Talk:White Brazilians/Archive 2

Numbers
According to the Wikipedia Brazil has: and other Caucasoid ethnicities.
 * 35 million Portuguese
 * 25 million Italians
 * 12 million Germans
 * 15 million Spaniards
 * 4 million Slavs
 * 11 million Arabs
 * 1 million Lithuanians
 * 295 thousand Jews

This article gives the total 93 millions of the Caucasoid people in Brasil. But the total of the above population lis is 136 milions. How could you explain the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.150.157 (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because many "pardo-brazilians" are in fact whites, because many are blond, with blue eyes and white skin, but many of those "pardo-brazilians" have some non-white parent, and now many of the white brazilians are not racists, for that they're proud of their non-white genes (mainly african) and declared themselves "pardos" (mixed-race). For that, ignoring those "stupid" or "good" brazilians, the white population of Brazil is around 70 % or 134 million people. I have known many white brazilians that think like that: they say that they're non-whites, although you see them and you say that they're whites in United States, in Brazil, in Australia, in Europe.....

Many of those "black brazilians" are in fact really "pardo-brazilians", because many of them have european ancestry even.

A much more reasonable hypothesis: many Brazilians have two "Portuguese" grandparents, one "Italian" grandparent, and one "German" grandparent... or other weird combination like that. So they are often simultaneously "Portuguese" and "Italian" and "German"... or "Polish" or "Spanish" or "Arab". And so you would get each person being counted twice, or three or four times. Or even six or seven, if we count grand-grandparents.

On the other hand, Brazil has about 190,000,000 Brazilians. There may be a small number of Portuguese or Germans, etc, but I doubt the majority of the population is made up of foreigners. Ninguém (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Untrue, because that would happen in USA too, but when the census count the "irish americans" for example, it doesn't count the americans of irish and scottish ancestry in the category of "irish americans". The categories that exist are "irish americans", scottish americans" and "scottish-irish americans".

Why you doubt the majority of the population is made up of "foreigners"?

It's ok, for you and many other Brazil is an underdeveloped country with poverty, favelas and populated by blacks, amerindians and mixed-race people.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.18.40 (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC) But, that is the kernel of the problem here. The US Census does count people by "ancestry". The Brazilian Census does not count people by ancestry. So, all these numbers are mere claims. That's the reason that these numbers are all inflated. Ninguém (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here, the official data about how many national and foreigners there are in Brazil.


 * 169 189 026 Brazil-born Brazilians
 * 173 763 foreign-born Brazilians
 * 510 067 foreigners

So, I seem justified in my doubts. 99.59% of the Brazilian population is made up of non-foreigners. Ninguém (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Demography by Cities
This section consists in a list of "most white" and "least white" towns. The problem is, all these towns are very small, all of them under 50,000 inhabitants, most under 20,000, and many under 10,000. So, this is not a section on "demography by cities" (which would contrast the demography of the main cities, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Brasília, Salvador, Porto Alegre, etc.), but a section of demographical (irrelevant) trivia. It should be either removed, or replaced by an actual discussion of Brazilian main cities' demography. Ninguém (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Immigrants, colonists, and slaves
I have made changes in order to clearly distinguish "immigration" from other populational movements.

Immigrant is someone who goes to a different country, in order to live there, under the laws and customs of that country. Portuguese people who came to Brazil during the colonial period were not immigrants, they were colonists. They came to Brazil as owners of the land, to impose Portuguese law and customs to the land. It is a completely different thing from the Italian or German (or even Portuguese) immigrants that came to Brazil from the XIX century on.

The same would be true of Dutch and French colonists in the XVI and XVII centuries. They were not immigrants. France and the Netherlands militarily conquered parts of Brazil, and made them into French and Dutch colonies. Completely different from peaceful German or Polish immigrants.

And Africans who came to Brazil during the colonial period did not come here as immigrants either. They were forcibly brought as slaves. This should never be whitewashed by counting them among "immigrants". Ninguém (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, stop removing informations from this article. Also, stop using your personal opinions here. This is not allowed in Wikipedia. We only use relieable sources here. If you think colonial Portuguese settlers and African slaves were not "immigrants", this is your personal opinion.

Moreover, you claimed Brazil had its Independece in 1922 (?). Please, read before posting. Again, to remove informations and include unsources informations in Wikipedia are not allowed and are vandalism. Opinoso (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Slaves and colonists are not immigrants. This is not personal opinion, the words have different meanings.

The information removed is irrelevant; since when the demography of Brazilian cities is the demography of a dozen small towns?

1922 was a typo, of course. Correct it. Ninguém (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hegemony
The article stated, incorrectly, that the "hegemony" of Portuguese among Brazilian Whites "ended".

This is, erm, ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of Brazilian Whites are of Portuguese colonial descent. Even most "Italian Brazilians" (as Wikipedia wrongly calls these people) are usually of Portuguese descent.

Miscigenation is the rule, not the exception. And this means, "Italian Brazilians", "German Brazilians", etc, are being assimilated into the much bigger "Brazilian Brazilian" society. Ninguém (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have reliable sources to support your claims? No sources, no posts. Please, stop flooding this talk page with this. Opinoso (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you want me to do, to pick the Lista Telefônica and count Portuguese surnames vc Italian or German surnames?

In Brazil, it is impossible to separate people from Portuguese descent from People of Italian or German - or African, for what is worth - descent. A typical Brazilian is a mixture of those.

And no, you can't conclude that there are more "Italians" than "Portuguese" in Brazil from the fact that more Italians than Portuguese came to Brazil. The Portuguese came three centuries before, and they reproduced a lot before the Italians arrived.

Stop you edit war, please. Ninguém (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't take a look at the Lista Telefônica, but I checked the UFSC (Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina) vestibular list. For instance, of those who passed to Civil Engineering course, 20 have Portuguese surnames, 13 Italian surnames, 7 German surnames, 6 Portuguese and Italian surnames, 3 Portuguese and German surnames, 3 Italian and German surnames, 2 Polish surnames, 1 Portuguese and Japanese surnames, 1 Italian and Arabic surnames. This means, 30 people with at least partial Portuguese ancestry, and 26 with no Portuguese ancestry identifiable through their surnames.

And this is Santa Catarina, where German and Italian immigration are notoriously very important. Ninguém (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Having a Portuguese surname does not mean this person has Portuguese ancestry. Africans and Amerindians received Portuguese surnames when they were assimilated. Also, other immigrants to Brazil had their original surnames changed to a more Portuguese surname. I have Italian ancestors who had their Italian surname changed to a Portuguese surname when they first arrived to Brazil. I also have a black ancestor who had a typical Portuguese last name. Then, your argument is failed. Please, stop with this Portuguese obsession. Opinoso (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You make a good point, Opinoso. The African and Amerindians were given Portuguese last names when they converted to Catholicism (in case of the Amerindians) or received their slave master's last name (in case of the Africans). You also have male Portuguese settlers intermarrying with the females of those two groups passing which the male's Portuguese last name is passed down.
 * It's like saying most Americans are of British descent because most last names in the phone book is of either English, Scottish, or Welsh origin. Majority of African-Americans have British last names, but don't have British ancestry. In fact most White Americans are of German descent, then follow by the Irish, the British are third. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you two seriously arguing that a significant number of blacks were approved to University in Santa Catarina?189.27.6.23 (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, having only Italian surnames does not mean that someone does not have Portuguese (or German, or Japanese) ancestors, since surnames are only transmitted on the patrilineal side... it can be only used as statistic evidence: the fact that over 50% of Civil Engineering freshmen in UFSC have Portuguese surnames only points to at least 50% of White people in Santa Catarina having at least one Portuguese ancestor. Ninguém (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't be serious. First of all: a list with names of students of a university is not a reliable source to claim anything. Wikipedia uses reliable sources made by serious people, not personal sources made by Wikipedia users. Second: if you get a list with name of students from the town of Pomerode (90% of people with German descent), you will find only German surnames there. Then, will you claim that 90% of white Brazilians are of German descent because in Pomerode they all have German surnames??

And if you get a list from a school from Salvador, Bahia, all the students will have Portuguese surnames. Then will you assume they are Portuguese?? No, because most people in Salvador are blacks.

To the racist IP who thinks black people cannot be approved to an University in Santa Catarina, I think he should find a racist forum to post this comment. He should be blocked from Wikipedia for that pathetic comment.

I think Ninguém did not read carefully what we and Lehoiberri wrote: Africans and Amerindians received Portuguese surnames in Brazil. Most black Brazilians (if not all) have Portuguese surnames. Silva, Santos, do Nascimento, Pereira are typical Portuguese last names, and a large number of black Brazilian have these surnames. Nobody can assume black Brazilian soccer player Pelé (real name: Edson Arantes do Nascimento) is of Portuguese descent, because his last names are Portuguese. Nobody can assume former black governor of Rio de Janeiro Benedita da Silva is Portuguese too.

And many (probably most) of those colonial Portuguese settlers in Brazil did mix with Africans and Amerindians. Most of their descendants do not make up the White population of Brazil, but the black or pardo ones. It's only a matter of History and demography. The regions largely settled by colonial Portuguese are now the ones with the largest numbers of blacks and pardos. You assume most white Brazilians are descended from colonial Portuguese settlers, but you're wrong. Most of them are non-whites, mainly in the called pardo group. And the Brazilian government counts pardos as being blacks. Then, most colonial Portuguese settlers in Brazil have descendants who are now counted as black by the Brazilian government. On the other hand, the regions that received the immigrants who arrived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries concentrate the white population. Then, your argument that white Brazilians are mainly of colonial Portuguese stock is also failed.

This article is about White Brazilians. Nobody can assume these people from the University of Santa Catarina with Portuguese surnames have any Portuguese ancestry. Moreover, nobody can assume they are Whites. The fact that Santa Catarina is mostly white, does not mean these students from the University are whites. Again, this is not the place for personal opinions. Only reliable sources are accepted. Opinoso (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So you think it is racist to doubt that many blacks were approved to the UFSC? But this very article states that the population of Santa Catarina is 87% white, so, even if there were absolutely equal opportunities for blacks and whites, we shouldn't expect UFSC students to be more than 13% non-white.

You don't seem to understand how statistics work. A random list of Pomerode citizens will have more than 90% percent of German surnames. That's because more than 90% of Pomerode citizens have German surnames, and this in turn is because more than 90% of Pomerode citizens are of German descent. However, it says nothing about people that are not from Pomerode. And Pomerode is a town of what, about 5,000 inhabitants? A random list of citizens of Florianópolis will reflect the population of Florianópolis; if it has about 50% of Portuguese surnames, then this probably means that about 50% of Florianópolis inhabitants have Portuguese surnames. And that probably means that about 37% of Florianópolis' inhabitants are whites of Portuguese descent - taking into consideration the 13% of non-whites that we should expect. Now, Florianópolis is city of some 300,000 inhabitants, so it carries much more weight than Pomerode.

You can of course object that a list of college freshmen isn't randomic. And you would be right, it isn't. It is certainly skewed against the poorer layers of the population, who don't get to go to school. This would probably, in the context of Southern Brazil, mean that it is skewed against non-whites, and perhaps, skewed in favour of people of German descent. These skews, however, would make me think that the percent of whites of Portuguese descent among Florianópolis' citizens is higher, not lower, than that on the college freshmen list.189.27.6.23 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you talk a lot about sources, but none of the sources in the article seem to state that "the hegemony of the white Portuguese ethnicity had its end only in 1824", or even to corroborate such idea. Can you please point exactly to what source has lead you to believe this?189.27.6.23 (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are Ninguém and this IP number the same person? Please, wake up. Until the early 19th century, the only group of Europeans who definitely settled Brazil were the Portuguese. Other Europeans who tried to establish themselves here (French, Dutch, etc) were expelled after some years. The first non-Portuguese organized group who settled Brazil and remained here forever were, actually, the Swiss immigrants of Nova Friburgo (1818). But, from 1824, Germans started to settle many areas of Southern Brazil, to the point they made up the main European group in that region. Then, the Portuguese lost their hegemony in this area of Brazil:

Hegemony: 1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation. 2. leadership; predominance.

With the arrival of the Italians (1875), both Portuguese and Germans lost their hegemony in Southern Brazil and in the state of São Paulo (the most populate state of Brazil), since the Italian ancestry is the most common there. Other groups, such as Spaniards and Poles also contributed to this. Then, the Portuguese are not the main White group of many areas in Brazil since 1824, with the arrival of Germans and mainly after the 1880s, with the growth of Spanish, Italian and Polish immigration.

The Portuguese are still the main European ancestry of Brazilians of all races and of White Brazilians in general. But they are not the hegemony since a long time ago. It's like claiming the English are still the hegemony of the White population of the United States. But, as Lehoiberri said, Germans are the main European ancestry in the USA, followerd by Irish and English in third place. Of course, in Brazil the Portuguese are still in first place, but they are not alone since 1818 when the first Swiss people settled in the mountains of Rio de Janeiro. Opinoso (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ninguém, if you keep removing informations from this article and posting the "fact tag" in informations that already have a source, I will contact an administrator once again. Also, you are posting with this IP numbers (189.27.6.23, 189.27.19.95), witch are your sockpopets, which is also not allowed here (to use sockpopets is also a vandalism). Please, stop it. Opinoso (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Portuguese are still the main European ancestry of Brazilians of all races and of White Brazilians in general."

Which, in short, means, the Portuguese are still hegemonic among white Brazilians - which has been my point since the begining. If you want to say that they are no longer hegemonic in certain regions, then say that. And give sources for the demography of such regions.

And congratulations for finally having recognised that your information on "German Brazilians" was grossly inflated. Now how about deflating the number of "Arab Brazilians", too?

Oh, and about your bureaucratic concerns. First, when anyone else provides unsourced information, you simply delete it, and make obnoxious remarks in the talk page. I am simply asking for the sources of your unsourced information. This is not vandalism.

Your "source" for the number of Italian Brazilians does not have a word about the subject. And even if it had, it is merely a commercial association; it has no authority on demographic issues.

And I don't use sockpuppets. Those IPs are my computer IPs and appear when I forget to log in or disconect for accident and don't notice it.

Stop behaving as if you were the owner of this article. Ninguém (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and since you now agree that "The Portuguese are still the main European ancestry of Brazilians of all races and of White Brazilians in general", I am restoring this information to the article. "Most White Brazilians", not "Many Brazilians". Ninguém (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since, even after being blocked, you keep removing sourced informations, changing informations without discussion and causing troubles in this article, I am obligated to contact an administrator once again. Opinoso (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What sourced information, and what original research? Ninguém (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * STOP trying to destroy this article. Stop manipulating the numbers. Wikipedia does not allow users to write their own conclusions in this article. Why are you assuming the number of 25 million Italian Brazilians is exagerated? And where did you get the number 15 million from?

Why are you trying to diminish the Italian, German and Arab-descend population of Brazil, and trying to inflate the Portuguese? Stop with this Portuguese obsession. If you have all this obsession with Portugal, there are many articles about this country in Wikipedia. You should write about Portuguese subjects, not about Brazilian. Git it up. I won't leave you destroy this article with your obsession. Opinoso (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to destroy anything. I am not manipulating numbers. The official data about immigration to Brazil are the IBGE data. If you think they are wrong, find a source that makes that claim, and post it alongside with the IBGE numbers.

Wikipedia does not allow original research. This is completely different from taking evident conclusions from the available data.

The 25,000,000 Italian descendents is exaggerated because not enough Italians arrived to Brazil to reproduce into 25,000,000 people. They were Italians, not rabbits. The same goes for the 18,000,000 people of German descent. The same goes for the 10,000,000 people of Arab descent. Those numbers are inflated; they do not match the known data about immigration to Brazil.

I am not trying to diminish anything. I'm trying to establish reliable numbers, instead of fantasies. And thanks, but I am not interested in Portugal or Portuguese culture, nor do I know enough about the subject to write about it.

Stop behaving as if you were the owner of this article.

And, oh. Stop calling people racists for no good reason. It already got you blocked twice. Ninguém (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To "take evident conclusions" is the same to do original resources. And, yes, you are obsessed with Portugal. By the way, when did I call you racist? Moreover, do you have all that free time to be checking for what reasons I have been blocked before? You should learn about Italian or German immigration to Brazil, not waste time checking my account.

The Italian embassy in Brasilia claims there are 25 million people of Italian descent in Brazil. An embassy is the greatest representation of the Italian nation in Brazil. Are you really claiming the Italian Embassy is lying??

The site of the Italian Embassy in Brasilia says: "Italian presence in Brazil has a long tradition and goes back many years ago. Today the patricians living in the country are more than 300,000 and include, above all, more than 25 million Brazilians of Italian origin"

The ItalPlanet.com website, a notable site to Italian immigrants in the world, also reports 25 million: "Today approximately 25 million people of Italian descent live in Brazil. They are leading business tycoons and politicians. 1875-2005: 130 years of Italian history in Brazil".. Edoardo Pollastri, president of the Italian-Brazilian Chamber of Commerce, is the one also reporting 25 million.

