Talk:Spanish Brazilians

Azoreans
The study of the gauchos showed they were more Castilian than Portuguese. I thought the Azores were largely settled by the Portuguese and therefore would have genetic markers more like the Portuguese than the Castilians. Were not the Azores a stopping off point for many Portuguese ships crossing the Atlantic?


 * I don't know whether there are genomic differences between Northern Portuguese and Azoreans, and I was unable to find any academic sources that shows or implies such differences, more than mere suppositions about a greater presence of Haplogroup J in Azores. Historically, there is reason to believe that such differences do exist. Azores received proportinally more Subsaharan slaves than Portugal, and also received settlers from other European countries, particularly from the Netherlands.


 * On the other hand it is perfectly possible that the Azoreans are genetically closer to Portuguese than to Castillian, and that Gaúchos are genetically closer to Azoreans than to Castillians, and yet closer to Castillians than to Portuguese. We can see this easily even in a unidimensional example like numbers: 4 (Azoreans) is closer to 1 (Portuguese) than to 10 (Castillians), but 6 (Gaúchos) is closer to (4) Azoreans than to Castillians (10) and yet closer to 10 (Castillians) than to 1 (Portuguese). Moreso, probably, in a multidimensional analysis, as certainly is necessary to deal with genomic ancestry.


 * Anyway, I am not a geneticist; I would have to trust the opinion of someone with actual knowledge in the subject. But, so far as historic knowledge goes, the cited paper makes the wrong comparison, and so should be taken with caution, until other references show that the difference between continental Portuguese and Azoreans is too small to make a difference, or actually compare the Gaúcho genome to that of Azoreans. Ninguém (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Another problem is that the paper only analyses MtDNA and Y-chromosome genetic markers, which, of course, are unrepresentative of the genome as a whole. You can have a man whose MtDNA is, say, French, and whose Y chromosome is Japanese. But if such man is born to a mother who is in turn the daughter of a French woman with an English father, and to a father who in turn is the son of a Japanese man with an English woman, such man's genetic ancestry is 50% English, even though neither his Y chromosome or his MtDNA is English. Assortative mating can multiply these cases, making them practically the rule. Ninguém (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The so-called "problems" being raised here are "archaeogenetics 101" problems - I'm sure the people (who happen to be Brazilian scientists) are cognizant of such "problems". Take this last issue (MtDNA and Y-chromosones inheritance): sure that's true, but genetic marker studies like this one are not comparing individuals - they are comparing populations!. And as for assortative mating on the Pampas - now that's a hilarious idea!


 * I wouldn't expect a geneticist to have solid historic knowledge. If this paper is correct, then what we actually know about the History of Rio Grande do Sul is wrong. The authors of this paper seem to have not noticed that, just like they haven't noticed that comparing Gaúchos to northern Portuguese doesn't address the problem of the well established importance of Azorean ancestry in Rio Grande do Sul.


 * In reference to comparing individuals or populations, surely it is different, but anyways we know that the high figures of Amerindian and African MtDNA in the Brazilian population is completely unrelated to the proportions of autosomic genes of the same origins - so, even considering populations, it is not correct to believe that MtDNA (or Y choromosomes) is a good indicator of genetic ancestry in general.


 * Why would assortative mating in the Pampas be a hilarious idea? Ninguém (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets deal with the Azores first. The Azores were an uninhabited set of islands until discovered and settled by the Portuguese, of which the northern Portuguese played the biggest part. Next: the study cited clearly shows that the gauchos of Brazil are much more closely related to the peoples in Uruguay and Argentina - regardless of questions of which Iberian inheritance is predominant (see page 164 at the graphs and the phylogenetic tree diagram that shows the various genetic relationships.) On this question the data is unambigious. The researchers chose northern Portuguese as a comparative sample because the north Portuguese are said to have been more representative of Port immigrants. But of course this historic assumption may have led to too narrow a sample. There is room for doubts about the Iberian samples used and as professionals they spelt out these possible sources for mistaken identification, and why - noting the possibilities of drift (genetic drift) and too narrow, and concerns they had at the apparent high rate of mutations for so short a period. This last problem is interesting because population geneticists count the number of mutations to use as a clock - since mutations happen at a predictable rate (unless of course in an enviroment with high levels of radiation or reactive chemicals - those nasty free-radicals that hypochondriacs are always worrying over). This then calls for more investigation. But there is a good possibility (that I won't include in the article) and it is this: they are underestimating the timespan of the gaucho's. Everywhere I look people are saying the gaucho tradition began in the middle of the eighteenth century. THIS IS PATENT RUBBISH. The Spanish introduced cattle ranching into the Uruguay region in 1603. This was the main soutce of wealth for Spanish settlement in this region - one of the regular products sent back to Spain on the convoys was hides. (Spain was famous for its leather products). This cattle ranching had been spreading throughout the Pampa/s area for one and a half centuries BEFORE THE TREATY OF MADRID IN 1750, and in the process creating its own culture and people. This cowboys were practical and independent by nature, going wherever the cattle could prosper - lines on maps meant nothing to them. By the time people started calling these south American cowboys "gauchos or gaúchos" in the early ninteenth century, they were already the result of a cattle rancing tradition stretching back more than two centuries. This may be a full or partial answer to the question of the high level of mutations - because the period these people have existed is longer than usually stated.

