speaking Portuguese with a "Spanish accent" would pronounce it "xiu gɾantʃi do sul"). Ninguém (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The southwestern region and race
The text now reads:

People of Gaúcho ancestry (who can be of any race) predominate in the Southwest.

The IBGE 2000 Census data for the Southwest are as following:


 * 1) Total    747.115
 * 2) White    606.650
 * 3) Black     40.138
 * 4) Asian        548
 * 5) "Parda"   95.404
 * 6) Amerindian 2.078
 * 7) Undeclared 2.296

So, while obviously people in the Southwest "can" be of any race, this is a very incomplete information; 81.20% of them are White. The Southwest was not a region of immigration; most White people there descend from "Lagunistas", ie, Bandeirantes from São Paulo who established themselves first in Laguna, in what is now Santa Catarina and then moved south to prey on the cattle left astray by the destruction of the Jesuit reductions.

I am proposing to change the text to:

''The Southwest was originally populated by "lagunistas", people coming from Laguna, Santa Catarina, a town settled by paulistas from Sorocaba. These were to become the XVIII century "gaúchos".''

Here is the reference for the change:

If no one opposes this change in a reasoned way, I'm going to proceed to edit the article. Ninguém (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The source does not claim Brazilian Gauchos are descended from people from the city of Laguna. It only says "people from Laguna organized the creation and trade in livestock". Moreover, Darcy Ribeiro claim that "The Brazilian Gauchos have a common historical formation with the other Gauchos from the Plate. They arise from the ethnic transformation of the mixed-race people of mixed Spanish and Portuguese men with Guarani women".

The population from Southwest Rio Grande do Sul is largely connect to the old population from Argentina and Uruguay, before the mass European immigration in the late 19th century that actually changed most of the ethnic formation of Argentina and Uruguay. Since Southwest Rio Grande was not affected by the more recent European immigration, the population there still has the same Portuguese/Spanish/Guarani origin of the Gauchos from La Plata Basin. It seems the text there is ignoring the Guarani Indians in the formation of the people in Rio Grande do Sul, particularly Southern and Southweastern Rio Grande, wich was very important and undeniable. And the fact that most people there now claim to be White to Census takers does not erase the huge Indian Guarani influence there and, to some extent, also black African. Opinoso (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

On the population of the Southwest (Demographics)
Among a number of other changes, a recent edit changed this sentence in the Demographics section:


 * Like the other Gauchos from the La Plata Basin the population there was a result from the continual assortative mating between Spanish and Portuguese men with local women ultimately descended from Guarani and Kaingang populations, resulting in a population that is 81.20% White. It is possible that the European ancestry of the people in this region is predominantly Spanish.

into this:


 * Like the other Gauchos from the La Plata Basin the population there was a result from the mixture of Spanish and Portuguese men with the Guarani women with a predominant Spanish ancestry and also a significant African contribution.

First of all, I would like to understand the rationale of the suppression of the Kaingangs here. In fact, if any thing should be changed here, it is to include the "Pampeanos" (Charruas, Minuanos, etc.), who were in fact the main Amerindian populations of the Southwest of Rio Grande do Sul.

Second, it is interesting that the information that the local population is 81.20% White has also been suppressed. Why? What the problem is with them being White? What is under question here, the fact itself, its source (which is the IBGE), the ability of these people to racially self-classify?

Third, the dynamics of Amerindian/European interbreeding is very strange in the text as it now stands. We understand why there was a continual supply of European males in Rio Grande do Sul (and Brazil at large). It is because Portuguese (and Spanish) colonists were overwhelmingly male. On the other hand, where would a continual excess of Amerindians come from? Why would the Portuguese (or Spaniards) prefer to mate Amerindian women when there were already mixed-race women integrated into the colonial population (in fact, this is what the available sources suggest: Portuguese colonists would always prefer Portuguese women as wives; these being unavailable, they would then turn to Brazilian women of recent Portuguese origin).