There are no sources on the Internet claiming this numbers is exaggerate. And you are posting an IBGE site as a "source", to claim there are only 15 million people of Italian descent in Brazil. The IBGE cite does not even talk about Italians in Brazil. You are taking your own conclusions, wich is not allowed, which is vandalism.

The Embassy of Lebanon is Brazil claims there are 7 million people of Lebanese descent here: "Population of migrants: 14 million (of which about 7 million are in Brazil)".

Do you have a reliable source to claim that the Italian and lebanese governments are lying and "exaggerating" about the number of people with origins in their countries? Because if there's no source, I will have to assume that you are only trying to destroy this article.

I don't know why you are doing that, you probably have personal problems with Italy and Italians, but you should assume good-faith when posting here in Wikipedia. I don't know from which part of Brazil you are. But you should travel more to other areas of Brazil where the immigrants had great impact. Anyway, I won't let you destroy this article with wrong information. Give it up. Opinoso (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to report your personal attacks. Ninguém (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Next time, only write here using reliable sources, not personal opinions. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and we don't let anyone include fake informations. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"We"? Since when you are Wikipedia? Ninguém (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, do these embassies conduct actual research on demographic data?

Their business is to represent their countries abroad, they are not scientific or demographic institutes. So the question remains; where did the embassies found their figures? Ninguém (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, you need to understand how sources work. ItalNet, the Câmara Ítalo-Brasileira de Comércio, and the Italian Embassy aren't three different sources. The article in ItalNet was written by the chairman of the CIBC, and the source of the information in the CIBC page is the Embassy. So there is only one source there, and it is the Embassy. And while I am not claiming they are lying, I am claiming that they are not, in themselves, a reliable source on the subject, and that they do not provide, in their site, any reliable source for the information. The same goes, with more reason, for the Lebanese Embassy.

Now, there is one reliable source about Brazilian demography that I know. It is the IBGE. Unhappily, the IBGE does not conduct research on the "ethnicity" of Brazilians. Probably because it thinks, like most Brazilians, that it is a non-issue. It does, however, keep track of the number of immigrants to Brazil. And the number of Italian immigrants to Brazil, according to them, is of about 1,500,000. Now look, the number of Italian immigrants to the United states was of about 5 million people. However, as of the year 2000, according to the US Census, there were only 15,600,000 people of Italian descent in the United States. So, can you explain how 5 million Italian immigrants to the United States would result in 15,600,000 Italian Americans, but 1.5 million Italian immigrants to Brazil would result in 25,000,000 Brazilians of Italian descent?

The only other source I could find on the ancestry of Brazilians is the Censo Étnico-Racial da USP. It gives a figure of 30.5% of people of Italian descent among USP college students. This figure is much lower than the figures usually associated with the 25 million myth (for instance, [this site]), which come with figures up to 6 million oriundi just in São Paulo city (almost 60% of the population).

I know, you will again talk about "original research". This another concept you seem to be confusing. It may be original research to state that "there are 15 million Brazilians of Italian descent". But it is not original research to state "according to the IBGE, there were 1.5 million Italian immigrants to Brazil, and unless the IBGE is wrong, or the Italian immigrants reproduced at a much higher rate than the rest of the Brazilian population, the figure of 25 million Brazilians of Italian descent seems completely exaggerated, and the IBGE data would seem to point to a maximum of 15 million such people". This is not original research; it merely follows from the data. Ninguém (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha, found what I was looking for. This paper, which is serious research about the issue, estimates a maximum ("irrealistic") of 25% of Brazilians of "immigrant descent" for 1980, with a most probable figure between 14.80% and 18.58%. While this does not discriminate the different national origins of immigrants, it would mean, projected into 2000, an absolute, and irrealistic, maximum at 42.5 million, and a realistic number of about 31.57 million people of all immigrant origins. Considering that Italians were 30% of all immigrants, this would mean a maximum of about 13 million and a realistic number of 10 million people of Italian descent in Brazil. Now, these numbers would probably be a little understated, since the fertility rate of Italian female immigrants to Brazil was a little bit higher than that of immigrants of other origins (though not than that of Brazilian women in general). In any case, I hope this puts to a definitive rest the tale of 25 million Brazilians of Italian descent. Ninguém (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with this article
Well, I think the issues are the following:

1. It is necessary to correct the religion line in the factbox about White Brazilians.

It stands like this:

"Predominantly Catholic . Protestant . Jewish minority"

The Brazilian population is predominantly Catholic. According to the IBGE, there are 124,980,132 Catholics among a population of 169,872,856 inhabitants. This is 73.57% of the Brazilian population, or a clear predominance. And while the IBGE does not break its data according to religion and race, there is no reason to believe there is a significant difference between the proportion of Catholics among Whites and non-Whites.

The biggest religious minority among Brazilians is Protestantism. According to the IBGE, there are 26,184,941 Protestants in Brazil. This is 16.59% of the Brazilian population. And while traditional Protestantism (especially Luteranism) is certainly more important among Whites than among non-Whites, the opposite is true of Pentecostal Protestantism, which is more popular among non-Whites (in the mean, I think, the proportion of Protestants in general among whites does not deviate too much from the Brazilian average). To notice, there are about 7,000,000 traditional Protestants in Brazil, compared to some 17,000,000 Pentecostal Protestants.

Now, 16.59% is clearly not “predominant”; it is a significant minority, but it cannot be compared to the Catholic predominance, which is more than four times bigger.

More importantly, there are, always according to the IBGE, 86,825 Jews in Brazil. This is 0.05% of the population. Grantedly, those Jews are all White, so their proportion among the White Brazilian population is more important – about 0.11%...

So we have,


 * ~74% Catholics
 * ~17% Protestants
 * 0.11% Jews, totalling
 * ~91% of White Brazilians.

Who are the missing 9%?

First, 12,492,403 Non-Religious people, or 7.49% of Brazilians. Certainly a minority, but a much bigger one than Brazilian Jews. There is no reason to believe that their share of Brazilian Whites is smaller than that of the population at large.

Second, 2,262,401 Kardecists (or Spiritists), making 1.33% of the population (and probably a bit more of White Brazilians). Certainly, a much bigger minority than Brazilian Jews.

Third,

1,104,886 Jeovah Witnesses; 500,582 Brazilian Catholics; 199,645 Mormons; 38,060 Orthodox; 235,532 Other Christians; totalling

2,078,705 people who consider themselves Christian, but not either Protestant or Roman Catholic.

This would be 1.22% of the Brazilian population. Moreover, due to the presence of Jeovah Witnesses, Mormons, and Orthodoxes, I would say that this religious segment would be somewhat more important among Whites than among non-Whites. But even without this, it is clear that there are many more White “Other Christians” than Jews in Brazil.

Non-religious, Kardecists, and “Other Christians” should certainly be included in the factbox if Jews are; and, if they aren't, neither should Jews.

I propose one of the following alternatives:


 * a) Predominantly Catholic.
 * b) Predominantly Catholic, with Protestant and Non-Religious minorities.
 * c) Predominantly Catholic, with Protestant and Non-Religious significant minorities, smaller Kardecist and Other Christian minorities.
 * d) Predominantly Catholic, Protestant and Non-Religious significant minorities, smaller Kardecist and Other Christian minorities; many small religious minorities, including Jews and adepts of Afro-Brazilian religions.

I would be happier with the later, that seems to me more inclusive, but any of them seem reasonable.

2. The article states,

"“The majority of White Brazilians are of Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, and German descent.”"

The correct is,

“The majority of White Brazilians are of Portuguese descent, with significant minorities of Italian, German, and Spanish descent.”

As Opinoso himself recognised, the majority of White Brazilians is of Portuguese descent. As for the Spanish, while I am not willing to fight about this, it should be noticed that most Spaniards who came to Brazil were from Galizia, a region of Spain where a Portuguese dialect, Galician, is spoken. So they would have usually been perceived by the Brazilian populace as Portuguese, not Spanish; moreover, another significant group of “Spanish” immigrants would be Basque, and I wonder whether they should be included in the category of “Spanish Immigrants”. For instance, former dictator Emílio Garrastazu Médici, often given as an example of “Italian Brazilian”, is also of Basque descent. I doubt anyone would consider him “Spanish Brazilian”.

3. The article talks about both the Portuguese settlers of colonial Brazil and the African slaves they brought to Brazil as “immigrants”.

But, first, they were not immigrants; the former came here to occupy the land and make it a Portuguese possession; the later were brought here against their will. Both situations are completely different from the European immigrants who arrived from the late XIX century on, to peacefully settle under the laws and uses of independent Brazil. Second, Brazilians certainly make a big difference between Portuguese immigrants and their descent (“Galegos”, “Portugas”, “Lusos”, “Tugas”, “Lusitanos”), who are often victims of prejudice, and the usual target of Brazilian “Polish Jokes”, and people descended from the colonial settlers (“Pelos-duros”). To erase such difference is to mislead the reader about racial relations in Brazil.

4. The concept of “hegemony” has to go. As previously stated, and as agreed by Opinoso, the majority of Brazilian Whites are of Portuguese descent, so it makes no sence to talk about the “end” of Portuguese “hegemony” in White Brazilian ethnicity. To correct this, it should be stated that the majority of White Brazilians are of Portuguese descent. The word “hegemony” shouldn't be used. It implies some kind of competition among the various ethnicities on which of them has the most people. And this is something that does not exist.

5. The French and the Dutch conquered territory in Brazil in order to establish their presence here: see Dutch Brazil, France Équinoxiale and France Antarctique. This should be stated clearly, with no subterfuges. There is no reason not to do it.

6. Most of the settlers during the colonial period were Portuguese, including Portuguese Jews. There is no need to say that some were “actually” Jews, as if that precluded their being Portuguese. They were Portuguese subjects, and Portuguese anti-semitism at the time was a religious kind of anti-semitism. Jews that converted into Christianism would be considered Portuguese.

7. Italians arriving in Brazil in the early 20th century, were mostly employed in the coffee plantations in the Southeast. This is an important difference from the Italian immigrants that arrived earlier and went to the South, who mostly became small landed proprietors.

8. The Southern states were not “mainly settled by German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish immigrants.” They received huge numbers of German, Italian, and Polish (but not Portuguese or Spanish) immigrants, but when such happened, they had already been settled, and were widely recognised as part of Brasil (see Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Paraná). And São Paulo did receive many Portuguese and Spanish immigrants, but not German ones.

9. North and Northeast don't both have a stronger Afro-Brazilian and Indigenous influence. The North has a stronger Indigenous influence, and parts of the Northeast, namely Bahia, Alagoas and Pernambuco, but especially the former, have a strong African influence.

10. The list of small towns in the “Demography by Cities and Towns” section should have the number of inhabitants of each one. I don't know why such information is systematically removed, but readers have a right to know that one-race cities are very small and unrepresentative of Brazil.

A serious "Demography by Cities and Towns" section, on the other hand, should discuss the demography of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte, Brasília, Salvador, Porto Alegre, Fortaleza, Curitiba, Recife, Belém, Campinas, etc.

11. Pedras Grandes is in Santa Catarina, not in Rio Grande do Sul. Apparently solved.

12. The figures of people of Italian and Arab descent should be better, and seriously, discussed.

The IBGE, which is the official source of demographic information about Brazil, does not provide figures of people by descent. It does, however, provide the number of immigrants arriving in Brazil, by date and origin. From its figures, it is clear that:

About 1,500,000 Italian immigrants arrived in Brazil, from the late XIX century to the end of immigration. If there indeed were 25,000,000 people of Italian descent in Brazil, either,
 * the IBGE numbers are wrong, and sources should be quoted stating it and providing evidence that they so are; or
 * the Italian immigrants and their offspring in Brazil reproduce almost at the double rate than other Brazilians. Sources would be needed to substantiate that claim.

The same goes for the Lebanese. According to the IBGE, about 100,000 Syrians and Lebanese came to Brazil in the immigration period. If there indeed were 10,000,000 people of Lebanese descent in Brazil, either,


 * the IBGE numbers are wrong, and sources should be quoted stating it and providing evidence that they so are; or
 * the Lebanese immigrants and their offspring in Brazil reproduce almost at ten times the rate than other Brazilians. Sources would be needed to substantiate that claim.

If the IBGE figures are right, which I assume them to be until evidence of the contrary, and if the reproduction rate of immigrants is similar to that of the rest of Brazilians, which I also assume true until evidence of the contrary, then people of Italian descent in Brazil should be, at the very most, about 16,000,000, and people of Lebanese descent, also at the very most, about 1,000,000.

Italian and Lebanese embassies and consulates are not authorities on demographic issues. They do not conduct or sponsor demographic research. Their claims should be taken with a grain of salt, and reported as just that, claims, not as the absolute truth, especially when they contradict the Brazilian demographic authority – the IBGE.

The figure of 25,000,000 people of Italian descent seems to be a mere meme. It probably is the result of this miscalculation:


 * a) The total population of Brazil in 1872 was of 9,930,478. In the year 2008, it was of 169,872,856. It was multiplied by a factor of 17.11.
 * b) The number of Italian immigrants to Brazil, starting from 1872, was of 1,507,695. Multiplied by a factor of 17.11, this is 25,790,949.

This reasoning would be correct if all 1,500,000 Italian immigrants came to Brazil in 1872. But they didn't; they came during a period of more than 50 years, so the initial “Italian” population of Brazil in 1872 was not of a million and half. A calculation that takes into account the number of Italian immigrants arriving during this period, distributing them on a simple average during those years, and interpolating the numbers for the whole Brazilian population would give a projection of about 15,900,000 people of Italian descent in Brazil. This number is still possibly overestimated though, since:

a) it does not take into account the numbers of immigrants who went back to Italy or further emigrated to the USA; b) it does not take into account that not all populational growth of Brazil was due to internal reproduction (ie, one factor that made Brazilian population grow by 1611% was immigration itself; without it, growth would be somewhat smaller). c) it assumes an even distribution of immigration over a given period; in the period of 1884-1893, for instance, it assumes 1/10 of the 510,533 immigrants of the whole decade arrived each year – when in fact, the immigration quite certainly grew during the period, with less than 1/10 arriving in 1884, and more than that in 1893.

As for the figure of 10,000,000 people of Arab descent in Brazil, I have no idea where this comes from. It certainly does not match Brazilian reality, and it is even more of an overestimation than the figures for Italians. Anyone acquainted to Brazil knows the proportion between people of Italian descent and Arab descent is much higher than 2.5:1. Arab immigrants to Brazil were something like 1/15 of Italian immigrants, and, in average, they arrived quite later. Of course, it is possible that even the majority of Brazilians do have Arab/Berber ancestry, because the Portuguese themselves were highly mixed with their Muslism conquerors. But this is certainly not what is ordinarily considered “Arab Brazilian” in Brazil, and it certainly seems a totally unwarranted overextension of the concept.

As for 18,000,000 people of German descent in Brazil, it is a figure given by historian Dieter Böhnke, not endorsed even by German diplomatic offices in Brazil, that claim a figure of 5,000,000. I never found the reasoning that supports it, but Böhnke does start the history of the German presence in Brazil from 1500; according to him, Pedro Álvares Cabral's cook was German. So perhaps this is how he arrives at such numbers. In any case, I see absolutely no reason to hide the information that Dieter Böhnke is the source that claims there are 18,000,000 people of German descent in Brazil. Ninguém (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But the real point here is a different one. Neither this misinformation nor this discussion belong in this article: not all "Italian Brazilians", "Arab Brazilians", etc. are White, so it is misleading to place their numbers, either correct of incorrect, in an article about "White Brazilians". They should, consequently, be removed, and their accuracy should be debated in other articles (Demography of Brazil, Immigration to Brazil, Italian Brazilian, Arab Brazilian, Spanish Brazilian, Portuguese Brazilian, Population of Brazil, etc. Ninguém (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The concept of "White"
A further problem with this article is that it does not discuss the concept of "White".

It is quite evident, however, that such concept is very different in Brazil compared with the Anglo-Saxon countries; first, because the USA has a "racial" category, "Latino" that, for obvious reasons, does not exist in Brazil (most people discussed in this article as "White" would be considered "Latino" - and "Latino" implying "non-White" - in the USA). Second, because the way Brazilians understand race (which is usually called "cor", meaning "colour") is radically different. This article goes to the heart of the issue:

"In Brazil, not withstanding relatively large levels of genetic admixture and a myth of “racial democracy,” there exists a widespread social prejudice that seems to be particularly connected to the physical appearance of the individual (8). Color (in Portuguese, cor) denotes the Brazilian equivalent of the English term race (raça) and is based on a complex phenotypic evaluation that takes into account, besides skin pigmentation, hair type, nose shape, and lip shape (4, 9). The reason the word Color (capitalized to call attention to this particular meaning) is preferred to race in Brazil is probably because it captures the continuous aspects of phenotypes (4). In contrast with the situation in the United States, there appears to be no racial descent rule operational in Brazil and it is possible for two siblings differing in Color to belong to completely diverse racial categories (8). The Brazilian emphasis on physical appearance rather than ancestry is demonstrated by the fact that in a large survey when asked about their origins (the question admitted multiple responses) <10% of Brazilian black individuals gave Africa as one of their answers."