As for why I found the idea of assortative mating in tha gaúchos' world so funny is simple. Think about it - in the very tough and rough and frequently lonely world they lived in, the last thing you would expect is selective choices of mates. The very mixed ancestry they clearly have is proof of this. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.143.184 (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You say: The Azores were an uninhabited set of islands until discovered and settled by the Portuguese, of which the northern Portuguese played the biggest part.


 * Maybe; they were settled in the 15th century, which means their settling predates the settling of Rio Grande do Sul for about two or three centuries. Which is more time than the time since the settling of Rio Grande to now. Regardless of that, it is widely known that the Azores received Dutch immigrants - one of the islands, in fact, having been donated to a Dutch gentleman, Joss van Huertere -, much more than continental Portugal. So, even if Northern Portuguese played the biggest part in the settlement of Azores, it cannot be taken for granted that their genetic ancestry is equivalent to that of the Northern Portuguese. But, did the Northern Portuguese play the biggest part in the settlement of the Azores? Likely not. Here you have a good synopsis of Azorean history. See what it says: "As primeiras ilhas povoadas foram as de Santa Maria e de S. Miguel, com famílias idas, por intermédio de Gonçalo Velho, da Estremadura, do Alto Alentejo e do Algarve." - The first to be settled, among the islands, were those of Santa Maria and São Miguel, with families coming, through Gonçalo Velho, from Estremadura, Alto Alentejo, and Algarve. None of these regions is in Northern Portugal; Estremadura and Alto Alentejo are in the center, and Algarve, indeed, in the extreme South. So, no, the Northern Portuguese did not play the biggest part in the settlement of the Azores; the Southern Portuguese did. And we know there are genetic differences between those two populations.


 * You say: the study cited clearly shows that the gauchos of Brazil are much more closely related to the peoples in Uruguay and Argentina.


 * It says that regarding Uruguay, and the context makes clear that such closer relation is linked to Amerindian ancestry - which would be Pampean rather than Guarani -, not to Iberian ancestry. It does not say that regarding Argentina.


 * You say: But there is a good possibility (that I won't include in the article) and it is this: they are underestimating the timespan of the gaucho's. Everywhere I look people are saying the gaucho tradition began in the middle of the eighteenth century. THIS IS PATENT RUBBISH. The Spanish introduced cattle ranching into the Uruguay region in 1603. This was the main soutce of wealth for Spanish settlement in this region - one of the regular products sent back to Spain on the convoys was hides. (Spain was famous for its leather products). This cattle ranching had been spreading throughout the Pampa/s area for one and a half centuries BEFORE THE TREATY OF MADRID IN 1750, and in the process creating its own culture and people. This cowboys were practical and independent by nature, going wherever the cattle could prosper - lines on maps meant nothing to them. By the time people started calling these south American cowboys "gauchos or gaúchos" in the early ninteenth century, they were already the result of a cattle rancing tradition stretching back more than two centuries.


 * You are quite certainly wrong. The Spaniards introduced cattle into the region - more in the Misiones, indeed, than in Uruguay. This cattle was raised and shepherded by Guarani Indians, not by Spanish settlers. The first destruction of the Misiones, in the 17th century, caused this cattle to run feral, in which state it remained well into the 18th century; it is true that a small population lived on this stock, a population that was probably composed of rogue Portuguese, Spaniards, and Pampean Indians - the famous gaudérios. But "living on this stock" didn't mean raising cattle; it was a rather predatory way of life, hunting cattle for meat, and selling the leather in exchange for other goods - cloth, yerba mate, etc. It by no means equates to "cattle ranching". So, no, what you call "PATENT RUBBISH" is not rubbish at all; on the contrary, it is established historic knowledge.


 * You say: This cowboys were practical and independent by nature, going wherever the cattle could prosper - lines on maps meant nothing to them. This is part of the Gaúcho foundational myth, but isn't true. The truth is the opposite: war between Spain and Portugal, and their successors in the region, was intermitent in the region; boundaries were violated (along with property, material wealth, and human lives), but this doesn't mean there was an iddylic "Pampa" open to all people of all races and nationalities.