I would like to discuss these questions earnestly, in the light of available sources, without picking one of them (Ribeiro) as revealed truth. And if a discussion is not possible, I am going to revert this change. Ninguém (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Funny, because you already posted a (unsourced) information that the people from Southweastern Rio Grande do Sul are of Portuguese descent, and now you are including Amerindians in the middle? What a contradition.

To your "first" argument, you did not bring sources to include the other Amerindian populations. Where did you take the Kaingang from? Souces, please.

By the way, why did you try to remove the Africans from the composition of the population in Wastern Rio Grande do Sul? The genetic study found that 11% of the population there descends from Africans. This is a lot.

To your second argument, how can you mix Europeans, Amerindians and some Africans and produce a 81% White population? This is only possible in Brazil. Brazilian census is based on self-classification, and people say whatever they want to the census. And it is worlwide known that in Brazil people tend to "whiten" themselves to the census (they say they are Whites even when they have clear negroid and Amerindian features). Then, it's not a surprise that 81% of the people there "claims" to be White, but genetic studies show that the majority of the population has Amerindian ancestry, and many also have African ancestry.

When you posted the information that 81% are Whites, it ignores that in Brazil the conception of whiteness is dubious, and it sells the wrong idea they all look white. Why don't you add the information that in Brazil people tend to whiten themselves to the census as well? This is from where you get a fantastic "81% White" population in a region of Rio Grande do Sul that has similar Amerindian admixture that was found in the Amazon rainforest (where people are known for their Amerindian roots)!!

About your third argument, it seems that you are bringing hypotheses, theories and possibilities without sources. So I will not even comment on them, because Wikipedia is not a forum. Opinoso (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Information about the Kaingangs is sourced.


 * I am not "trying to remove" anything. This is again a personal attack and a violation of AGF.


 * This absurd idea about the Brazilian Census being extraordinary in using self-classification has already been debunked. It is standard international practice, adopted by other countries that research race in their censuses, such as the United States.


 * You insist in this idea that there are biological races, true races, and that Brazilian Whites are "fake Whites", that Brazilians lie to the Census, etc. This is antiscientific and reactionary.


 * You say that I get a fantastic 81% figure. But I don't "get" anything: these are Census figures.


 * You don't understand what MtDNA is. It does not measure admixture. A population can have 100% African MtDNA and be predominantly of European origin.


 * It is not my theory that the origin of Brazilian demographics is based on assortative mating, nor is my fault that you can't understand what this means. And stop accusing me of using hypotheses, theories and possibilities without sources. At least as long as you insist in your false theories of "true" races and of Brazilian people "lying" to the Census. Ninguém (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to find "personal attacks" everywhere. You are the one making personal attacks, saying that I use "false theories of "true" races. You are using the talk pages of Wikipedia to discuss racial issues. Wikipedia is not a forum. You came with all that story that people from Weastern Rio Grande are of Portuguese descent, which is not true, no sources report anything similar. Why do you insist on the imaginary Portuguese ancestry?


 * And yes, Brazilians tend to "whiten" themselves in the census. They say they are Whites when they are not Whites. It's not me who is saying that; several scholars and studies concluded that, even though you seem to always ignore this important information. And you are the one who is always using the word "race" in Wikipedia, not me.


 * And yes, races do not exist, but physical apparence does. And Brazilians who do not have a White or European physical appearance say they are Whites to the census. Ronaldo say he is White. I know several people who are darker than "Ronaldo" who also say they are Whites and are even racists against Blacks. Shame on those people...


 * It's prooven that in Weastern Rio Grande, where 81% claim to be White, but when they have their DNA analyzed, most of them have Amerindian DNA and African as well.


 * I understand what MtDNA is. It reflects that there was a great mixture with Amerindians in that area of Rio Grande, as well with Africans. But it does not say that the genomic ancestry is mostly Amerindians, neither that it is mostly European. We will have to wait for that study. But you are the one concluding that the main ancestry there is European, which is not prooven anywhere. It may be, but that ancestry is mostly Spanish, like the genetic studies concluded, not Portuguese, like you tried to claim. Opinoso (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not "trying to find" personal attacks. You are making personal attacks. It is an old practice of yours. Do you want me to re-post a list of your base personal attacks against other people, calling them ignorant, telling them to get a job, telling them that they know no English, calling them racists without good reason?