 * If you look at the US Census Bureau's race and ethnicity categories, you'll see that this, the standard for US demographics, doesn't treat White and Hispanic/Latino as mutually exclusive — Brownsville, Texas, a city on the Mexican border, is 81% White and 91% Hispanic/Latino. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, true. But in common usage, most Americans think of race as a three way system, White/Black/Latino, not as a 2x2 matrix White/White Latino/Black/Black Latino. And to explain race in Brazil to American users is to explain it to people acquainted to common usage, not to people acquainted to the Census categories. Ninguém (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have completely rewrote the lead section, so that it actually explains what is a "White Brazilian". Ninguém (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Italians
Please, Opinoso, can you explain what is wrong with quoting Fabio Porta ?

If I say that the Embassy figures are inflated, you say it is original research. Now if I quote an Italian parlamentary representative stating that the Italian authorities are manipulating numbers, you simply erase the edit (along with completely harmless improvements of unrelated references), calling it "vandalism"? Why? Ninguém (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide English cites per policy? thank you, --Tom 23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unhappily, I haven't found them.

Here is what Fabio Porta says, in Portuguese:

“Esses números são usados como alarmismo e terrorismo porque não são reais. O processo para obter a cidadania é complicado e a grande maioria nem tem condições de conseguir a documentação necessária.”

Here, an attempt at translation:

"These figures are used in an alarmist and terrorist way, because they are not real. The process to attain Italian citizenship is complicated, and the great majority doesn't even have conditions to obtain the necessary documents." Ninguém (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fábio Porta was not even talking about the figure of 25 million people of Italian descent. He was talking about the sentence of an Italian Ministry, who claimed that around 5 million people in São Paulo are able to become Italian citizens if it was their wish. Fábio Porta does not agreed with him, then he said that many of these 5 million would not find the necessary documents to become Italian citizens.

A person can have Italian ancestry and not be able to find the documents to get an Italian citizenship (like the Birth certificate of the Italian ancestors). Moreover, people with maternal Italian ancestry or people whose Italian ancestors were naturalized Brazilians are also not able to become Italian citizens. That's what Fabio Porta as talking about the figure of 5 million "future Italian citizens" is not correct. He was not talking about the figure of 25 million Brazilians of Italian descent.

Next time, assume good-faith, and stop manipulating the informations of sources in Portuguese, because most people cannot read Portuguese, then you are using any information to attack everything about Italians in this article. Stop attacking the informations of Italians. What's your problem with Italians? Why are you so obsessed with Portuguese? Opinoso (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Broken Links
Opinoso, stop removing fact tags when the links are broken. Broken links are not valid sources. Ninguém (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's funny, because you use Phone Books as source. You claimed everybody with Portuguese surnames, such as Silva, Pereira, Nascimento or do Santos are Portuguese (which would include Edson Arantes do Nascimento and Benedita da Silva. I didn't know both were Portuguese.

How about Douglas Silva. Portuguese too? Silva is a Portuguese surname, then according to your theory, Douglas is Portuguese. Do you know if he has Portuguese citizenship?? Tell me.

Moreover, you also claimed people from Calabria are not Italians...then, what are they? I'd like to know where you take all these informations from.

You need to learn what is a source, not me. Moreover, stop removing sources informations from this article. This is vandalism. And, unfurtunetly, I'm not on vacation anymore, then I cannot waste my time with you anymore. But I'm surprised that you are spending hours a day checking my account, looking at my contributions...do you find my account that interesting. Please, do not waste your time with my account. There are funnier things to do. Opinoso (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I never used phone books as sources. I asked you if I should, which is a very different thing.

Nor did I claim that "everybody with Portuguese surnames" are of Portuguese descent. I said, and it is true, that among college students of the UFSC - in the most white of Brazilian states - those with Portuguese surnames would be, in their overwhelming majority, Whites of Portuguese descent. I don't know if Douglas Silva is of Portuguese descent, but I know he is not a college student in Santa Catarina.

Also, I did not claim "people from Calabria are not Italians". I said this was another discussion. Because, Opinoso, until 1872 there wasn't a country called Italy.

And even if I did all that, it would not change the fact that broken links are not valid sources. Either other sources have to be found, or the information removed. Ninguém (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you claimed that, using the Phone Book, Brazilians with Portuguese surnames are of Portuguese descent:

"What do you want me to do, to pick the Lista Telefônica and count Portuguese surnames vc Italian or German surnames?"

Funny. Because if you get a Phone Book from Harlem (predominantly African-American community) most of them will have British surnames. Then, would you assume Harlem is a British community?? The same goes for Salvador, Bahia (predominantly African-Brazilian city).

The same also goes for Santa Catarina. Even though it is "predominantly white", the Phone Books does not tell anything about people's ancestry. Everybody knows that those "ancient" Portuguese settlers mixed a lot with Africans and Amerindians, and Santa Catarina was not an exception.

In Brazil, nobody can claim to be of "colonial Portuguese descent". First of all: it's really impossible to know exactly if the ancestry is 100% traced to Portuguese. In fact, it's really impossible, because the vast majority of Portuguese colonists were men, with insignificant presence of women. The "white" colonial Brazilian population was a result of centuries of intermarriage between white males and non-white females. Those who looked white "passed as white", which was common in Latin American, but almost impossible in countries such as USA. Only the noble families could claim to be 100% Portuguese. The rest, no way. Then, people who are proud of "colonial Portuguese ancestry" should learn more about their own ancestry.

You love to claim most "white" Brazilians are of colonial Portuguese descent, but according to the Job Resource in Metropolitan Areas that you brought, the main ancestry reported by White Brazilians (besides Brazilian itself) is Italian. And do not make up theories that the "Brazilian ancestry" is in fact Portuguese. That resource only shows that nobody in Brazil keeps a "colonial Portuguese identity", because people who claimed their ancestry as Portuguese are the descendants of the more recent immigrants (late 19th and early 20th centuries). Because nobody with an acestry dating back to 300-400 years ago would keep a Portuguese identity, not only because it's an old ancestry, but also because few people (if any) can really claim to be 100% "colonial Portuguese".

Then, your beloved theory that colonial Portuguese ancestry is the majority is nonsense.

Yes, you also claimed people from Calabria are not Italians:


 * personal information removed*

This one is hilarious. My Italian language teacher is from Calabria. I always though he was Italian. He introduced himself as Italian. But since Ninguém claimed Calabrians are not Italians, next class I'll ask my teacher what he is. I'm really curious to know what Calabrians are (since Ninguém claims them as "non-Italians"). Later I'll post here his answer to this smart question. Opinoso (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

First, if about 80% of Brazilians do not claim to be of any "foreign" descent, but only to be of "Brazilian" ancestry... this means exactly what? That they are of Italian, or German descent? Or that they don't know, or recognise, or even simply aren't of any "foreign" descent? Your "personal theory" seems to be that those people could be of any ancestry, randomly, or perhaps proportionally to the minority that does recognise an immigrant ancestry. The opposite seems to be true: that those people aren't aware of any immigrants in their genealogic tree - possibly because they don't have any. And if they do not descend from immigrants, from whom do they descend?

Second, no, I didn't claim that Calabrians are not Italian. (personal information removed)Ninguém (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The opposite seems to be true: that those people aren't aware of any immigrants in their genealogic tree - possibly because they don't have any. And if they do not descend from immigrants, from whom do they descend?"

Are you serious? All Brazilians have immigrants in their genealogic tree (despite the small non-assimilated Amerindians still living in the forests). Brazil is part of the New World, and we all have "non-native" elements in our families.

Remember: German immigration to Brazil started as early as 1824. And the African slaves only stopped arriving as late as 1850. Then, there are black Brazilians who have more recent African ancestry than white Brazilians have German. Who is more "foreigner"?? The blond guy whose ancestors came from Germany in 1824, or the black guy whose ancestors arrived from Africa in 1850? There are blond people around who may be taken as "less Brazilian", but who in fact are "more Brazilian" than blacks of more recent African background.

Stop claiming a person of recent European immigrant descent is "less Brazilian" than a person of old ancestry, non-white ancestry.

As I said before, a person can be the son of Lithuanian immigrants, but choose to mark only "Brazilian" in the resource. How can you assume that all people of recent immigrant origin marked their ancestry as "non-Brazilian"? A person whose great-great-grandparents were Italians and does not feel connection with Italy will probably mark only Brazilian, not Italian at all.

I'm of Italian, Portuguese, African and Amerindian descent. In this resource, I could mark any of these options, or rather mark only "Brazilian". Most Brazilians of mixed heritage (the majority of the population) see themselves as Brazilians, not tracing to an ancestry anymore. Then, if I mark "Brazilian" there, nobody can assume which is my ancestry. Moreover, if I mark "Amerindian", nobody can assume that I also don't have Italian, Portuguese or African origin.

Then, your theory that everybody who marked "Brazilian" are purely Portuguese is another nonsense. Opinoso (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * About Calabrians not being Italians, I know you were being serious. Maybe you confused the regional feelings that still exist in Italy (people proud of being Venetians, Calabrians or Sicilians) with "not being Italian". To be proud of being Calabrian does not make a person less Italian. Please, no confusions here. Opinoso (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, see how inconsistent your reasoning is. Nobody is claiming that most Brazilians are 100% of Portuguese colonial descent. Just that most Brazilians, and, yes, most white Brazilians, are of Portuguese colonial descent - whether 100%, 10%, 32.5%, 98%. On the other hand, while you think that a person only is of Portuguese colonial descent if they are of 100% Portuguese colonial descent, you claim an enormous number of "Italian Brazilians". Of 100% Italian descent, perhaps? Is that what you mean, 25 million people of 100% Italian descent in Brazil? Just to make it clear. Ninguém (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you properly read my statement...


 * personal information removed*

And where did I say, or even remotely implied, that people of recent immigrant origin are somehow less Brazilian than others? This is a country of jus soli. Anyone who is born here, or comes here and adopts Brazil as his/her country is Brazilian, period. Which would be a good reason to simply erase all those ridiculous hyphenated-Brazilian articles. But if we are going to keep them, better keep them with correct information.

And what does all this have to do with broken links? Ninguém (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Just that most Brazilians, and, yes, most white Brazilians, are of Portuguese colonial descent - whether 100%, 10%, 32.5%, 98%"

This is your theory. Where are your sources? You are assuming that Brazil has, in fact, over 90 million Whites. Everybody knows this figure is inflate, because many non-whites reports to be white in these census. Even the IBGE agrees, and it frequently reports that, in each census, more people are leaving the "white" category and are choosing "pardo" and others are leaving "pardo" and moving to "black".

The Datafolha, along with Folha d S. Paulo newspaper, the largest newspaper of Brazil, did a resource about race and the figures are completly different from the official: 37% white, 36% pardo and 14% black The figures of Datafolha are, of course, closer to Brazilian reality, because in IBGE, where people can report to be whatever they want (a Japanese can claim to be black, for example), self-reported Blacks account for less than 7% of Brazil's population. Of course, this figure is ridiculous.

Of course we won't use the Datafolha resource over the official resource. But, everybody agrees, including IBGE itself, that in the official census, the racial reality of Brazil is not well represented.

But you, as usual, with theories, are assuming that all those 90 million self-reported "whites" are really "whites". Then, you got the hypotetical number of descendants of "immigrants" and you assumed that all the rest are of "colonial Portuguese descent". However, if we include only the real White population, not obviously mixed people who reports to be White for IBGE, people of recent immigrant origin will far outnumber those who are of "colonial Portuguese descent" and are "still" whites. Even if we take the IBGE "49% white" as reality, if we also include the "colonial Portuguese population" who later mixed with Italians, Germans, Spaniards, Poles or Arabs, then your beloved "white population of colonial Portuguese descent" (with no recent immigrant admixture) will probably be outnumbered. If you take the 37% white, which is closer to reality, than people of some recent immigrant origin will far outnumber people of colonial ancestry.

Of course, these are all theories. And I do not use theories, because I know they're not allowed.

"On the other hand, while you think that a person only is of Portuguese colonial descent if they are of 100% Portuguese colonial descent, you claim an enormous number of "Italian Brazilians". Of 100% Italian descent, perhaps? Is that what you mean, 25 million people of 100% Italian descent in Brazil? Just to make it clear."

Nobody whose ancestors arrived in Brazil 300 years ago can claim to be "colonial Portuguese". Nonsense theory. Nobody can prove that the majority of the ancestors were Portuguese. A person can "pass as white" but, genetically, be predominantly Amerindian/African. Nobody can prove anything when the ancestry dates back many generations, which is different from a person who knows that his/her grandfather came straight from Italy and the grandmother from Japan. This person can eveb become an Italian or Japanese citizen, which is completly different from having Portuguese ancestors from 400 years ago. There are no connections anymore, no ethnic identity. Opinoso (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here we come to the point. There is a "correct" concept of White, and what is called "White" in Brazil is not actually White. Perhaps only people of Italian or German descent are properly "White"? "Real White", as you call them?

Dangerous line of thought, might I say. Perhaps we should change the name of this article, from "White Brazilians" to "Brazilians that Americans Would Call White"?

And about proving things about ancestry - if you are right, what is the point of using DNA researchs as sources? After all, "nobody can prove anything when ancestry dates back many generations". Only people that know that their grandparents are of pure Italian ancestry - as if there was such a thing - can claim an ancestry. Nice.

If we are discussing "identities", then all that is nonsence. As Gustavo Kuerten says, "the fact that my ancestors are German means nothing; I'm 100% Brazilian". And this is indisputably the feeling of the overwhelming majority of "German Brazilians", "Italian Brazilians", "Japanese Brazilians" and whatever-Brazilians.

If we are discussing genetic ancestry, then most White Brazilians are of colonial Portuguese ancestry, which doesn't mean that they feel Portuguese, that they are connected to Portugal, or that they observe Portuguese hollidays. It's about their genes, not about their national-cultural-volkisch dellusions.

Now, please explain. Do you think that there are 25 million people of 100% Italian descent in Brazil, yes or no? Ninguém (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not using North American view of "whiteness", I use Brazilian view. When I said "white", I meant people who look white or European; I did not say that people with non-white descent are automatically non-whites (this is the American view, which would be out of place here). And yes, there are many people who are not considere white (not even by Brazilian standards) but who self-reports as "white" in the official census. In many cases, it happens when their social status increase (the IBGE itself reports this trend). Also, I'm not saying only 100% genetically European people are white, because even in Europe itself the population has already some non-European admixture, be it African, Berber, Arab or Mongolian.

In Brazil what matters is the physical apparence, and that's the white I'm talking about. But, there are people with obvious non-white physical apparence who are reported as white. That's why almost half of Brazilians are reported as white be the census, but when you walk on the streets, it's easy to observe that this figure is surely enflate (and the 37% white reported by Datafolha is the closest to reality). Also, the 7% self-reported as black is a really pathetic number, because when you walk on a Brazilian street, it's obvious that black people are much, much more numerous that this low figure. And it's not a matter that the Brazilian view of blackness is different. It's because many black Brazilians reported to be "pardo" for IBGE and many "pardos" reported to be white. The 14% black reported by Datafolha is the closest to reality, even though I still think the 14% of black Brazilians is still a low percentage, I'd put this number much higher. Then, if you make up a theory based on a self-reported census, it will failed. The census is far from reality.

Moreover, I never said that all the 25 million Brazilians of Italian descent are 100% Italian. Of course not. The immigrants in Brazil did not close themselves in ghettos. After 1 or 2 generations, most were marrying outside their own ethnic group, including with many people of "colonial Portuguese descent". Then, you cannot claim most white Brazilians are of colonial Portuguese descent. Most Brazilians have many ancestries, which may include Portuguese ancestry from 300 years ago, combined with recent Italian, Portuguese or Polish descent. Many white Brazilians may have colonial Portuguese ancestry (along with African and Amerindian), but many also have recent immigrant ancestry, like a Portuguese grandfather or an Italian great-grandmother. Then, you cannot make a clear division between people of "colonial ancestry" and people of "immigrant ancestry", because both groups are mixing since the boom of immigration happened in the late 19th century.