 * You say: As for why I found the idea of assortative mating in tha gaúchos' world so funny is simple. Think about it - in the very tough and rough and frequently lonely world they lived in, the last thing you would expect is selective choices of mates. The very mixed ancestry they clearly have is proof of this.


 * And again you are wrong. There was an obvious excess of "Iberian" males in the region, with practically no "Iberian" women to match. And these "Iberian" males were, for varied reasons, able to outcompete indigenous males, in practice robbing them of their women. So while Amerindian females may have not been exactly selective about their mates, in practice this makes little difference: they mated "Iberian" males instead of Amerindian ones.


 * On the other hand, "Iberian" males, like in all regions they settled, preferred "whiter" women. This means they would choose half-bred women (daughters of Iberian males and Amerindian women) to "pure" native women, and 3/4 "Iberian"/Amerindian women to half-breds - and so on. And even if they did not have such preference, the fact is that Amerindians were turning on their heels and fleeing the region, to avoid enslaving (or worse fates) since as early as 1756, when Sepé Tiaraju was defeated and killed - so in fact they would have to settle for mixed-race women even if they actually prefered "pure" Amerindian women... And so, the "very mixed" ancestry is also a myth: these people are predominantly of "Iberian" ancestry, even though they have more Amerindian MtDNA: they have 15/16, 31/32, 63/64 "Iberian" genetic ancestry, though it happens that their 1/16, 1/32, or 1/64 Amerindian ancestry coincides with the matrilineal line. And so you have it: a population that is the result of both miscegenation and assortative mating.


 * But thanks for this discussion; it is quite refreshing when compared with the level of the shouting contests usual in this page. Ninguém (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Having read this article, by Rita Gonçalves et alli, Y-chromosome Lineages from Portugal, Madeira and Açores Record Elements of Sephardim and Berber Ancestry, I am increasingly tempted to simply dismiss Marrero's paper. Her data on Portuguese population seems to be not only restricted to a population that is historically known to have had a secondary impact in Rio Grande do Sul, but also outdated and lacking proper - or more modern - discrimination between different haplogroups. R1b, by far the most common Y-haplogroup in Portugal, isn't discriminated, but subsumed into P*, which makes comparisons to populations in South America look quite dubious. Compare it with the data by Gonçalves. Ninguém (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for answers... Ninguém (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To better understand how Y chromosomes are unsufficient to assess genomic ancestry, compare the findings of Marrero (Y chromosomes in Rio Grande do Sul 52% Amerindian, 37% European, 11% African) to this study, that shows autosomic ancestry in Rio Grande do Sul at 69.6% European, 20.4% Amerindian, and 9.9% African. So, again: the "very mixed" ancestry is also a myth: these people are predominantly of "Iberian" ancestry, even though they have more Amerindian MtDNA. Ninguém (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bombastic nationalistic statements, official history
Bombastic nationalistic statements? There is nothing nationalistic here, much less bombastic. Who bothers about the ethnic origin of people on nationalistic grounds? Regardless of this, they are all Brazilians - and a nationalist could even take pride on having "converted" Spaniards, or Uruguayans (or Italians, Germans, Japanese, etc.). Official history? Mkay, let's see the "alternative" history sources that support this tale. Hint: not even Uruguayan or Argentinian official history supports it.

Let's stop inverting the burden of proof. The settlement of the region by Portuguese, Azoreans, and Brazilians from São Paulo, Laguna, Rio de Janeiro, and even Colonia do Sacramento, is documented. Where are the supposed "small Spanish settlements" in Rio Grande do Sul? What are the names of the towns? Who were their founders? What were the dates of their foundation? When were they stormed by the Portuguese or the Brazilians? When, why, and how their populations stopped speaking Castillian and started speaking Portuguese?

When you have some historic evidence that the Spaniards settled Rio Grande do Sul - other than platitudes about the populations on both sides of the border living on cattle, eating barbecue, drinking mate and dressing in a similar fashion - you can revert the information that historic evidence is that there were no Spanish settlements in Rio Grande do Sul. Where are the sources? Ninguém (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

More inversion of the burden of proof
Here, Opinoso asks for sources for this information: "there is no historic evidence of Spanish settlements in the area that is now Rio Grande do Sul".

Here he removes sources that discuss the historic evidence, without mentioning any Spanish settlement in colonial Rio Grande do Sul, claiming "None of these sources say there is "no historic evidence of Spanish settlements in the area that is now Rio Grande do Su" (sic).

This is an inversion of the burden of proof. Opinoso wants Spanish settlements in colonial Rio Grande do Sul. He isn't able to find a single source that supports such idea. Then he asks for a source that explicetly says evidence of his pet theory doesn't exist. Such a source doesn't exist, of course, because the authors of reliable sources have never heard of his personal, unsourced, theory, and therefore felt no need to negate it.