In fact, you have been accusing me of deliberately distorting information to boost the figures of Portugese Brazilians and diminish the figures of Brazilians of other origins, because I am of Portuguese descent myself. In other words, you are accusing me of intellectual dishonesty. Since you have absolutely no base for such accusation, it constitutes a personal attack. You are not discussing ideas, you are attributing (base) motivations to me.

On the other hand, I am not attacking you personally. I am not attributing any motives to you. In fact, I don't think there are any intellectually partisan, sectarian, religious, or political motivations to your posts. I am not saying you are editing the way you do because you are a leftist or a rightist, or because you are of Italian or Portuguese descent, or because you are a follower of Darcy Ribeiro or Edward Telles. I don't actually think you are any of these; I don't even think you actually understand Ribeiro or Telles (or Schwartzman or Magnoli or Miguel Ángel García).

What I am trying to do is to show what exactly your ideas imply. If Brazilians "say they are Whites when they are not Whites", then certainly there is an external, objective, standard to classify people in "Whites" and "non-Whites". What standard is this, Opinoso? Who establishes it? Can you source it?

You say that "Brazilians tend to 'whiten' themselves in the Census. Don't you think that if that was true the Census would be unable to find economic, educational, and social differences between "Whites" and "non-Whites"? How do you explain that these differences exist and are actually quite remarkable?

For instance, here is the IBGE table for race and litteracy in Southwestern Rio Grande do Sul. You may see that the proportion of illiterates is about ten per cent among "brancos" and "amarelos", but about 15% among "pardos" and "pretos", and 20% among "indígenas". So those categories are socially significant in Southwestern Rio Grande do Sul; they cannot be simply dismissed by stating that Brazilians misreport themselves to the Census. Which in fact seems obvious: why aren't Whites 100% of the Brazilian population? Why are they 80% in Southwestern Rio Grande do Sul but under 30% in Bahia?

This "information", anyway, does not belong to the article about Rio Grande do Sul. It belongs to the article on Race in Brazil.

You say "races do not exist". Of course they exist, Opinoso. They are social constructs, not biological realities, but social constructs exist and are extremely powerful. Perhaps more than biological realities. And of course physical appearance exists, and certaiely plays a role in the social construction of "race". But a "White Brazilian" is not a person that has a European physical appearance, in abstract: it is a person who is socially accepted as "White"; not merely a person who "looks White", but who "looks White" to others. Evidently having a "European physical appearance" is this, but "appearance", as the name itself says, is subjective. What "appears" Black to me may not appear so to you. Thence the importance of the adjective in the phrases "socially perceived" or "socially accepted".

You like to give Ronaldinho Fenômeno as an example. But, in fact, he is an example of the opposite: the sheer amount of racist abuse he received because he dared to declare himself "White" shows that light mulattoes are not considered "White" in Brazil, or at least that other, different considerations, besides a fair complexion and a nice, fat bank account are actually necessary for that.

You also say that it is "prooven that in Weastern Rio Grande, where 81% claim to be White, but when they have their DNA analyzed, most of them have Amerindian DNA and African as well". And? MtDNA is a negligible part of human genome, a very small part of 1%. It is only interesting as a tool to find out the matrilineal lineage of a person. What studies are about MtDNA cannot overrun our knowledge of history: Amerindian populations have been all but exterminated in most of Brazil except the North and the Center-West. Yes, some of their women mated with Portuguese men, particularly in the beggining of colonisation, or whenever the Portuguese moved to new territory they hadn't razed before, or whenever huge amounts of Portuguese men came to Brazil (such as in the beggining of the colonisation of the Minas Gerais). But whenever the Portuguese men had a choice (and they usually had) they would prefer mamelucas to Indian women, and 3/4 Portuguese women over mamelucas, and so on. So the miscigenation was very real but very unequal, and resulted in a population that is genetically much closer to Europeans than to Amerindians of Africans. This is well sourced, you know; you even brought up some sources that directly point to it, albeit you seem to be unaware that they mean that.