Moreover, the white Brazilian population is largely concentrated in the areas settled by immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Southern and Southeastern regions). The white population of these areas are closely related to the more recent European immigrants. On the other hand, in the areas that had no recent European immigration, for example Northeastern Brazil, the white population is a minority, and in this case they are almost enterely of "colonial Portuguese descent". The concentration of whites is a certain portion of Brazil is directly linked to more recent European immigration, and that's a fact you cannot deny. Or do you think most whites from São Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul or Santa Catarina are "colonial Portuguese"? Even in Rio de Janeiro, the white population is largely of recent Portuguese descent (early 20th century) not colonial Portuguese at all. Opinoso (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Moreover, since you claim most white Brazilians are of colonial Portuguese descent, because on the Phone Book most people have Portuguese surnames, I'd like to know how you distinguish who is of 400 years ago colonial Portuguese descent and who is the son of Portuguese immigrants who came to Brazil in 1960. Because the names will be the same, and also the physical apparence. Since you claim most are colonial Portuguese based on surnames, you must know how to distinguish a 400 years old "colonial Portuguese" from São Luís do Maranhão, from a 1960 Portuguese immigrant from Rio de Janeiro. Don't tell me your theory is based on Phone Book surnames, because both people will have Portuguese surnames. Opinoso (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so someone is of Italian descent if they have 50%, 25%, 12.5% of Italian descent. But people are not of Portuguese colonial descent unless they are 100% of Portuguese colonial descent. You are using a "one drop" rule to one side, and objecting it being used on the other side. Why the double standard?

When you admit that not all of your "25 million Italian Brazilian" are not 100% of Italian descent, you are admitting they have mixed with people of Portuguese descent, colonial or recent. Which means that many of these "25 million" are also of Portuguese descent. The same would happen with the "15 million Spanish Brazilians" and the "18 million German Brazilians". Many are of either Portuguese colonial ancestry, or of Portuguese recent ancestry. How many? I don't know, of course, but if you look at the Simon Schwarzmann article with some attention, you will notice that about half of people of each of these immigrant ancestries have also reported "Brazilian ancestry". "Of course", "obviously", to use your terms, most of those are of Portuguese colonial ancestry. Just by this you can see that most White Brazilians are of Portuguese colonial ancestry. About half of those who report other ancestries, and all those who do not.

About your theories on how many Whites are in fact pardos, and how many pardos are in fact Black, it is merely your personal theory. You don't have sources, figures, anything, to support that, merely your personal feeling. The IBGE did not always allow people to freely define themselves on the "Cor" item; in the 1940 Census, the interviewers could decide fill the "Cor" item with a slash if they felt the autodeclaration didn't match; the slash would be replaced by "pardo" during tabulation. It doesn't seem to have changed things too much, at least in what concerns the proportion of Whites.

This study reports a more complex relation between autodeclared race and race as perceived by an observer than the mere attempt at "passing" by the interviewed.

To the end of proving that most White Brazilians are of Portuguese descent, I don't need to distinguish between those of recent or colonial descent. Together, they are the majority of Brazilians.

In the 1872 Census, before the Great Immigration, there were 3,700,000 Brazilian whites, descended either from the 700,000 Portuguese that came here during the colonial period, or from the 22,000 Germans who came here between 1824 and 1872. Even disconsidering the fact that those 700,000 Portuguese would already have reproduced a lot when the first Germans came, and that the Germans didn't come all of them in 1824, this gives us something like 3,550,000 White people of Portuguese ancestry in 1872. After that, about 5,000,000 immigrants arrived, 1,500,000 of which were Portuguese, and 3,500,000 of other nationalities. This is roughly the minimal proportion; about 5,000,000/8,500,000, or 10/17 of White Brazilians are of Portuguese origin. A clear majority.

And those figures are compatible with Clevelario's figures and the 1998 PME. Ninguém (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny. First you claimed most white Brazilians are "colonial Portuguese", including your grandparents (when nobody asked you this information, why did you post it?). Now you're including the "more recent" Portuguese to claim they are the majority. You were using Phone Books to claim they are all Whites of Colonial Portuguese descent. Now you're changing your mind, and including 20th century Portuguese immigrants on the same group to enflate the numbers. What's your next theory? Opinoso (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Most White Brazilians are of Portuguese colonial descent. But this was never the information I wanted to put into the article; just that most of them are of Portuguese descent.

I never used the phone book to claim anything. In fact, I haven't even looked at one. You are claiming that I used it as a source; that's completely false, and is just another of your endless personal attacks, with which you hope to scare me out of "your" articles as you have already done with most other Brazilian editors.

But if you want to take a look at a phone book for São Paulo, I promise you that you won't find 60% of Italian surnames, as it's claimed in some of your "sources". Most likely, about half of that.

My calculation was always based on the White population of 1872 and the immigration figures of the IBGE. Which are reinforced by Clevelario's paper estimates of the whole Population of Immigrant Origin - 25% of the whole population, at most, which would mean 45 million people of all immigrant ancestries, including Portuguese. And moreso by the 1998 PME data:

* 10.41% people of Italian descent - about 17,000,000; * 10.56% people of Portuguese descent - about 17,000,000; * 6.42% people of Spanish descent - about 7,200,000; * 5.51% people of German descent - about 5,600,000; * 0.72% people of Arab descent - about 800,000; * 2.81% people of other ancestries - about 4,500,000.

Far lower than the 25 million Italian, 15 million Spanish, 10 million (!) Arab that your "sources" state, and contrasted with

* 86.09% people of Brazilian ancestry - about 148,000,000.

So, we have a lot of evidence that the figures for Brazilians of Italian and Spanish descent are inflated, and that the figures of Brazilians of Arab descent are wildly inflated. Against that, you only have claims of Embassies, which do not conduct demographic research, do not employ statisticians, and have nothing to lose if their numbers are proved wrong...

Oh, yes. And the phone books quite certainly agree with me, too. It's just that I don't need them to state my point. Ninguém (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Theories, theories. Most people who have colonial Portuguese ancestry bore African/Amerindian ancestry and, in many cases, Italian, Spanish, German, etc. Most do not even belong to the White population, but to the non-white, now included all together as "black" by IBGE and Brazilian Government.

Stop claiming people who reported to be only "Brazilian" at this Job Resource are automatically of "Portuguese descent". The source does not provide this information. Moreover, stop claiming that all people who have Italian or German descent reported their ancestry at this resource.

And finally: stop claiming that everybody who have Italian ancestry must have an Italian surname. Brazilians usually only have 2 surnames. The thousands of surnames of all our ancestors is not included. A person can be half Japanese and half Italian, but only take the Japanese surname. You cannot claim anything using Phone Books.

Moreover, in many cases the original surnames were changed to a more Portuguese-sounded surnames. For example: Italian Oliviera was changed to Portuguese Oliveira or Spanish Mendez changed to Portuguese Mendes. Using a Phone Book, how can you assumed these people did not have their original surnames changed?

Moreover, you cannot even assume they make up the white population of Brazil. African, Amerindians and mixed-race people, all them had Portuguese surnames in Brazil. Your Phone Book as source is a complete nonsense, not reliable source. Stop using Phone Book as an argument. Opinoso (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Colonial whites were not Portuguese
I can't see any clear majority. Most white Brazilians who have colonial Portuguese ancestry also have recent immigrant ancestry, be it Portuguese again or Italian, German, Spanish, etc. When this latter immigrants arrived, most Brazilians were blacks, mulattoes, etc, and the white population, which was a minority, also bore African/Amerindian admixture. White Brazilians were not "colonial Portuguese". They were far from being Portuguese. The white population was the result of centuries of intermarriage between white males and African/Amerindian females. Those who looked lighter "passed as white" and had all the "social benefits" of being white. Those who looked darker were not considered white and suffered all the racial prejudices typical from those periods, even though the genetic composition of both white and non-whites was almost the same.

Colonial white Brazilians were not Portuguese anymore, as you're trying to claim. They were the amalgam of centuries of intermarriage between Portuguese, Africans and Indians, since the presence of Portuguese women in colonial Brazil was quite insignificant. The lighter skinned ones tended to marry other lighter skinned ones and, after centuries, resulted in a population that could easily "pass as white", even though they all bore non-white admixture which, in many cases, reflected in non-white physical apparence.

The fact that those people looked white does not erase their African/Amerindian ancestries. They were not people of "colonial Portuguese ancestry". They were white Brazilians, many of who would not be considered white in Portugal, even though they could look Portuguese. They were not culturally Portuguese, not even genetically. You cannot even claim most colonial whites were "predominantly Portuguese": a person can look white, and be genetically predominantly non-white. The physical apparence does not erase the non-Portuguese ancestry.

When immigration boom occured in the late 19th century, they found this typical Brazilian population: many blacks, mixed people, with a minority of whites, many of whom were "passing" and bore recent non-white ancestry. Of course this situation worried the Brazilian Government, based on racist theories. The immigrants helped to "dilute" the large amounts of non-white ancestries that most Brazilians had. The immigrants did not marry "colonial Portuguese". They married Brazilians. Brazilians had Portuguese blood, but also Amerindian and African.

I never heard a person claiming "colonial Portuguese ancestry". You're the exception. Nobody can prove to be of colonial Portuguese ancestry. Nobody can prove all the ancestors were Portuguese. Historically, it's impossible. People who have colonial Portuguese ancestry, also have African and Amerindian ancestries. The lack of Portuguese women produced this "new" population. And more: nobody can prove most ancestors were Portuguese. There are no records avaible for a person to know if most his/her ancestors alive in 1700 were Portuguese. You'll have to look for thousands of ancestor' records, which is impossible, this is not avaible. On those times, most people did not even had a birth certificate.

A person who claims "colonial Portuguese" ancestry is only assuming this ancestry and probably ignoring the many other ancestors who were far from being a Portuguese.

Only the noble families could claim complete European ancestry and the immigrants were poor, and they did not marry noble Brazilians. 90% of colonial Portuguese settlers were men. Almost the entire colonial population bore African and Amerindian blood. The Portuguese women only started appering in significant numbers in Brazil in the late 19th century.

Again: colonial white Brazilians were not Portuguese. They were another type of population, far from being Portuguese. Then, to claim "colonial Portuguese" is the main ancestry is a failed theory: you would also have to claim African and Amerindian, along with Portuguese, as the ancestry of colonial white Brazilians.

Since you like to claim that most "Italian Brazilians" also have "colonial Portuguese ancestry", then you also must claim that most "colonial Portuguese" had African/Amerindian ancestry. There's no clear racial divisions in Brazil. If it's colonial Portuguese, it's also African and Amerindian. Then, there's no such a thing as "colonial Portuguese". There's a Brazilian population. Period.

Your "colonial Portuguese" obsessed theory is failed. Sorry. Opinoso (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Colonial White Brazilians were not Portuguese, they were just of Portuguese descent. We don't need to inspect the records of thousands of ancestors to certify ourselves of that. We just need to know that for three centuries, practically the only Europeans that came to Brazil were Portuguese. Or do you have a different personal theory?

And yes, most of them also have African or Amerindian descent. But, having African or Amerindian descent does not, a) make them non-White; nor, b) make them not of Portuguese descent. Or are you going to insist that there is a "correct", objective standard of "whiteness" that most White Brazilians do not match?

And of course, we should claim most Brazilian Whites are of either African or Amerindian descent. Indeed, it is already in the article:

On the maternal side, 39% have an European Mitochondrial DNA, 33% Amerindian and 28% African female ancestry.

So what's the problem? Ninguém (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Since most bore African/Amerindian blood, they were "of partial Portuguese descent", not of "Portuguese descent", as if they were pure Portuguese (like you're trying to claim). They were Brazilians, not colonial Portuguese. You love to claim them as of "colonial Portuguese descent", which is your personal theory. You also have to claim African and Amerindian ancestry as well. Your theory is failed. Opinoso (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to show you that this was never the point. The edit reads clearly: "Most Brazilians are full or partly of Portuguese ancestry." Emphasys mine. Ninguém (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

''You are assuming that Brazil has, in fact, over 90 million Whites. Everybody knows this figure is inflate, because many non-whites reports to be white in these census.''

Unfortunately, you haven't sources for that. "Everybody knows"?

Even the IBGE agrees, and it frequently reports that, in each census, more people are leaving the "white" category and are choosing "pardo" and others are leaving "pardo" and moving to "black".

The reason that the "pardo" category is growing cannot possibly be miscigenation?

The Datafolha, along with Folha d S. Paulo newspaper, the largest newspaper of Brazil, did a resource about race and the figures are completly different from the official: 37% white, 36% pardo and 14% black

Let's take a look at the Datafolha research you quoted:

"O Relatório Anual das Desigualdades Raciais no Brasil, organizado pelos pesquisadores Marcelo Paixão e Luiz Carvano, mostra que, em 1995, o número médio de filhos de mulheres pretas e pardas era 3,0. Entre brancas, a taxa era de 2,2.Dez anos depois, a diferença caiu, mas as mulheres pretas e pardas seguem tendo, em média, mais filhos (2,3 ante 1,9)."

Translating:

The Yearly Report on Racial Unequality in Brazil, organised by researchers Marcelo Paixão and Luiz Carvano, shows that in 1995, the average number of children of Black and "pardo" women was of 3.0. Among White women, it was of 2.2%. Ten years after, the difference is lower, but Black and "pardo" women still have, in the average, more children: (2.3 against 1.9).

True, the research also states that people who used to identify as "Whites" are now identifying as "pardos", and people who used to identify as "pardos" are now identifying as "Black". But... how many? Do you have a source for that? Can you quantify this self-misidentification?

Plus, where was the Datafolha research conducted? In all of the country? Just in São Paulo city, metropolitan are, or state? In many metro areas? Which?

''The figures of Datafolha are, of course, closer to Brazilian reality, because in IBGE, where people can report to be whatever they want (a Japanese can claim to be black, for example), self-reported Blacks account for less than 7% of Brazil's population. Of course, this figure is ridiculous.''

We don't even know what the figures of Datafolha are. But reading the rest of your source shows that "people" could "report to be whatever they want" in the Datafolha research also:

Até mesmo quando o Datafolha fez a pergunta sobre cor limitando as respostas às cinco definições utilizadas pelo IBGE, houve quem não aceitasse ter que escolher apenas entre elas.

Translating:

"Even when Datafolha asked about 'cor' limiting the answers to the five definitions used by IBGE, there were those who did not accept having to chose among them."

So, people were doing the same as they do in the IBGE Census: self-identifying. Not being identified by the researcher, according to some pre-stablished "objective" classification.

But you, as usual, with theories, are assuming that all those 90 million self-reported "whites" are really "whites".

I think the opposit happens here. You have a theory, that not all those 90 million self-reported "whites" are really White. Which implies that you have some external, "objective" criteria to classify people according to race. But all of that is "personal theory": you don't have sources that claim the IBGE method is wrong, you don't have any research to bring any set of alternative figures to those of the IBGE, and you don't have any sources for what is "really white".

Then, you got the hypotetical number of descendants of "immigrants" and you assumed that all the rest are of "colonial Portuguese descent".

So, let's see. If they are White, and they do not descend from immigrants coming here from 1824 on, from where did they get their "white colour"? Any personal theory there?

However, if we include only the real White population, not obviously mixed people who reports to be White for IBGE, people of recent immigrant origin will far outnumber those who are of "colonial Portuguese descent" and are "still" whites.

Sources?

You don't have a figure for people who are "obviously mixed people who reports to be White for IBGE". And, until you have a figure for that, you should stick to the available sources.

Even if we take the IBGE "49% white" as reality, if we also include the "colonial Portuguese population" who later mixed with Italians, Germans, Spaniards, Poles or Arabs, then your beloved "white population of colonial Portuguese descent" (with no recent immigrant admixture) will probably be outnumbered.

Sources? And here is a clear logic flaw: a person who has Italian ancestry and Portuguese colonial ancestry has to be counted on both counts; she isn't only of Italian ancestry. I never talked about "'white population of colonial Portuguese descent'" (with no recent immigrant admixture)".

If you take the 37% white, which is closer to reality, than people of some recent immigrant origin will far outnumber people of colonial ancestry.

So this is your claim? That Whites are only 37% of the Brazilian population?

Let's see... 37% of 169 million is 63 million. And you claim that there are 25 million White Italian Brazilians, 18 million White German Brazilians, 15 million White Spanish Brazilians, 10 million White Arab Brazilians... even ignoring Poles, Ukrainians, and those in the "other" category, we have 68 million White Brazilians. More than 100%. And where are the descendents of recent Portuguese immigration in your math?

Your blanket is short. In order to defend your theory that there are that many people of immigrant descent, you need 90 million White Brazilians. In order to defend your theory that there are just 63 million White Brazilians, you need to deflate your figures for people of immigrant descent.

''Of course, these are all theories. And I do not use theories, because I know they're not allowed.''

On the contrary, you seem to be using theories a lot. In fact, so many theories, that they contradict each others.

''Nobody whose ancestors arrived in Brazil 300 years ago can claim to be "colonial Portuguese". Nonsense theory. Nobody can prove that the majority of the ancestors were Portuguese.''

So? A person is not of Portuguese ancestry when "the majority of the ancestors were Portuguese". Otherwise we would need to discuss how many of the "25 million" descendents of Italians are "really of Italian ancestry", because those who have just one Italian grandparent wouldn't qualify.