And, Opinoso, discuss here if you want to convince us that there were Spanish settlements in colonial Rio Grande do Sul. With sources, preferably. And without digressions about other, unrelated issues. Ninguém (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Where's the source claiming no Spanish presence in Rio Grande do Sul? Only because a source does not mention their presence there it does not mean they did not settle there. Stop distorting sources to make a point. By the way, there's already a genetic study showing that Gaúchos are of Spanish descent, I don't know why you are still obssessed with this discussion. When are you going to give up with the illusory idea that Gaúchos are of Portuguese descent? Gaúchos are just as mixed as any other Brazilian population of colonial ancestry, with the fantastic peculiarity that they are closer to Spaniards and Amerindians than most Brazilians are.


 * If you want to find European-descended population in Rio Grande, travel to Serra Gaúcha. All those Germans and Italians are the real White ones. Gaúchos are just as mixed as any Amazonian Caboclo. They are not Portuguese. Stop dreaming. Opinoso (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And if you want to find true "Portuguese" in Rio Grande, travel to the coast, around Porto Alegre city, with all those Azoreans. I noticed you also tried to claim that Western Gaúchos are descended from Azoreans who settled on the coast of Rio Grande, hundreds of miles away from them. Azoreans did not move hundreds of miles from the coast and ended up on the border with Argentina. Since you found no evidence of Portuguese settlement in Western Rio Grande, now you are trying to bring the Azoreans who settled in Porto Alegre to the border with Argentina!! Opinoso (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Those sources don't mention Spanish settlements in Rio Grande do Sul because... *gasp*... there weren't Spanish settlements in Rio Grande do Sul.

And your asides about other subjects don't help. Nobody is discussing Serra Gaúcha here. Gaúchos aren't as mixed as Amazonian caboclos; you are again ignorantly confusing MtDNA with genetic ancestry as a whole. And anyway, what has this to do with "Brazilians of Spanish ancestry"?

You still have absolutely no source supporting the existence of Spanish settlements in Rio Grande do Sul, months after the beggining of this discussion. And you will likely never have. So stop being stubborn; if your "genetic study" is right, it completely demolishes all established knowledge about Rio Grande do Sul's demography; history will have to be rewritten. If true, this is a breaktrough, not a confirmation of what we already know. Perhaps it is so; but what you can't do is to pretend that the "findings" of that study are in accordance with historic knowledge.

And of course Azoreans did move hundred miles from the coast and ended up on the border with Argentina. Where do you think the "Dornelles" in "Getúlio Dornelles Vargas" came from? Have you ever heard of "sesmarias"? Dont't you know that the Portuguese distributed sesmarias in Rio Grande do Sul to attract people there? Ninguém (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The source about Spaniards in Rio Grande? The genetic study, nothing proves more than the ancestry of the population. By the way, where's your source claiming any significant Portuguese settlement in Rio Grande, to the point that they would leave genetic evidence of their presence? Phone books will not prove anything.

Everybody already knew that Western Rio Grande was populated by Spaniards, given its similarity with Argentina and Uruguay. The culture is extremely similar, so is their ancestry. You were the only one believing it was similar to Portugal. Only you, and none else.

Don't blame "History" for your lack of knowledge. Only because you don't know something it does not mean it did not exist or that History did not report it. It did, but you were not aware of it.

And Getúlio Vargas's case does not prove there was a movement of Azoreans from Porto Alegre to the border with Argentina. Vargas had actual Azorean ancestry on his mother's side, but it does not mean anything. You will find a few people of Japanese descent in Paraíba. It does not mean that everybody in Paraíba is of Japanese descent anyway.

Where's your source claiming that there was a significant settlement of Azoreans from Porto Alegre on the border with Argentina to the point that they influenced the demography there? By the way, where's your source claiming that there was any Portuguese people populating Western Rio Grande? Opinoso (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So, if this genetic study is correct, all historians are wrong. Anyway, the correct information woulc be, albeit all historic evidence pointing to the contrary, a genetic study shows that..., etc.


 * Your source for the Spanish presence in Rio Grande do Sul is, "everybody already knew". Sorry, this isn't a reliable source.


 * About the presence of Portuguese in Western Rio Grande do Sul, try Flores, Barbosa Lessa, Sandra Pesavento, Arno Kern, Dante de Laytano, Guilhermino César, etc. Try checking the foundation dates and founder names of cities in the region. Ninguém (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spanish Brazilians. 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/20070612202955/http://www.terragaucha.com.br/tratado_de_madri_eng.htm to http://www.terragaucha.com.br/tratado_de_madri_eng.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) 08:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Numbers
How can it be that the numbers in the sources are half or even 10x smaller than the numbers in the article? It is really incredible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5C70:9C92:8908:D45D:7DCD:FB48 (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)