You are also misinterpreting the study you use to claim the European ancestry of people in Western Rio Grande do Sul is mostly Spanish. The study is far from conclusive; it tells us that this is a possibility, not a certainty. It certainly does not bring up any convincing argument for this; it does not even point what genetic markers lead to such conclusion. In general, the litterature about these matters is quite sober on the possibility of tracing the difference between Mediterranic Caucasian DNA of different origins. Even the difference between Nordic Caucasian and Mediterranic Caucasian DNA is difficult to establish; there seems to be no one genetic marker able to establish such differences (which are essentially statistic differences).

It may well be that most genetic ancestry in Western Rio Grande do Sul is Spanish, not Portuguese. While I am far from convinced by this study, you might have seen that since you brought it, this information has been incorporated to the relevant articles. I am no owner of truth; I still think the population of Western Rio Grande do Sul is mostly of Portuguese origin. I am a historian, not a geneticist; historic knowledge seems to point in this direction: demographic pressure was always against the Spaniards in the boundaries. It is the people in Uruguay who speak a mix of Spanish and Portuguese, not the people in Rio Grande do Sul. It was Brazil that invaded Uruguay twice, and Argentina and Paraguay once, not the other way round. Rio Grande do Sul and Uruguay have similar areas, but the population of Rio Grande do Sul is three times that of Uruguay, albeit immigration to Uruguay having been proportionally more important than to Rio Grande do Sul. Maybe I am wrong, but it will take more than an article saying "perhaps" in giving no specifics to convince me. On the other hand, the study is cited in the relevant articles; it is important and it may be correct in that analysis. If it is, I will be wrong. It won't be the first nor the last time, and I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is when I read an information, go to the given source, and the given source says something completely different, sometimes even the direct opposite (such as it was the case with Magnoli or Schwartzman, and Ribeiro in a few instances). Unhappily this happens with an alarming frequence when you were the editor writing the text and providing the source. The recent fiasco about Miguel Ángel García and the percent of people of Italian origin in Rio Grande do Sul is one more example.

Have a nice Easter, and may the Bunny bring you some insights about what you are doing here. Ninguém (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Why do you insist on using Wikipedia as a forum, writing all those huge texts with your opinions that nobody is going to read? Use this talk page to discuss the article, not to tell us what's your profession or what you believe is the truth or not. We don't care about it. Opinoso (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And when scholars report that Brazilians tend to whiten themselves to the census, it does not mean that there are no Whites in Brazil. There are plently of Whites in Brazil, but the percentage is much smaller than the census show. Everybody knows that Brazil is far from being 50% White, the figure found in the Census. You only need to walk on the streets of Brazil and look at the face of the people. I'm not talking about fancy shopping malls or restaurants, where White faces will predominate. I'm talking about the mass of people waiting for a bus on the street to go to work, like most Brazilian do. Only the imaginary Brazil is 50% White and only 6% Black. This is not the Brazil I live.


 * And you can keep saying that the genetic European ancestry predominates in Brazil. It probably does, but it doesn't mean that European faces predominate here, because when you mix White with Black and Amerindians, the physical type of the latter two predominate. Look at singer Neguinho da Beija-Flor, whose genetic ancestry is 70% European, even though it seems he came straight from Africa, or Barack Obama, who is half White but could not pass as European, but could easily pass as African. So, genetic ancestry has nothing to do with physical appareance at all, particularly when you mix light people with dark people, the dark predominates. Opinoso (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Unhappilly, "walking in the streets" isn't a reliable source. The source here is the Census, or some other source that you are yet to find that reports the figure you want. On the other hand, you surely never "walked in the streets" of any city in Soutwhestern Rio Grande do Sul, so what are you talking about?

You say that "when you mix White with Black and Amerindians, the physical type of the latter two predominate". This is news to me, can you point me to some biology textbook that explains this? You say Barack Obama "could not pass as European, but could easily pass as African". I don't think so; have you ever seen an African? Here, for instance, you have a photograph of an African lady; surely Mr. Obama cannot pass for a person of the same "racial" category as her.