Again, you do not have any figures for that, so if you assume that all people who have one Italian ancestor in four, or eight, or sixteen, are of Italian ancestry, then you have to concede that all people who have one "pelo-duro" ancestor in four, or eight, or sixteen, are of Portuguese colonial ancestry.

This person can eveb become an Italian or Japanese citizen, which is completly different from having Portuguese ancestors from 400 years ago.

So? I can be an Italian citizen, if I so wish. Still, I have only one Italian grandparent in four. So, what is the criterium? If it is having an Italian majority among one's ancestor, you have no figures at all. If it is being apt to require Italian citizenship, then it is a much smaller figure than 25 million.

On the other hand, in the areas that had no recent European immigration, for example Northeastern Brazil, the white population is a minority, and in this case they are almost enterely of "colonial Portuguese descent"

And just that would be another 15 million of White Brazilians... how are you ever going to make all that people fit into your 37%, or 63 million, estimate?

Or do you think most whites from São Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul or Santa Catarina are "colonial Portuguese"

Of "colonial Portuguese" descent?

In São Paulo? Most probably. A huge chunk of the population of São Paulo - about 3 million people - is formed by migrants from the Northeast.

In Rio Grande do Sul? Also most probably. There are some areas of Rio Grande do Sul where people of German ancestry are majoritary - the valleys around the Guaíba. There are some areas of Rio Grande do Sul where people of Italian ancestry are majoritary - the mountainour region of the "Serra Gaúcha". There are regions where, probably, people of German and Italian ancestry, taken together, are the majority - Alto Uruguai, perhaps Missões. The other regions - Porto Alegre Metropolitan, Southern Litoral, Southwest - are certainly not.

In Santa Catarina and Paraná? Most probably not. More than people of Italian, or German, or Polish descent, taken in separate? Most probably.

Even in Rio de Janeiro, the white population is largely of recent Portuguese descent (early 20th century) not colonial Portuguese at all.

Sourced figures?

200.198.196.129 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Before the accusations of sockpuppetry start, the above IP, 200.198.196.129, is me. My computer unlogged accidentally, and I didn't notice. Ninguém (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now the article was edited by Opinoso to read as follows:

Despite the largest arrivals of European immigrants, particularly between 1880 and 1930, the nowadays white Brazilian population is still mainly descended from whites of colonial extraction.


 * But not, of course, of Portuguese descent, I suppose? Ninguém (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Genetic research
Opinoso, what exactly is "confusing" about my edit on Genetic Research?

It explains exactly what the researchs deal with. If a person has an "European" chromosome Y, it means that there is an unbroken chain of males in his ancestry, all of them descending from an European man. If a person has "European" mytochondrial DNA, it means there is an unbroken chain of females in his/her ancestry, going back to an European female. There's nothing confusing about it; on the contrary, it is much less confusing than the previous text. Ninguém (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To remove sourced informations is vandalism. Opinoso (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And which sourced information have I removed, pray tell? Ninguém (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

None, isn't it? Ninguém (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't be serious . Not only removed informations, but also substituted the original text for a confusing, nonsense explanation for Y Chromossome and mtDNA. Do not remove sourced informations: vandalism. Opinoso (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I am serious, and you cannot even say what information was removed.

To compare, here is the original text:

This analysis, however, only shows a small fraction of a person's ancestry (the Y Chromosome comes from a single male ancestor and the mtDNA from a single female ancestor, while the contributions of the many other ancestors is not specified).

The Y chromosome comes from a singly male ancestor? What single male ancestor? This is simply and completely wrong. The Y chromosome comes from an ininterrupt line of male ancestors. The mtDNA comes from an ininterrupt line of female ancestors, not "from a single female ancestor". Please.

And here is my edit:

"This analysis, however, only shows a small fraction of a person's ancestry (the Y Chromosome comes indicates the strictly patrilineal descent, while the mtDNA indicates the strictly matrilineal descent, while the lines that include both male and female ancestors, are not indicated, though they influence all autosomal chromosomes as well as chromosome X)."

Which says what has to be said. The Y chromosome indicates the patrilineal descent, ie, the ininterrupt chain of male ancestors; and the same, substituting "female" for "male" for the mtDNA. And it explains what is left out from the analysis: the 23 pairs of autosomal chromosomes, plus the X chromosome.

So, not only I didn't remove any information, but I included some, that your blind reversal suppressed. According to your own criteria, "vandalism"; but I will assume good faith, instead. Ninguém (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You included unsourced informations and even worse: wrong informations. Also, you erased informations. Lots of vandalism in a single post.

Both Y Chromossome and mtDNA come from a single ancestor. The Y comes from the father, that came from the grandfather, from the great-grandfather and so on. A person can be 99.9% genetically African, but his Y Chrossome can be 100% European, if it came from a distant European ancestor. The same goes for mtDNA. Both only show from which part of the world a single ancestor came from: Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. To know the percentage of African, European or Asian admixture of a person, you do not use Y Chromossome or mtDNA. You analyse the entire DNA, which is much more difficult. Learn, before posting. Opinoso (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"the lines that include both male and female ancestors, are not indicated, though they influence all autosomal chromosomes as well as chromosome X"

What's this? Nonsense, unsourced and wrong information. It's even hilarious. Please, if you are not able to understand these differences, do not post in this article. Opinoso (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the English verb "to substitute" doesn't work like the Portuguese verb "substituir". Ninguém (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not the article, then I can write "wrong English" as much as I want. But you are posting wrong, unsourced and funny informations on the article. This is not allowed. Moreover, do not use Phone Books as source, please. Opinoso (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove informations nor did I include unsourced information. Your claim that the Y chromosome comes from a single ancestor is evidently untrue; it comes from a complete line of ancestors: from one's father, from one's father's father, from one's father's father's father, and so on, for centuries and millenia.

And what is wrong with "the lines that include both male and female ancestors, are not indicated, though they influence all autosomal chromosomes as well as chromosome X"? You can't explain, of course, so you are reduced to your habitual namecalling.

You can, of course, write in wrong English if you so wish. The only problem, in this precise case, is that people will misunderstand you as saying the exact opposite of what you intended to.

Stop this ridiculous accusation that I use phone books as a source. Ninguém (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you erased informations and included confusing one in its place. Why to remove a correct information? There are many "bad" articles at Wikipedia, waiting for someone to contribute.

And yes, you wanted to use Phone Books as source:

"What do you want me to do, to pick the Lista Telefônica (Phone Book) and count Portuguese surnames vc Italian or German surnames?: Opinoso (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion, sort of
With all due respect, given the number of times this has appeared at WP:3O and the number of articles the original entry said that's it's spread to, I think this has graduated to needing formal mediation. I'm leaving it up at WP:3O nonetheless, but those are my two cents' worth. arimareiji (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I found this article through WP:3O, and I agree with Arimareiji. This is way beyond a third opinion, though I don't think mediation would take this case just yet. I've posted on the Brazil Wikiproject to try to get some help here, and I think you guys could do well with a request for comment. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that there is already an RFC ongoing about this page, albeit only concerning one specific part of the debate. You might try broadening it, but I am inclined to agree with User:Arimareiji that mediation might be a better bet at this stage. Anaxial (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted this at Edit Centric talk page:

Hello. The problem is that Ninguém is not neutral. Take a look at his first comments at talk page of White Brazilian. He is obviously pro-Portuguese. He even reported that his grandparents are "colonial Portuguese" at his first comments. Actually, nobody asked him about it. Then he started all that pro-Portuguese discussion (he even tried to use Phone Books as a source, because most Brazilians have Portuguese surnames, then he claimed they're all "Portugueses") - like claiming African Americans (who usually have British surnames) are of "Britsh descent". He started appering in article about "non-Portuguese" Brazilians (Italian Brazilian, German Brazilian or Japanese Brazilian) and also started useless discussion in their respective talk pages. Since then, I realized this user was not neutral.

Take a look at his "contributions" and you will surely notice it. Thank you. Opinoso (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Moreover, this user does not assume good-faith. Notice that he is sending messages to an user that I had some problems years ago, trying to include this user at this discussion, of course, against me.

He already sent messages to some users I had problems before, trying to bring them against me at this discussion:, (he should be blocked because of this).

It's clear, obvious that all Ninguém wants is disruptions in this article. Take a look at his contribution page: before his first post at this White Brazilian article, he had almost no contribution for Wikipedia. Since he discovered this article, 90% of his contributions are dedicated for disrupition at this same article (for which he was previously blocked 2 times, on the same week).

Another user already claimed that Ninguém is a Single Porpose Account, enterely dedicated for disruption at this White Brazilian article. Since he was accused of being a Single Porpose, he started to post in some other articles to pretend that he is opened to other articles, which is not real)

When he sends those types of provocative messages to users I had problems years ago, he is trying to bring them to this discussion and keep with this useless discussion he has been creating in several articles that I usually post (he follows my edits and "finds a way" to create useless discussion on their talk pages).

He's somehow trying to make someone block me, so that he can be free to change informations from this and other articles, including his Phone Book and pro-Portuguese theories. However, he is the one not assuming good-faith.

I will stop "discussing" with him, so that all this can stop and leave you administrators take care of him. Thank you. Opinoso (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I will not join the discussion regarding this article content, but I strongly suggest for the people involved in this discussion to remain civil and assume good faith. I also suggest discussing any changes before reverting the other user's edits. You both may try mediation, as suggested by arimareiji and Anaxial. --Carioca (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A Table of Sources
The following table isn't intended to be included in the article. It sums up the sources that have been discussed here, so that we can better understand what we are discussing, and the differences between my position and Opinoso's.

Since the date of these source varies, I have opted to consider the White population as 50% of the total (it was a bit higher than that in 1998, it's a little less than that as of today). Ninguém (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this shows what's going around in this article. Opinoso does not believe his figures. He uses them to "compensate" the fact that he isn't able to diminish the number of whites in Brazil (which he believes is 63 million, not 93 million as reported by the Census).

Besides, Opinoso's sources aren't real sources. They merely state figures, but they do not reveal how they have attained those figures. And they certainly do not make demographic research, or censitary surveys. So they ammount to nothing.

The only reliable source here is the IBGE. And the IBGE points to a very different reality: about 16 million people of Italian descent, about 7.5 million people of Spanish descent, and less than one million people of Arab descent.

But, of course, you are free to believe in Santa Claus if you so wish. Ninguém (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And now Opinoso makes a total about face:

"Despite the largest arrivals of European immigrants, particularly between 1880 and 1930, the nowadays white Brazilian population is still mainly descended from whites of colonial extraction."

So, after having managed to block me a few times because of this, after months of edit warring, in order to support the totally biased POV that most Brazilian Whites descent from immigrants arriving during the Great Immigration, Opinoso realizes... that most of Brazilian Whites descend from "colonial Whites". Also known as "THE OBVIOUS".

What next, will Opinoso argue that "colonial Whites" aren't of Portuguese ancestry?

Good grief, doesn't this "encyclopedia" have admins and responsible people who can take care of such absurd behaviour, which constitutes evident "article ownership"?

Guess not. Ninguém (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Coherence
Opinoso, in February 13th, 2009:

However, if we include only the real White population, not obviously mixed people who reports to be White for IBGE, people of recent immigrant origin will far outnumber those who are of "colonial Portuguese descent" and are "still" whites.

Even if we take the IBGE "49% white" as reality, if we also include the "colonial Portuguese population" who later mixed with Italians, Germans, Spaniards, Poles or Arabs, then your beloved "white population of colonial Portuguese descent" (with no recent immigrant admixture) will probably be outnumbered.

If you take the 37% white, which is closer to reality, than people of some recent immigrant origin will far outnumber people of colonial ancestry.

Opinoso, in April 10th, 2009:

Despite the largest arrivals of European immigrants, particularly between 1880 and 1930, the nowadays white Brazilian population is still mainly descended from whites of colonial extraction.

Interesting, isn't it?

What other parts of this article are in bad need of its owner making further about-faces? Ninguém (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove this until it is dicussed in WP:ANI. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have coherence
I have coherence. When I wrote "nowadays white Brazilian population is still mainly descended from whites of colonial extraction" I refed to self-reported whites. Like Darcy Ribeiro said, the majority of white Brazilians are lighter skinned mixed-race people (caboclos and mulatos) who see themselves and are accepeted as whites. This is Darcy Ribeiro's words, not mine. He also points that many Brazilians who change their social position tend to "whiten" themselves. This is an obvious trend.

I personally know many people who see themselves as whites, are even racists, but do not even look "white" (not even by Brazilian standards). But this is my personal experience. I'm not using it. I follow reliable sources, not my theories or Phone Books.

Yes, if we count all self-reported "whites", most trace their ancestry to colonial time. On the other hand, if we limit "whites" only to those people are "in fact whites" (full or predominantly Europeans who do look white), people of post-colonial immigrant origin will outnumber people of colonial ancestry. It's not a surprise that the regions that received most post-colonial whites nowadays have the largest concentrations of whites. It's not a coincidence. It's a fact.

I did not change my opinion, as you are trying to sell. The difference is that I use the reliable source. And if 93 million Brazilians claim to be whites to the official Census, then I use this figure. Unlike othe rusers, I don't like to make up theories or use Phone Books as sources. The large majority of Brazilians are non-whites. It's a fact, and everybody knows that. But if half of the population still claims to be white, even not being, I'll follow the official Census, not make up theories.

On the other hand, you have no coherence. You claimed to be leaving Wikipedia and even erased all your "contributions". but, what a surprise, you did not leave. Why? Where's your coherence? You also agreed with the 25 million Italian-Brazilian figure from the Embassy. Why are you now posting another not reliable source who claims a smaller figure? Where's your coherence? Opinoso (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for talking about this here. Two wee tips, there is no need at all to bold words on talk pages (this reads like shouting) and questioning the "coherence" of another editor, in English, still edges on personal attack, which we need to get rid of altogether if there is to be any hope of settling this: You can talk about your own coherence all you like, though and I do understand that some of this has to do with language. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, you insist in an objectivist interpretation of the concept of race, as if there were actually a biological base for it. Race is a social construct. Those "light skinned mixed-race people" consider themselves White, are considered Whites by others, and, most importantly, enjoy all aspects of White privilege. So they are "in fact" White, whether you like it or not.

I see you are intent in continuing the slander that I use Phone Books as a source. This is a personal attack, and I demand you to take it back and never do it again.

If you actually think that the figure of 93 million Brazilian Whites is inflated, then you necessarily know that the figures for Italian, Spanish, and especially Arabs, are mathematically impossible. So you seem to be struggling to keep information you don't even believe to be true here.

My leaving or not leaving Wikipedia is immaterial to this discussion. It is another personal attack.

I never, ever, agreed with the figure of 25 million people of Italian descent in Brazil. It is a gross exageration. And who told you the source I gave is "unreliable"? Perhaps you think it is unreliable because you don't agree with it? Ninguém (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Gwen, thanks for protecting the page. Pity only that you protected it after Opinoso arbitrarly and unjustifiably removed my last edit. However, please do not unprotect it before the content issues are actually discussed, and the many problems with this article are effectively discussed.


 * For starters, can we start by discussing the fact that the figures of immigrants do not belong in this article, since, of course, not all "Italian Brazilians", "German Brazilians", etc, are necessarily White? Ninguém (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Opinoso and Ninguém, stop talking about each other now. Instead, please stick to content and sources, speaking of which, so far it looks to me as though both of you have put your own original research into the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I propose the suppression of all figures about people of immigrant descent. They are biased, they do not belong in an article about White Brazilians, since not all people of immigrant descent are White (see for instance Arthur Friedenreich for a famous Black German Brazilian), and they are anyway already there in the article about Immigration to Brazil and in each article about German Brazilians, Italian Brazilians, etc.

Second, I propose that the list of problems with this article I have posted above is discussed in detail, point by point, until we can find an actual consensus. Ninguém (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of suppression I think one might say taking out... :) Ok, do any other editors have something to say about how immigration stats might or might not have anything to do with the number of "white" Brazilians? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently nobody cares about this article
One week with no discussion. It seems clear that this article is of no interest. Besides, it's bias makes quite redundant with Immigration to Brazil. So I am now proposing they be merged.

However, if it's not going to be merged, it must be radically changed. Instead of centering on immigrant minorities, it should be centered on the concept of race in Brazil, making clear the specific particularities of "whiteness" in Brazil, and focusing in the social consequences of race; racism, discrimination, and White privilege. Race is a social construct, not a genetic fact.

Moreover, the biased mistakes that plague it must be corrected:


 * 1) The idea that Judaism is the third numerically more important religion among White Brazilians must go. There are many other religions with more adherents among White Brazilians.


 * 1) The idea of "hegemony" doesn't fit here. Hegemony is dominance, specially political or cultural dominance, not merely a numeric majority. Besides, the idea that the arrival of 2,000 Swiss immigrants into a country of 4,000,000 inhabitants puts and end to whatever hegemony is certainly an exageration.


 * 1) Most, and not just "many" White Brazilians are of Portuguese descent. Accordingly, the majority of Brazilian Whites are of Portuguese descent, not of "Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, and German descent".


 * 1) A clear distinction has to be made between "colonists" and "immigrants". Portuguese settling of Brazil was a political act of taking possession of the land on behalf of the Portuguese monarchy; immigration after independence was of a different nature, the migration of populational excedent in Europe to pacifically live in a different country. The former was colonialism; the latter was not.
 * 2) Similarly, a clear distinction is necessary between "immigration" and slavery. People kidnapped in Africa and brought to Brazil to work as slaves weren't "immigrants" in the same sence the German or Italian peasants that came here to be given a small parcel or land or to work for a wage.
 * 3) São Paulo and the Southern states were already settled an inhabited when immigration started, so it is really not possible to maintain that those states were "mainly settled" by immigrants. Besides that, Portuguese immigration to those states was really not significant, Spanish immigration was relevant to São Paulo but not to the Southern states, and German immigration, conversely, was relevant in the Southern states but not in São Paulo.
 * 4) A clear distinction is needed between the North and the Northeastern regions. In the former, the Black population is small, and the "cabocla" population (Portuguese/Amerindian mixture) is a majority, and where the census refers to "pardos" it should be understood "dark skinned caboclos, closer to the Amerindian than to the Portuguese phenotype". In the latter, especially in the litoral,  conversely, the "cabocla" population is small, while the Black influence is massive - where the census refers to "pardos", it means "mulattos".
 * 5) If there is going to be a "Demography by Cities and Towns" section, it must actually explain the demography of Brazilian cities and its differences from Brazilian demography in general, and address the specific demography of Brazilian most important cities - São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte, Brasília, Belém, Fortaleza, Recife, Salvador, Curitiba, Porto Alegre and Goiânia in the very least. A list of small towns with the respective percentage of Whites is not adequate here, and it biases the article.
 * 6) Alternative sources stating different figures from the omnipresent and exagerated "25 million Italians and 10 million Arabs" are badly needed. I suggest reinstating the Emigrati quote, and perhaps better, Miguel Ángel García's masterful Immigrazione Italiana nell’America del Sud:

''Ci sono delle disparità tra i calcoli ufficiali di “oriundi” per il Brasile e per l’Argentina. Quest’ultimo paese appare con meno persone discendenti d’italiani in termini assoluti, anche se il saldo migratorio d’italiani è più alto. Non siamo riusciti ad ottenere i rispettivi metodi di calcolo: dai nostri tuttavia risulta sopravvalutato il totale brasiliano, e sottovvalutato il totale argentino. I calcoli di discendenza di un dato contingente di immigrati sono di grande complessità, forse i più difficili della statistica demografica. Se i migranti s’incrociassero solo all’interno del gruppo (endo-incrocio) la crescita dipenderebbe solo della fertilità delle donne del contingente in questione. Situazione ben lontana di quelle dell’Argentina e del Brasile, dove l’exo -incrocio (matrimonio fuori del contingente migratorio) è molto alto. Risulta un ‘effetto ventaglio’: la discendenza è maggiore quanto più antica e tendente all’exo -incrocio è la comunità immigrata, allargando il ventaglio nella popolazione presente. Il fattore tempo può essere considerato pari, e non ci sono ragioni per considerare che le donne italiane e/o non italiane sposate con italiani o con discendenti d’italiani siano state più fertili in Brasile che in Argentina. Se dobbiamo rischiare delle stime senza una ricerca specifica, possiamo ipotizzare tra 20 e 22 milioni di discendenti d’italiani in Argentina (su 36 milioni di abitanti), e tra 15 e 18 nel Brasile (su 170 milioni). Forse nelle stime ufficiali hanno pesato considerazioni diplomatiche e di equilibri interni del Cgie e dei Comites.''

(There are inconsistencies between the official calculations of oriundi for Brazil and Argentina. The latter country appears with less people of Italian descent in absolut numbers, even if its migratory balance is higher. We couldn't find the respective methods of calculation. From ours, however, it results the Brazilian total is overestimated, and the Argentinian total is underestimated. The calculation of the descent of a given group of immigrants is of great complexity, maybe the most difficult of demographic statistics. If the migrants only bred among themselves (inbreeding), the growth would depend only of the group's females' fertily. This is situation is quite far from that of Brazil and Argentina, where offbreeding is quite high. An effetto ventaglio results: the size of the descent is as bigger as the older and more open to offbreeding the immigrant comunity is, increasing the ventaglio in the present population. [For Brazil and Argentina] the time factor can be considered similar, and there are no reasons to consider that Italian women, and/or non Italian women married to Italian men would be more fertile in Brazil than in Argentina. If we should risk an estimate without a specific research, we could hypothetise between 20 and 22 million people of Italian descent in Argentina (in 36 million inhabitants), and between 15 and 18 million people of Italian descent in Brazil (in 170 million inhabitants). Maybe the official estimates were influenced by considerations of diplomatic nature and of internal balance in the CGIE and the Comitês).

Also, the use of those figures in this article relies on the unstated and false (and frankly, racist) premise that all people of Italian, Arab, German, Polish, etc., descent are White. This is far from true: a sizeable and unknown number of people of those descents are mulattos (for a famous example, see Arthur Friedenreich), because interbreeding among immigrants and their descent on one side, and Black Brazilians on the other, is quite common. This discussion doesn't belong in this article. See above under "What is Wrong With This Article". Ninguém (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks, absolutely no discussion. Ninguém (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Three weeks, no discussion. Were the problems in this article caused by divergence about content? Ninguém (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ninguém, go ahead and make the changes you proposed! Boa sorte. The Ogre (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've lifted protection from the article, give it a try. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both! Ninguém (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

article is protected
I have protected this article owing to edit warring. Please talk about the sources and how to deal with them in the text on this talk page. Do not comment on other editors, only on content and sources, which must be cited. English language sources are always more helpful on en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sourced informations erased and theories included
I noticed Ninguém is removing sourced informations from this article, and even replacing them with unsourced ones. He's also, once again, making up theories in this article. This is not allowed.

1) This user claims that most white Brazilians are of Portuguese descent, while the other ethnic groups are "significant minorities". Where's the source?

2) The user keeps making up theories, such as this: "Brazilians make a sharp distinction between Portuguese immigrants and their descendants, and the much larger population that originated from colonial settling of the country. The latter are definitely not considered "Portuguese Brazilian".

Where's the source? I never heard about it. Brazilians do not care if a person is of colonial or post-colonial Portuguese descent. This makes no difference for Brazilians. Both are not regarded as "Portuguese Brazilians" (or luso-brasileiros in Portuguese). This identity does not even exist in Brazil for a long time. Brazilians made difference between people born in Brazil and people born in Portugal, but not between people born in Brazil to Portuguese ancestors. I know people who have colonial or post-colonial Portuguese descent (like myself) and nobody treats me differently because of this. In fact, nobody knows or even cares if I am of colonial or post-colonial Portuguese descent. Another failed theory by Ninguém.

3) As in the case of the Portuguese, descendants of Spanish colonists in areas that were conquered from Spain by Portugal (especially Rio Grande do Sul) are not considered "Spanish Brazilian", but as part of the main Brazilian populace.

This is another failed theory. Needs source there.

4) Ninguém erased the information, according to Darcy Ribeiro, that before 1850 no more than 500,000 Europeans settled Brazil and that, after that year, over 5 million Europeans settled the country. He probably erased this information because of his obsession with his "colonial Portuguese" people, then he erased the fact that the vast majority of Europeans settled Brazil after Independence from Portugal, and not before.

Obviously, a non-neutral edit.

5) He erased the informations of the Embassies about how many people of Italian, Spanish or Arab descent live in Brazil. He already took this discussion to several parties of Wikipedia before, and most people agreed that the figures of the Embassies are reliable sources. But Ninguém ignored the other users' opinions, and erased the sourced figures. This is not allowed.

6) He erased the table about the self-reported ancestry of Brazilians done in 1998 (it was Ninguém himself who posted that table, and now he erased it without any explaination). He probably erased it because the most reported white ancestry was the Italian one, and not the Portuguese. Because he is since the beggining obssessed with his "colonial Portuguese majority" theory, any information about Italians, post-colonial Portuguese, Germans or Spaniards are being erased from this article.

The table does belong to this article, and to erase it only to hide the fact that the main reported ancestry, besides the Brazilian one, was the Italian is a non-neutral contribution.

I must remember Ninguém that before "saving the page", he must "show preview" and read it before posting, since he is making small contributions and posting them. He must post them all together so that it is easier for us to analyse what is going on. Since he erased several informations, sourced informations, included non-neutral, unsourced informations, his personal opinions and theories, I am reverting this article to an older version. Opinoso (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

1) This user claims that most white Brazilians are of Portuguese descent, while the other ethnic groups are "significant minorities". Where's the source?


 * Let's see... here (Table 6, p.10):

2) The user keeps making up theories, such as this: "Brazilians make a sharp distinction between Portuguese immigrants and their descendants, and the much larger population that originated from colonial settling of the country. The latter are definitely not considered "Portuguese Brazilian".''

Where's the source? I never heard about it. Brazilians do not care if a person is of colonial or post-colonial Portuguese descent. This makes no difference for Brazilians. Both are not regarded as "Portuguese Brazilians" (or luso-brasileiros in Portuguese). This identity does not even exist in Brazil for a long time. Brazilians made difference between people born in Brazil and people born in Portugal, but not between people born in Brazil to Portuguese ancestors. I know people who have colonial or post-colonial Portuguese descent (like myself) and nobody treats me differently because of this. In fact, nobody knows or even cares if I am of colonial or post-colonial Portuguese descent. Another failed theory by Ninguém.''


 * The Brazilian equivalent of Polish Jokes are "Portuguese Jokes", which are intended at people of recent Portuguese origin - not at the Brazilian population at large, which is mostly of colonial Portuguese origin.

3)As in the case of the Portuguese, descendants of Spanish colonists in areas that were conquered from Spain by Portugal (especially Rio Grande do Sul) are not considered "Spanish Brazilian", but as part of the main Brazilian populace.

''This is another failed theory. Needs source there.''


 * If you make a point of it, this piece of information can be removed without actually harming the article.

''4)Ninguém erased the information, according to Darcy Ribeiro, that before 1850 no more than 500,000 Europeans settled Brazil and that, after that year, over 5 million Europeans settled the country. He probably erased this information because of his obsession with his "colonial Portuguese" people, then he erased the fact that the vast majority of Europeans settled Brazil after Independence from Portugal, and not before.

Obviously, a non-neutral edit.''


 * Well, the article has a table with different figures. The text must in this case be altered to explain that they have different sources, why one of the sources is used in the paragraph and the other in the table. What reason would there be to use different sources in different parts of the article? I can't think of any one.

5)He erased the informations of the Embassies about how many people of Italian, Spanish or Arab descent live in Brazil. He already took this discussion to several parties of Wikipedia before, and most people agreed that the figures of the Embassies are reliable sources. But Ninguém ignored the other users' opinions, and erased the sourced figures. This is not allowed.


 * Why didn't you participate in the discussion while the article was protected? The reason for taking this information out was given there.

''6) He erased the table about the self-reported ancestry of Brazilians done in 1998 (it was Ninguém himself who posted that table, and now he erased it without any explaination). He probably erased it because the most reported white ancestry was the Italian one, and not the Portuguese. Because he is since the beggining obssessed with his "colonial Portuguese majority" theory, any information about Italians, post-colonial Portuguese, Germans or Spaniards are being erased from this article.

The table does belong to this article, and to erase it only to hide the fact that the main reported ancestry, besides the Brazilian one, was the Italian is a non-neutral contribution.''


 * Again, this was discussed in the Talk Page at the time the article was protected. As this is not an article about Immigration to Brazil, this table doesn't belong here. If, however, you make a point in keeping it here, I have no problem with it.

''I must remember Ninguém that before "saving the page", he must "show preview" and read it before posting, since he is making small contributions and posting them. He must post them all together so that it is easier for us to analyse what is going on.''


 * Must I?


 * Can an admin explain this point? Must I "show preview" before posting? Must I post all the changes together?

Since he erased several informations, sourced informations, included non-neutral, unsourced informations, his personal opinions and theories, I am reverting this article to an older version.


 * Well, since nothing of the above happened, can you please kindly undo your reversal? Ninguém (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) This table does not say the majority is Portuguese. Over 30% of whites reported an ancestry which was not Portuguese neither "Brazilian". If we include who reported to be Portuguese, almost 50% of the people reported an ancestry which was not "Brazilian". Notice that the percentage of Italians and Portuguese are almost the same, which reflects that, probably, people who reported Portuguese are people descended from recent Portuguese immigrants, The other 50% only reported to be "Brazilian", which can be of any ancestry: Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German, African, Indigenous, etc.

The table does not say that the 50% who reported to be only Brazilian are of Portuguese descent. Many of them can be of, let's say, Spanish descent but did not reporte it. On the other hand, almost 50% reported a foreign ancestry, mostly people of recent immigrant origin. Then, according to this table, 50% of white Brazilians claim to be of recent immigrant origin, while another 50% claimed to be only Brazilian, which may include people of recent immigrant origin who did not reported his/her ancestry.

Then, your theory that the majority is "Portuguese" and that recent immigrant origin is minority is also failed.

2) The fact there are "jokes" about Portuguese in Brazil has nothing to do with your theory that "Brazilians make a sharp distinction between Portuguese immigrants and their descendants".

3) Theory agreed

4) There are no different sources about it. Darcy Ribeiro claimed before 1850 no more than 500,000 Europeans settled Brazil. IBGE claimed it was about 700,000. The differences are small, and they do not change the fact that most Europeans arrived after 1850 and I still do not know why you erased this important information.

5) You gave no reason. The official figures are from the Embassies.

6) The table talks about self-reported ancestries of white Brazilians. it has nothing to do with the Immigration article.

7) There is a rule in Wikipedia which asks people to make the changes all together, and not several small ones, like you did. Please, read them. Opinoso (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Here,, you have restored the following information:

''Until 1904, 76.22% of all Italian immigrants had entered São Paulo and, of all immigrants in the period from 1885 to 1889, 81.93% were of Italian origin. They remained as the main immigrant group until the 1940s In the 1920 census, there were 558,405 Italians living in Brazil, the vast majority in the state of São Paulo (398,797) followed by Rio Grande do Sul (49,136), Minas Gerais (42,943) and in the Federal District of Rio de Janeiro (21,929). Today there are close to 25 million Brazilians of Italian origin. ''

This information does not belong in an article about White Brazilians. Not all Brazilians of Italian descent are White, and there are articles that can and should deal with these issues, namely Immigration to Brazil and Italian Brazilian. So I again propose to take this information from this article.

Here, you reversed from

Most White Brazilians are of Portuguese descent, though there are significant minorities of Italian, German, Spanish, Polish, and Arab descent among others.

to

''The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, German and Lebanese. ''

This, naturally, makes the article incoherent, as in other place it states:

Despite the largest arrivals of European immigrants, particularly between 1880 and 1930, the nowadays white Brazilian population is still mainly descended from whites of colonial extraction.

Besides, the source given a reference for this information does not discuss the varied national ancestries of White Brazilians; it merely confirms that the overwhelming majority of White Brazilians do have European ancestrals.

So, to restore some coherence to the article, I propose undoing this change.

Here, you made varied small changes, of diverse nature. It becomes almost impossible to discuss them when you remove them in such a way. Plese, make your changes one by one, so that they are intelligible. Anyway...

You restored this:

White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants. Which means nothing, except that White Brazilians are White. Should be removed.

You changed this:

One important fact about the European settlements in Brazil is that they were, for three centuries, dominated exclusively by the Portuguese

to this:  One important fact about the European immigration in Brazil is that it was, for three centuries, dominated exclusively by Portuguese.

Which was discussed in the Talk Page. What happened during the colonial period was not "immigration" but colonization.

You reintroduced the concept of "hegemony" which means political or cultural dominance, and so cannot be properly used regarding the numerical importance of ancestries.

You reintroduced this:

in 1551 three sisters arrived, in 1553 nine, in 1559 seven more.

which seems to be trivia. It doesn't account for any significant period during the colonial time, nor there is any indication that these figures sum up all female Portuguese immigration to Brazil. You would need a source stating that Portugal sent only those women. In fact, you would need a source for the information, which is unsourced.

You restored non-objective appreciations such as "very", and "not very significantly". Those are non-neutral expressions that tend to foster POV.

You suppressed sourced information here:

Recent genetic studies found a high degree of Amerindian (33%) and African (28%) - compared to 39% European - mithocondrial DNA among white Brazilians, confiring this early miscigenation.

and replaced it with

provided the high degree of miscegenation in colonial Brazil (and recent genetic studies found a high degree of Amerindian and African ancestries in white Brazilians, that confirms this early integration).

which is an incomplete version.