You should really stop before you say something really damning. Ninguém (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you serious that you did not know that a child of a White parent and a Black parent almost always get the dark skin of the parent? Of course you are joking. Do you really live in Brazil? It seems you don't.


 * And no, people from Southweastern Rio Grande do Sul are not of Portuguese descent, no matter how hard you try to show that or even pick up a phone book to check their surnames (remember that a Portuguese last nome does not mean Portuguese ancestry, ok?). If you want to see "Portuguese" in Rio Grande do Sul, go to the coast. Many Azoreans there. But in Southweastern...not really.


 * I think you are the one who has never seen an African, and you seem to know nothing about Africa. Not a surprise, because the Brazilian education system does not give African the importance it deserves. But it makes me surprise, since you already declared to be a Historian, but seems not to be similar to Africa, the place of birth of humanity, from where you descend, we all descend (including the Portuguese).


 * Not all Black Africans look the same. There are Africans from different color shades and features, varying from light to dark. Your picture of an African girl does not represent the entire Africa. And yes, Barack Obama could pass as Africa. Maybe because you are Brazilian and only consider a very dark person as "Black". But Obama could pass easily as African. He doesn't look different from Nelson Mandela.


 * The people from Ethiopia tend to have lighter skin (look at Ethiopians Sophia Bekele, Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia, or Tilahun Gessesse). Do they look like the African girl in your picture? Sophia Bekele seems to be lighter than Obama is...and what a surprise, she is African, while Obama is half White from the United States...funny, isn't it? I find it.


 * How about the Khoisan people? Obama would not be out of place among them...funny, isn't it?


 * Somali people also do not look like the "fake typical African" girl in your picture. (Wow! Africans with straight hair; Yes! They do exist Ninguém...what a surprise for you)


 * Maybe because those areas of Africa have strong Arab influence, but they are part of Black Africa, not from Arab Northern African.


 * Then, your imaginary and limited idea of Africa seems so old. You should learn more about that fantastic continent during this Easter holiday. It's just a hint! Good luck with your studies!! Opinoso (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am asking you for something quite simple: an authoritative biology text that explains the genetics of skin colour. Can you provide one? I have always seen people of a White and a Black parent having an intermediary skin colour, very unlike, for instance, eye colour, in which dark eye genes are certainly dominant.

You seem to know a lot about Southwestern Rio Grande do Sul. Can you point me some litterature about the subject (not, really please, Ribeiro, who I have already read - thirty years ago -, is outdated and really doesn't explain anything)? Who were those Spaniards who colonised the region? When?

Certainly not all Africans look the same. Did I say that? I don't think so. But then not all Europeans look the same. Sophia Loren would probably not pass as a Swede, and Bjorn Borg doesn't look like a Sicilian. So? Barack Obama doesn't look European, but he also doesn't look African. Subsaharan African, I mean, of course. He wouldn't also pass as a Tunisian, but for very different reasons.

Thanks for the hint. What do you suggest I read? What do you think is more important in African history? Should I focus on the influence of Islam on Subsaharan Africa, or on the autochtonous cultures? In each case, can you commend me a good book on the subject?

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for an explanation of how there are significant social differences between Brazilian Whites and Brazilian Blacks, measured by the censuses, if the information about colour is totally unreliable... Ninguém (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For instance, this study seems to back my acritical musings about skin colour:


 * one of the more interesting findings was that skin reflectance appeared to be mainly additive. In other words, mean skin reflectance of “F1 hybrid” or “backcross hybrid” groups is intermediate between their respective parental groups.


 * Perhaps these authors are also wrong, and you should lecture them on how skin colour genetics actually work? Perhaps they should walk on the streets of, say, Uruguaiana, instead of making lab research, to understand it? Ninguém (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read Ribeiro 30 years ago? Funny, because he published "O Povo Brasileiro", the book I used as source, in 1997, 13 years ago. So you are able to read books that were not even published yet.

Moreover, this is not the place for book suggestions. When are you going to learn that Wikipedia is not a Forum?

And you keep saying that Obama could not pass as African...you said you are a Historian, but posted a picture of an African girl suggesting that she has a typical African looking. As I tought you, there are Sub-Saaran Africans who even have straight hair and ligher skin than Obama has. Then, he could pass as African, never as European. Even in Brazil he is considered to be Black, since the new and less racist conception Blackness is growing in Brazil, making it possible to accept Obama as Black, even though there are some people who are still living in the early 20th century and would not recognize Obama as Black (it's hard for some Brazilians admit that a person is "Black", because being black still have negative connotations, it's like if it was offensive, they would say "he is not Black enough". Always finding a way not to lebel a person as Black.... of course that people who think like that are still living in the early 20th century, they did not arrive in the 21st century yet.

There are significant social differences between Blacks and Whites in Brazil because the people who look White are more likely to be wealthier than people who look Black, for historic reasons. And even when the person does not look White, but is rich, the person reports to be White in the census. It inflates even more the social social difference.

I think this is quite obvious, isn't it? Or are you going to say that as a Historian you did not know that Brazil still has racist influences, and that some people think that being White is better than being Black or non-White? It's common to see people claiming strict European ancestry, when they have obvious negroid or Amerindian features, or embracing the White side of the family and denying the Black side. Don't you know those people? Do you really live in Brazil? Because to live in Brazil and not knowing this kind of people is impossible, really. Even though I avoid contact with those people, they often appear. It makes me sad. Opinoso (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you said you started to read books 30 years ago, and at that time we were still living under the "racial democracy myth", you should read newer books, not only about Africa, that you seem not to know about, but about Brazil itself and the newer racial discussions. And no, I won't suggest you books, search them in a library. Opinoso (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously you don't have any real suggestions for my readings. It is a pity, first because I don't get the suggestions, but mainly because it causes me the definite impression that you don't have the leastest idea of what books to suggest.

When I say I read Ribeiro, I don't mean necessarily O Povo Brasileiro - as you may know, he wrote other books. O Processo Civilizatório, Teoria do Brasil, for instance. Much nationalist enthusiasm, a defective reading of Marx and Engels, an abstruse theory of Brazilian class stratification, an inability to actually sever ties with the racial democracy myth, etc. Spare me.

Your explanation obviously doesn't explain anything. We are talking about a population that reports to be 80% White to the census, while you say it is predominantly non-White. So at least 30% of this population is, according to your interesting theory, "lying to the Census". I suppose this does not mess up the socio-economic differences between Whites and non-Whites? How? Or perhaps these differences are not caused by "race" but rather are the cause of "race", meaning people are not rich because they are White, but White because they are rich? In which case, how can we be sure that there are actually socio-economic differences between Whites and non-Whites? This is of course contrary to that litterature you won't suggest me, such as, for instance, Hasenbalg and Valle Silva, who claim to have been able to determine "race" as an independent variable.

I live in Brazil, Opinoso, and have lived here much longer than you. Of course I know people who don't like to talk about their race. A very bad way to do that is to claim to be White; it immediately attracts the wildest racist attacks, as poor Ronaldo Fenômeno certainly discovered the hard way.

I am also to understand what has a person to gain lying to, of all things, the Census, which is totally unimportant to any practical individual purpose.

You have no suggestions for me, but I have two for you.

I suggest you stop saying things about Barack Obama. Here is a photograph of his father. As you may see, Obama's skin colour is intermediate between his father's and his mother's, as those genetic professors pointed it should be... and you have again put yourself in the undesirable position of saying things that anyone can verify are false.