You reverted a well written sentence,

Latin American oligarchies, which remained predominantly of European origin, believed - in syntony with the racialist theories then widespread in Europe - that the large numbers of Blacks and mixed Indians that made up the majority of the population were a handicap to the development of their countries.

into this:

Latin American oligarchies, which remained predominantly of European origin, felt bothered with the large numbers of blacks and mixed Indians that made up the majority of the population.

which is clearly inferior.

You reverted the correct English form, "White" (capitalised) into the incorrect "white" (uncapitalised).

You suppressed sourced information here:

Even though there are areas in São Paulo that are still mistakenly fancied as "ethnic neighborhoods" (for example the "Italian" Mooca or the "Jewish" Bom Retiro)

You changed

Most Brazilians are full or partly of Portuguese ancestry.

into

Many Brazilians are full or partly of Portuguese ancestry.

You changed '' The history of the Jews in Brazil is relatively long and complex as it stretches over many centuries. Jews settled in Brazil during the Dutch rule of the Northeast, setting up the first synagogue in the Americas, in Recife, as early as 1636. However, practically all of them were expelled when the Portuguese reconquered the region.''

by suppressing the last sentence, removing the crucial information that there was no continuity in the Jewish presence in Brazil.

These changes are unwise, they make the article less coherent, less readable, they should be reversed in order to improve the article. Ninguém (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You erased several sourced informations and included personal theories in the article, which is not allowed. You "mixed" your unsourced theories, wich a few sourced ones and with English corrections. Then, I reverted to the original reversion, so that you can include the sourced informations, without making up theories or erase sourced informations in the middle of them.

1) The information about the orphan girls is sourced, it comes from Darcy Ribeiro's book. In the first century of colonization, almost no Portuguese women came to Brazil, despite those few orphan girls and another slave of moor origin discribed in the book.

2) Some Brazilians of Italian descent are not white, but most Brazilians of "colonial Portuguese descent" are not white, and many people who claim to be whites are not whites as well. This is not the place to discuss who is white or not. There are 25 million people of Italian descent, a fact. There are 90 million Brazilians claiming to be white, a fact. If we start to discuss how many of these 90 million are not whites, millions of them will disappear from this article as well.

3)"However, practically all of them were expelled when the Portuguese reconquered the region"

Unsourced theory. Most Jews were converted to Catholicism and had many descendants in Brazil. There are DNA resources avaible detecting a lot of Jewish blood in Brazilians.

4) 'Despite the largest arrivals of European immigrants, particularly between 1880 and 1930, the nowadays white Brazilian population is still mainly descended from whites of colonial extraction.'

Like I told you, this sentence was based on Darcy Ribeiro's information that the "white" Brazilian population grew as a result of the multiplication of mulattoes and caboclos and not because of the multiplication of people of Portuguese descent in Brazil. The "colonial extraction" is referred to these people, not to the Portuguese themselves. It does not tell the majority is Portuguese.

The correct is "most white Brazilians are of Portuguese, Amerindian and African descent" and not erase the fact that most, if not all colonial people had blacks and Indians in their family three. The fact that they have white skin does not erase their non-white ancestry, since in Brazil a person can look white and have more African DNA than a person who looks black. A person who looks white but has more African DNA is less Portuguese than a person who looks black but has more Portuguese DNA, even though you're claiming the first is of "Portuguese descent" only because he/she was born white, while the former is not even listed in this article, of course, because does not look white (even though the former has more Portuguese ancestry).

"Only a few genes are responsible for someone's skin colour, which is a very poor indication of ancestry. A white person could have more African genes than a black one or vice-versa, especially in a country like Brazil," he said (geneticist Sergio Pena).

A person who is predominantly African, but looks white, like many "white" Brazilians are not "of Portuguese descent" like you're trying to claim. The fact that the European genes were responsible for this person skin color does not make him/her a copy of an European. Most white Brazilians are not genetically Europeans. They're far from being Europeans.

Like I said before, nobody in Brazil can claim to be "of colonial Portuguese descent" based on skin color or "race". Only a person of recent Portuguese descent can do it. The rest of the population only needs to get a DNA exam to find the high degree of non-white admixture. This theory of "colonial Portuguese descent" was only used by old Brazilian oligarchies, who though they were of direct Portuguese descent, often using it in a racist way against the Black population. This theory is a nonsense, and Chico Buarque criticizes it in his brand new book O Leite Derramado, laughing of that "European-wanna-be" failed elite.

Most (white or not) Brazilians have Portuguese descent, and it almost always comes mixed with several other ethnic groups, almost always mixed with black and/or Amerindian or with other immigrant groups from Europe. Your theory that the majority is of Portuguese descent is based on your opinion, with no historic or genetic confirmation. Again, a person can look white and have more African ancestry than European one. The physical apparence does not erase his/her African ancestry, and does not make this person of Portuguese descent. Opinoso (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Procedures for editing
I'm an admin and Ninguém asked me to look at this. Perhaps Ninguém hoped that I'd look at and comment on (a) this argument in its entirety, perhaps that I'd look at and comment on (b) the request to post [small contributions] all together so that it is easier for us to analyse what is going on, perhaps (c) both. For now, I'll mostly limit myself to (b).

Yes, it's always a good idea to preview changes before making them, so that the number of edits needn't proliferate unnecessarily. Immediately after the article was unprotected, Ninguém made this sequence of six edits that lacked a single edit summary and should really have been made in a single edit complete with summary. But I'm not going to condemn him for this; it's just a mild tut-tutting.

In his next series of edits, Ninguém did some rewriting of one section at a time. There are two problems here. He should have provided a summary for each, and (particularly in the rancorous atmosphere here) he shouldn't have added three unsourced paragraphs. (Please note that again I'm issuing no condemnations.) However, there was nothing wrong with breaking this work up into separate chunks.

I'll skip three edits. Ninguém then moved on to a series of six edits, in each of which he writes [section title] Removing text unrelated to the article's subject, per Talk Page. I am not going to look through the talk page or to examine every detail here, but a quick (and perhaps insufficient) look certainly suggests that he was indeed each time removing stuff either unrelated or peripheral to the subject; so his edits seem good and his summaries accurate, and certainly there was nothing wrong about breaking up the work into chunks.

Let's assume for a moment that the material was indeed unrelated. It was, or appeared to be, properly sourced. Ninguém was thus removing sourced material, and rightly so. There's no absolute rule that properly sourced material must not be removed. (Any such rule would be absurd, preventing the removal of sourced material on Rembrandt from an article on Veronese, etc.)

I'll skip some more edits and go on to this series of nine edits by Ninguém, in which he worked on two sections. Nine edits was rather a lot, but then he did a lot of work. The edits should have had summaries.

Now four edits by Opinoso. Each is summarized. Good. The last one, however, is summarized ''Reverting to an older version, because user Ninguém is erasing sourced informations and using personal theories. See talk page. Putting aside the rights and wrongs of Ninguém's edits, it's odd that such a drastic edit doesn't bother to say which'' older version is being reverted to. This diff reveals that it's Debresser's edit of 19:31, 21 May 2009, so the great majority of Ninguém's work has been reverted.

Ninguém, please be more careful to supply edit summaries. Opinoso, please make your own edit summaries more informative. And both of you please ignore "WP:BOLD" and instead limit yourselves to small and uncontroversial edits to the article. If you want to make bigger edits, fine: explain them on this talk page and wait several days if needed for a response before making them to the article itself. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Hoary. Ninguém (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy if I have helped in some way. As for tut-tutting about multiple edits used to make relatively simple changes, the edit history of this talk page will reveal that I had trouble pasting the passage above. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

One by one (2): the Portuguese
The article states,


 * “The majority of White Brazilians are of Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, and German descent.”

The correct is,


 * “The majority of White Brazilians are of Portuguese descent, with significant minorities of Italian, German, and Spanish descent.”

Similarly, all the statements about "many Brazilians" or "many White Brazilians" being of Portuguese descent must be replaced with "most Brazilians" and ""most White Brazilians". This is what the data show. Most "Brazilian Whites", as the text correctly puts it, are of colonial extraction - and, as we have just come conclude, during the colonial period practically only the Portuguese settled in Brazil. So the overwhelming majority of those people are of Portuguese ancestry, even if there is a considerable admixture of Amerindian descent. Adding to this the descent of recent Portuguese immigrants - who stand for about 30% of all immigration (1.5 million in 5 million total), clearly most White Brazilians are of Portuguese ancestry. Trying to circumvent this fact with the curious theory that most White Brazilians of colonial descent are not actually White is POV and must be removed from the text. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Where are your sources? We work with sources here, not with personal opinions or theories. Opinoso (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Where are the sources that say the opposite? Where are the sources that say that Colonial Whites do not descend from the Portuguese?

Let's make it clear: all this POV about nobody knowing what is the ancestry of Colonial Whites is unsourced. Why should it be kept in the article? Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have sources? Unless you do, the sourced informations about the main ancestries of "White" Brazilians will keep there. Opinoso (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources saying that most White Brazilians are not of Portuguese descent. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If there's no source, then why did you open once again this discussion? Only to create more edit-warrings and disruptions? That's because it's your personal theory. If there's no source, there'll be no information changed and for me this "colonial Portuguese" discussion is ended. Opinoso (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

All reliable sources say the opposite of what you have been saying: that most White Brazilians are of colonial extraction, and that practically all colonial Whites are of Portuguese ancestry. What source do you have to state the opposite? Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Each of you, please stop demanding that the other supplies sources for his assertion until you have supplied sources for your own assertion. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I am a Brazil history ignoramus, I'll try to kick this off.

The article cites an article "The Phylogeography of Brazilian Y-Chromosome Lineages" in an unassailably academic journal as a source for the claim that "The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, German and Lebanese."

The article is about genetics, another subject of which I am ignorant. However, the thrust of the paper is clear. The paper has a historical introduction, and it seems that this is what's cited. Here's a relevant bit:


 * Starting in the mid-16th century and continuing until 1855, ~4 million African slaves were sent to Brazil (IBGE 2000). In 1808 the Portuguese court, fleeing Napoleon’s army, moved to Brazil and opened its seaports to trade with all nations. This was soon followed by the arrival of settlers from other countries. During the period 1820–1975, 5,686,133 immigrants, mostly Europeans, arrived officially in Brazil (IBGE 2000). Portuguese and Italian immigrants arrived in almost equal numbers (comprising almost 70% of the total), followed by immigrants from Spain, Germany, Syria, Lebanon, and Japan.

It seems that this treats white settling/immigration in two or three periods. Regarding them as three, an overwhelmingly large percentage of European arrivals until 1808 were Portuguese. The period 1808-1820 is unexplained. In that from 1820 to 1975, Portuguese and Italians were about equally important.

Let's return to the WP article. It talks of Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, German and Lebanese. The order is not alphabetical and surely most people are likely to assume that the order is of decreasing importance, with Italian as the most important.

"The Phylogeography of Brazilian Y-Chromosome Lineages" does not seem either to confirm or to deny this. It seems to me to suggest that there were more Portuguese than Italians in the earlier populations of Brazil. It says nothing about their relative rates of procreation, and the conclusion talks about the importance of European ancestry while making no distinction between Italians and Portuguese.

Does any editor here think that Italian origins are more widespread than Portuguese origins? If so, do you want to cite "The Phylogeography of Brazilian Y-Chromosome Lineages" for the claim? If you do, how does "The Phylogeography of Brazilian Y-Chromosome Lineages" back up the claim? Or is there some other evidence elsewhere for the claim, and if so, what is it?

Meanwhile, if you think that Portuguese origins are more widespread than Italian, do you base this on the number of arrivals and the presumption of similar rates of procreation? Either way, please cite sources. -- Hoary (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has comprehensive table for the arrival of immigrants to Brazil. In page 26, it gives figures according to significant periods:


 * 1820-1876
 * 1873-1903
 * 1904-1930
 * 1931-1963


 * Before 1818, as we saw, non-Portuguese immigration was strongly disistimulated, and practically all European presence in Brazil was Portuguese.


 * First of the periods above, 1820-1876 was characterised by small amounts of immigrants, predominance of Portuguese immigration, and a significant German immigration to the South of Brazil. Priority was the reinforcement of populational density in areas lightly populated that were in direct contact with possible threats to Brazilian territorial integrity (Paraguay, Argentina, and Uruguay).


 * Second period, 1877-1903, is the first phase of the "Great Immigration": huge amounts of immigrants, predominance of Italian immigrants, significant numbers of Spanish immigrants. Priority was now divided between reiforcing the populational density of the South and providing workers for the coffee plantations in São Paulo; the latter rose as the former declined.


 * Third period, 1904-1930, is the second phase of the "Great Immigration". Huge amounts of immigrants, predominance of the Portuguese, sharp decline in Italian immigration, significant Japanese immigration. Priority was now labourers for the coffee plantations; urban immigration rose.


 * Fourth period, 1931-1963, is the decline of immigration. Strong predominance of Portuguese immigrants, the Japanese become the second numerically most important group. Immigration becomes predominantly urban.


 * This seems to me the most adequate periodisation. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Suggestion: Start another mini-sandbox immediately below. (NB I shall be very preoccupied elsewhere for the next couple of days.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Now let's try to understand what the Levy's figures mean.

For 1820-1876, we have the following numbers of immigrants, according to national origin:


 * Portuguese: 160,119
 * Italians: 16,562
 * Spaniards: 2,901
 * Germans: 45,419
 * Others: 125,116

For 1877-1903:


 * Portuguese: 389,580
 * Italians: 1,127,773
 * Spaniards: 209,322
 * Germans: 43,731
 * Others: 157,586

For 1904-1930:


 * Portuguese: 792,227
 * Italians: 346,029
 * Spaniards: 366,932
 * Germans: 117,852
 * Japanese: 100,653
 * Others: 419,088

For 1931-1963:


 * Portuguese: 425,408
 * Italians: 134,358
 * Spaniards: 133,802
 * Germans: 49,564
 * Japanese: 141,518
 * Others: 221,754

This gives us the following totals, concerning immigration to independent Brazil:


 * Portuguese: 1.767.334
 * Italians: 1.624.722
 * Spaniards: 712.957
 * Germans: 256.566
 * Japanese: 242.171
 * Others: 923.544

This, of course, does not include about 700,000 Portuguese who came before Brazilian independence.

So, there cannot be many doubts that more Portuguese came to Brazil than any other group of Europeans, taken separately. What needs to be discussed is the proportion of Portuguese regarding the sum of all other European ancestries. Here we would apparently have a Portuguese minority:


 * Portuguese: 2,400,000 (now including those who came before Brazilian independence)
 * All Others: 3,500,000 (discounting the Japanese and ignoring the fact that not all "Others" were White)

But the problem is, not all those people came simultaneously. Those coming earlier would have had more time to reproduce in Brazil than those who arrived recently (that's to say, 10,000 people arriving in 1820 would have already multiplied, perhaps into 20 or 30,000 people in 1920, while 10,000 people arriving in 1920 would be just 10,000 people). And the case is, given the fact that the Portuguese were the only allowed to come before 1808, a lot of Portuguese arrived much earlier, in some cases centuries earlier, than any Italians of Spaniards.

Can we try to figure out what was the impact of such disparity in arrival dates? Yes, we can, because we have the data for the Brazilian White population in 1872, exactly before the beginning of the Great Immigration - which means, at a time when the overwhelming majority of the Brazilian White population was of Portuguese ancestry.

They are here:. According to this, the White population of Brazil in 1872 was of 3,787,289 people. If we allow that a small part of these were not of Portuguese ancestry, we can say safely that around 3,500,000 Brazilian Whites were of Portuguese ancestry in 1872.

Thence the calculation we need to made concerning the "White Brazilians" and their ancestry is the following:


 * Portuguese ancestry: descendants of the 3,500,000 (mostly "colonial Whites") who were already in Brazil in 1872 + descendants of the 1,700,000 immigrants who came from 1872.
 * non-Portuguese ancestry: descendants of the 3,500,000 immigrants coming from 1872 on, plus descendants of the small number of people (certainly much smaller than 1.7 million) of non-Portuguese descent who were already here in 1872.

Evidently, this calculation is still skewed against the Portuguese, because all those 3.5 million White people of Portuguese descent were already here in 1872, while the 3.5 million non-Portuguese immigrants arriving after that came in various different occasions, many of them much later than 1872; so the proportion of 5.2 million Portuguese ancestors to (less than) 4 million non-Portuguese ancestors must be taken as an absolute minimum.