I also suggest you try reading books to understand what the authors mean, not to project your own ideas onto them. Ninguém (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, since there is no argument against it, I have changed the text to reflect reality: the region was not populated by the Guarani, and, accordingly, its present day "racial" ancestry is not characterised by the miscegenation between Portuguese/Spaniards and Guaranis. As it may be noticed, there is a source for that, and I hope this is not reversed unless there is some kind of problem that can be discussed with the source. Ninguém (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have also restablished the truth regarding the source purported to support the idea that the genetic contribution of Spaniards was more important than that of the Portuguese in Southwestern Rio Grande do Sul; it talks about possibilities and is definitely not conclusive. Ninguém (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Opinoso, you have had a full month to research a source for your astonishing "information" that "a child of a White parent and a Black parent almost always get the dark skin of the parent", but you haven't come with any. I suppose you are again too busy? Or perhaps you haven't found any? In this case, I would say that there is a reason it is so difficult to find it: it is because it is false. "a child of a White parent and a Black parent" won't get the dark the dark skin of the Black parent, but an intermediate colour skin. It is basic biology, you should have learnt it in high school. Where did you get the opposite idea? Is it a popular superstition of the particular corner of Brazil you live in, or have you simply made it up? Ninguém (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Two months, and you haven't still sourced this absurd. I am taking this as an admission of failure, that you can't actually find any source for this fantasy of yours.

Italians
I noticed user Ninguém could not verify that Miguel Angel Garcia wrote that 60% of the population in Rio Grande do Sul is of Italian descent. Maybe he is having problems with Italian (?). Let's write what Garcia wrote:

"São Paulo è il maggiore centro di concentrazione di popolazione di origine italiana, nonostante che la sua importanza relativa tra le origini immigratorie (38%) sia assai inferiore a quella che ha in Santa Caterina e Rio Grande, che corrisponde al livello argentino (60%)."

Translation:

"São Paulo is the largest center of concentration of people of Italian origin despite its relative importance among the immigrant origins (38%) is much lower than that in Santa Catarina and Rio Grande, which corresponds to the level of Argentina (60%)."

And we can see, 38% of the population in São Paulo is of Italian descent, while in Rio Grande and Santa Catarina they are 60%, similar to Argentina.

Are you able to understand it now, Ninguém? And I think you find it to be a reliable source, because you already used this source in the past. Opinoso (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's understand what García (not "Garcia") says. He says that the importance of the concentration of people of Italian origin in São Paulo among the immigrant origins (38%) is much lower than that in Santa Catarina and Rio Grande, which corresponds to the level of Argentina (60%).


 * So what he says is exactly, people of Italian origin are 60% of the the people of immigrant origin (in Rio Grande do Sul). Not people of Italian origin are 60% of the population of Rio Grande do Sul. Ninguém (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong. He makes a clear connection with the 60% of Italian descendants in Argentina. In fact, according to him 60% of Argentines are of Italians, the same goes for Rio Grande and Santa Catarina. You are assuming that he was refering only to the population of "immigrant" origin. In fact, I really doubt Garcia made reseaches about the other several populations of immigrant descent in Brazil and Argentina to compare them with the Italian one. I don't think he lost his time to know the percentage of descendants of Thais in Argentina and Brazil. Opinoso (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinoso, everybody knows that you made a good faith error here. García wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement, when even the fantasist sources that inflate the figure of Italian Brazilians give much smaller proportions. The combined population of Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul is over 14 million people; 60% of this is 8.5 million. The population of São Paulo is about 33 million; 38% of it is over 12.5 million people; this summed would be 21 million people, when he says they are only 18 million in all of Brazil. So, please, don't, out of sheer stubborness, make yourself a fool by insisting in an interpretation that is so obviously wrong. It is 60% tra le origini immigratorie, not tra la populazione di Rio Grande do Sul. Ninguém (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have corrected the information, to reflect what García actually says. Ninguém (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And so that there remain no doubts about it, here is the sentence where García says that Italians were 60% of the immigrants to Argentina (page 3 of his paper):


 * Un 60% degli immigrati erano italiani; prima delle regioni del nord, poi della Calabria, la Sicilia, la Campania e le Marche, e infine anche delle regioni del centro, anche se in proporzione assai minore. Or, in English, Some 60% of the immigrants were Italian; first from the Northern region, then from Calabria, Sicilia, Campania and Marche, and finally from the Central region, even if in quite smaller proportions.

This is what he means when he talks about livello argentino concerning Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul. Ninguém (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Brazilians
An IP, 200.251.176.140, whose contributions are very similar to a registered editor's (if they are the same person, I would politely ask that they use their registered account), has reinserted into the article those two ideas:


 * 1. That the Spanish men in "the population there was a result from the mixture of Spanish and Portuguese men with Amerindian women" were in fact "Spanish Brazilians"; and


 * 2. That the Spanish Jesuits in "European presence in the region started in 1627 with Spanish Jesuits" were also "Spanish Brazilian" Jesuits.

Both these ideas are utterly false. The supposed Spanish men in the region were not Brazilian, since the region didn't even belong to Brazil, or Portugal; if they existed, they were either actual Spaniards or South American criollos, culturally Spanish. The same for the Jesuits. In 1627, the misiones region was part of the Spanish empire, not of Brazil or the Portuguese empire. Ninguém (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The same IP has, earlier, removed the following from the article:


 * These speculations about a supposed Spanish predominance among the population of Southwestern Rio Grande do Sul are widely spread, but they contradict the historic knowledge about the region. In fact, there was always very smallish Spanish colonial presence there, in practice restricted to Jesuit initiatives towards the Amerindian populations, which, of course, had no genetic impact in the demographic composition. On the other hand, it is well established that it is Northern Uruguay that has always had an important Luso-Brazilian presence, which in fact impacts until nowadays its language, not the other way round .

Arguing that the source does not "say this".

This seems a complete inversion of the burden of proof. If there was any Spanish colonial presence in modern Rio Grande do Sul, this should be established with sources. Up to now, there isn't any evidence that the Spaniards founded a single town in modern Rio Grande do Sul (on the contrary, evidence of a demographic Portuguese presence there abounds, such as the foundation of Rio Grande, Rio Pardo, Viamão, and Porto Alegre; in fact, even in Uruguay itself, such as Sacramento and San Carlos), or that they settled the region in any other way; the only "Spanish" presence there were the Jesuit missions, which were not populated by Spaniards, and the military invasion in the 18th century, which was not followed by any actual populating measures. If the Spaniards actually settled Rio Grande do Sul, this definitely would need a source (which, it seems, doesn't exist); not the other way round, requiring a source that says that they didn't, as if the default was the positive. Ninguém (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Rio Grande do Sul. 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 https://web.archive.org/20070929092430/http://www.riogrande.com.br/historia/colonizacao6.htm to http://www.riogrande.com.br/historia/colonizacao6.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061116125702/http://www.mre.gov.br/cdbrasil/itamaraty/web/ingles/consnac/imigra/alemaes/index.htm to http://www.mre.gov.br/CDBRASIL/ITAMARATY/WEB/ingles/consnac/imigra/alemaes/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927014106/http://www.mre.gov.br/cdbrasil/itamaraty/web/ingles/consnac/imigra/italiano/index.htm to http://www.mre.gov.br/CDBRASIL/ITAMARATY/WEB/ingles/consnac/imigra/italiano/index.htm

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 17:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Rio Grande do Sul. 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/20070716191844/http://www.mre.gov.br:80/CDBRASIL/ITAMARATY/WEB/ingles/consnac/imigra/alemaes/index.htm to http://www.mre.gov.br/CDBRASIL/ITAMARATY/WEB/ingles/consnac/imigra/alemaes/index.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927014106/http://www.mre.gov.br/cdbrasil/itamaraty/web/ingles/consnac/imigra/italiano/index.htm to http://www.mre.gov.br/CDBRASIL/ITAMARATY/WEB/ingles/consnac/imigra/italiano/index.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rio Grande do Sul. 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/20160227232518/http://www.espacoacademico.com.br/073/73esp_juddpt.htm to http://www.espacoacademico.com.br/073/73esp_juddpt.htm

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) 13:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Rio Grande do Sul Köppen.svg

Edit request
I was thinking in editing the beginning. Because it says "great river of the south" but in portuguese, "Grande" means "Big"

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Aeroporto cxj.jpg