Of course, this could have changed if the prolificity of immigrant women was much higher than that of Brazilian White women. This I will address in a further post. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I had this long post ready when you posted your suggestion of a new sandbox. This is the reason I am going to start the sandbox later; but I am going to place it where you suggested. Thank you! Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox: The Portuguese
Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the world after the United States and Russia. Most White Brazilians have Portuguese descent, descending either from the about 3.5 million Whites reported in the 1872 Census, or the 1.7 million Portuguese immigrants who arrived between 1872 and 1963. There are significant minorities of White Brazilians of Italian, Spanish and German origin, descending from immigrants arriving between 1872 and 1963 (1.7 million Italians, 700,000 Spaniards) or during the longer period of 1824-1963 (250,000 Germans). There are also minorities of Slav and Arab origin, descending from immigrants arriving after 1872 source needed.

I hope I got that right. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems a good start. I've tried to make the notes a bit more informative. Were the "Arabs" predominantly from Lebanon and Syria? If so, perhaps there's a better word. "Levant(ine)" might sound a bit olde-worlde (and might be inaccurate; I'm a Near-East ignoramus too); but to me the primary meaning of "Arab" is people from the Arabian peninsula.


 * I'm afraid that to me all talk about "White" people and "Black" people tends to sound a bit silly, but as long as the article doesn't descend into ridiculous/repellent racist ideology (as this one doesn't) then I do manage to stay alert. So yes, I'm interested in the claim that Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere and I start to wonder about the second largest. Argentina, perhaps? Perhaps a simple comparison of Brazil and the second largest could eventually be worked into the article somehow. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC) amended Hoary (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we continue here, or should we address now the previous question of what is a White person in Brazil?

If so, we should look at the definition given in the article:


 * White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.

It does not take much effort to realise that it is a circular definition. But it does achieve something unusual: it is both circular and false. There is no such "main descent" rule; a person can be mainly of White descent and be considered Black (the use of euphemisms such as "pardo", "moreno", etc. does not distract from they being considered Black). Conversely, a person can be mainly of non-White descent (especially if such non-White ancestry is also non-Black) and be considered White.

I have already, above in this Talk Page, under section "The Concept of 'White'", tried to bring this into discussion, even quoting the below text, which seems to deal with the issue in a quite decent, if synthetic, way:


 * In Brazil, not withstanding relatively large levels of genetic admixture and a myth of “racial democracy,” there exists a widespread social prejudice that seems to be particularly connected to the physical appearance of the individual (8). Color (in Portuguese, cor) denotes the Brazilian equivalent of the English term race (raça) and is based on a complex phenotypic evaluation that takes into account, besides skin pigmentation, hair type, nose shape, and lip shape (4, 9). The reason the word Color (capitalized to call attention to this particular meaning) is preferred to race in Brazil is probably because it captures the continuous aspects of phenotypes (4). In contrast with the situation in the United States, there appears to be no racial descent rule operational in Brazil and it is possible for two siblings differing in Color to belong to completely diverse racial categories (8). The Brazilian emphasis on physical appearance rather than ancestry is demonstrated by the fact that in a large survey when asked about their origins (the question admitted multiple responses) <10% of Brazilian black individuals gave Africa as one of their answers. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that discussing "White People" is a bit silly. Those "racial" categories have no scientific base. Unhappily, in practice, they do have a strong (and deleterious) influence in our lives. José Saramago put it that quite skillfully, saying (I quote from memory) something like "race doesn't matter at all; then they shoot Dr. King and you realise yes it matters".

A comparison with Argentina would be very interesting; unhappily, my knowledge of that country is very limited. If similar inaccuracies to those that plague articles on Brazil exist on articles about Argentina, I wouldn't be able to spot and correct them. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope I answered the issue of the journal's name, "Revista de Saúde Pública". "Vol. Sup." is indeed "supplementary volume". Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "a person can be mainly of White descent and be considered Black (the use of euphemisms such as "pardo", "moreno", etc. does not distract from they being considered Black). Conversely, a person can be mainly of non-White descent (especially if such non-White ancestry is also non-Black) and be considered White."

No coherence, because you claimed that everybody labeled as "white" is of Portuguese descent. Now you're copying my argument and describing that people of mostly non-white ancestry can be considered White. Then, according to you:


 * a person whose ancestry is 60% Portuguese and 40% African who looks white is "of colonial Poruguese descent".
 * a person whose ancestry is 70% Portuguese and 30% African but looks black is not a "white of colonial Portuguese descent".

There's a contradition here: how can the person of less Portuguese ancestry be labeled as of "Portuguese ancestry" and a person of more Portuguese ancestry not? It's funny, and has no coherence. Opinoso (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact is: Brazilians are very mixed, and only a few people can claim a single ancestry in this country, and they are usually the people of more recent immigrant origin living on the countryside. Nobody of "colonial ancestry" can claim a single ancestry, and nobody can label a person to be of "Portuguese ancestry" because he/she looks white, because the "Black" neighbor of this person may have more Portuguese ancestry, but he/she is not labeled as of "Portuguese descent" because of his/her black skin color.

I won't feed this Portuguese obssession anymore. Since there are no sources avaible claiming the majority is "Portuguese", this box is unsourced, a personal theory not allowed in Wikipedia. Opinoso (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is very clear that I never claimed that everybody labeled as "White" is of Portuguese descent.


 * This is an article about White Brazilians, not about non-White Brazilians. But, evidently, a person whose ancestry is 60% Portuguese and 40% African, and looks White is a White Brazilian of Portuguese ancestry. A person whose ancestry is 70% Portuguese and 30% African and looks Black is a Black Brazilian of Portuguese descent. There is nothing contradictory here. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, it seems we are back to personal attacks now. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you serious to claim that the Portuguese ancestry is more important than the African one? Both people are of African and Portuguese descent. None of them is of Portuguese descent. Both have Portuguese descent, along with African. And the black person would be more Portuguese than the white one. It seems you're trying to use the "Portuguese version" of the One-drop rule (a single drop of Portuguese blood erases the non-Portuguese ancestry of the person, and makes him/her "of Portuguese descent"). Brazilians do not use Portuguese one-drop rule.

Only Brazilians of more recent Portuguese origin identify themselves as being of "Portuguese descent", and they live mostly in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. All people of colonial Portuguese descent are mixed-race in their blood, have their families in Brazil for several generations and very few of them know or care about a Portuguese ancestry. When these people of so distant Portuguese ancestry claims to be of "Portuguese ancestry" it's because they want to deny the African and Indian blood, or want to be "closer" to Europe because they think to be "European is better". But they are a minority, because these people are usually very proud to be only Brazilians.

I'm not feeding this Portuguese discussion because they're theories with no sources, and it is now becoming a Forum, which is not my wish. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Opinoso, unless you cite sources, your comments will have almost no sway here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean with me having sources? The box needs sources, not my comments. And the box does not have sources to support the claim the majority is Portuguese. It only reports figures, not the concrete information if the majority is Portuguese or not. Opinoso (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're saying many things without citing sources. Please bring sources to what you have to say. Wholly aside from this, unsourced content can be removed, but please don't share your own outlook, that's original research, you must bring sources instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Opinoso finds a big difference between "being" of Portuguese ancestry and "having" a Portuguese ancestry. I have changed the sandbox to see if this is the problem; it now reads


 * Most White Brazilians have Portuguese descent

instead of


 * ''Most of the White Brazilians are of Portuguese descent

To me, both sentences mean the same; but if changing the word can help building the article, there it is. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It now seems obvious that this was not the problem. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hoary, I think we have to postpone this discussion until we have solved the problem posed by the lack of an actual definition of what is a "White" person in Brazil. Can we have a sandbox to discuss how to replace the sentence below? Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.


 * Thank you again. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to have a try at it.


 * "Race" in Brazilian usage refers to phenotypical appearance rather than to ancestry. As such, White Brazilians are Brazilians that "look" White and are considered as such in Brazilian society, regardless of how much "White" and "non-White" ancestry they may have. "Looking White" involves mainly skin pigmentation, hair type, nose and lip shape. So, although there are high levels of miscigenation, social prejudice based on the Brazilian perception of race can still be widespread.

What do y'all think about it? Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced box
I'd like to know where is the source to claim that " Most of the White Brazilians are of Portuguese descent". All I saw here were figures about how many Portuguese people immigrated to Brazil. Yes, the main group of immigrants were the Portuguese, but this fact does not allows people to assume that their descendants are whites. In fact, it's the contrary, most of their descendants are "non-whites" for a simple reason: there were almost no Portuguese women in Brazil, then the Portuguese only "reproduced" themselves with Amerindian and African women. The intermerriage between these Portuguese, Amerindians and Africans then constituted the ethnic matrix of Brazilians.

Of course that, after many centuries of intermariage, a "White" population was constituted, because only a small percentage of the genes of a person determinates his/her skin color or physical caracteristics, allowing a considerable percentage of that mixed population to look white and then constitute the "colonial white population". However, the non-white admixture in these "whites" was similar to the one found in the "non-white" population. This can be detected in the genetic resource carried out in Whites of Natal, in Northeastern Brazil: "On the other hand, the Whites of Natal had 58% White, 25% Black, and 17% Indian admixture. This study found that both persons identified as White or Mixed in Natal have similar admixture"

The "White" population of Natal is almost enterely composed of people of "colonial descent", because the more recent European immigration to Brazil never took place there. If the whites of Natal, here representing the whites of "colonial ancestry", have as much as 42% non-white ancestry, I'd like to know based on what somebody is assuming that whites of "colonial ancestry" are of "Portuguese descent". The Portuguese do not have 42% of African and Amerindian admixture.

Somebody is trying to sell the false idea that white Brazilians, specially colonial whites, are of direct Portuguese descent. No, they are not. Most people with colonial ancestry are non-Whites, and they make up the vast majority of the called Pardo population. A small percentage of people of colonial ancestry are whites, most of them mixed people who look white. Another bigger percentage is non-White, usually mulattos and caboclos that are wealthier, and then they see themselves as whites or are accepeted as whites, because in Brazil people confuse "richness" with "whiteness". Then, somebody is trying to sell the idea that white Brazilians are a copy of Europeans and that everybody counted as "white" by the census are in fact "whites", when many scholars report that Brazilians tend to "whiten" themselves when they get richer, and that there is a stigma in the non-white population, that usually do not want to identify themselves as "blacks" or "mixed", and prefer to claim to be "whites".

And also, where's the source to claim that people of more reccent immigrant European descent are "minorities"? According to the table avaible in this article, as much as 50% of the white population reported a foreign ancestry. Since when 50% is "minority"? Opinoso (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Too many unsourced and personal theories going on here. Opinoso (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take the last question first. If people of (let's say) German, Italian, and Spanish descent add up to over 50% of the white population, then together they do indeed constitute a majority. However, this does not go to show that the Italians (the largest group) constitute a majority. If they're not a majority, they're a minority. (For all I know, the Portuguese might be a minority too.)


 * As for your first point, this seems to raise the question of what "white" means in the Brazilian context. A very quick look through the article doesn't seem to explain this. What does it mean?


 * And now I have "real life" to attend to. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Italians are not a majority in the white population of Brazil, neither the Portuguese. Nobody knows who is a majority, because race in Brazil is very confusing, and most of the population has a mixed-race heritage.

And yes Hoary, this article does need informations about what white is in Brazil. Like I said before, lighter-skinned mixed-race people tend to identify themselves as whites, as well as people of African descent tend to "deny" their blackness (only 7% of Brazilians reported to be Black in the Census, and the real figure is, according to different scholars, as high as 50%).

A funny and ridiculous situation, also discribed in Darcy Ribeiros book was as it follows: "A great black artist, already rich and respected, when hearing the complaints of a young black descriminated at his work, replied: "I understand your problem, I also was black."

Whiteness is also confused with richness. Poor people who used to be identified as "non-white" when get richer start to fit in the white population and makes part of it. I know a person who was described as "white" in a document, "Pardo" in other, "moreno" in other (this cateogyr does not even exist). Brazilians often jump from a "racial" category to another during their lives, usually becoming "whiter" when they get richers.

To take conclusions based on immigration numbers or self-reported census will produce a mistake. Unless there are sources about the majority of the Portuguese, no personal conclusions can be taken. Opinoso (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * When you say that the real figure [for black people] is, according to different scholars, as high as 50% I guess that these same scholars give figures for white people and, perhaps more importantly, say what they mean by the terms [here Englished as] "black" and "white". Could you please point to two or three of these scholarly sources? -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me address this:


 * According to the table avaible in this article, as much as 50% of the white population reported a foreign ancestry. Since when 50% is "minority"? (Opinoso)

What does the table say?

That, of Brazilian Whites,

15.72% report an Italian ancestry; 14.50%, a Portuguese ancestry; 6.42%, a Spanish ancestry; 5.51%, a German ancestry; 0.72%, an Arab ancestry; 0.25%, a Jewish ancestry; and 4.25%, "other" ancestries.

Let's for the sake of the argument, admit that all of those "other" ancestries are White (some certainly aren't, like the Chinese or the Bolivian; but most probably are, Eastern European ancestries probably making the overwhelming majority of them).

In this case, we have 15.72 + 6.42 + 5.51 + 0.72 + 0.25 + 4.25 percent of "Brazilian Whites" reporting a White non-Portuguese descent. The result of this sum is 32.87 %. So, supposing that there was no redundancy between the items in this sum (which there is), 67.13% of "White Brazilians" do not report a non-Portuguese White ancestry. Supposing, which seems quite obvious, that those people do have some White ancestry (otherwise it would be quite difficult to explain how they are considered White themselves), and taking into account that they do not report any non-Portuguese ancestry, and that the only European presence in Brazil until 1808 was Portuguese... how would they be not of Portuguese ancestry? Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're taking your personal conclusions and doing original research. This is not allowed in Wikipedia. Opinoso (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Demographers estimate that of the Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by methods used to classify groups in the United States.


 * 5% black, 50% white, and 45% of brown, with a small percentage in the categories of "yellow" (Eastern Asian) and Indians (the PNAD 1997, covering the whole country except the rural region of the Amazon, found 54.4 % white, 5.2% blacks, 39.9% brown, yellow 0.4% and 0.1% indigenous). These numbers, according to some critics, conceal the true size of the black population in Brazil, which if defined in a similar way to what occurs in the United States, reach at least 50% of the population, and also would measure the true size of the indigenous population. (source in Portuguese)


 * The School Census of 2005 counted 207 thousand educational establishments. By first time, the School Census questionnaire included the item color / race. 18.1% of the students did not answer the question, 46.1% of respondents said they were Pardo (Brown), 41.6% white, 10% black and the remaining 2.4%, color / race yellow and indigenous.

Notice that 56.1% of the younger generation reported to be "non-white", higher than the official census. According to Simon Schwartzman the younger generations are more confortable to idenfity themselves as non-white.

whites are 37%, close to the percentage of self-reported brown (36%). Those classified as blacks represent 14% population aged 16 years or more, according to the survey.
 * Rio de Janeiro (RJ): Country see itself less white and more brown: 13 years ago, when the Datafolha made its first major research on the subject, half of respondents were defined as white. Today,

Notice the large differences in these researches. In the official census, which people write in a piace of paper whetever race they want to be in their house, alone, without the researcher by their side, 50% reported to be white, only 7% black and the rest brown. On the other hand, the research in schools show that the majority identified themselves as "non-whites", because younger people do not carry so much the stigma of race, being more confortable to identify themselves as non-white. On the other hand, in the Datafolha poll, the researcher was there by their side asking the question, and only 37% reported to be white, because since the researcher was present, non-white people who tend to "whiten" themselves probably were intimidated and chose a "non-white" category.

As we can see, Brazilians jump from a category to another so easily that to use census to make personal theories is a big mistake. The Datafolha research (37% of whites) is probably the closest to reality, since people who tend to whiten themselves in the private official census were intimidated by the presence of the researcher and "had" to report their "non-white" condition, instead of claiming to be "white".

Brazil does have many white people, but they a minority in most of the country's regions. With the exception of the Southern states (and that's because of the more recent European immigration) and also in some areas of São Paulo, they do make up the majority. Places like Minas Gerais or Rio de Janeiro also have large white populations, but they are not the majority. But in places like Northeastern Brazil, they're a small minority, usually found in the upper-class population, while the mass of poor people there are almost always non-whites.

The census only show what people want them to be, not the reality. Even though we must use the census in the article, the information must be taken carefully and what is white in Brazil also has to be included in the article, analysing the trend of people "whitening" themselves because of the prejudice against the black and Amerindian populations in the country. Opinoso (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But what is meant by "reality"? When you say that scholars disagree and are asked for a scholarly analysis of the matter, you bring up sources in Portuguese (nothing wrong with that, it's just regrettable that I can't read Portuguese) and an article in Ebony (an article that looks thoughtful but doesn't pretend to be academic) that says for example:


 * Demographers estimate that of the nearly 80 million Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by American standards. Internationally acclaimed actress Sonia Braga (a frequent guest on television's The Cosby Show and co-star of the movie The Kiss of the Spider Woman) is among the dark, abundantly hipped "White" beauties about whom Black Brazilians whisper: "She has more than a touch of the mother country in her."


 * There's no mention here of who these demographers are or where their estimates appear. (No surprise; after all, this is a popular magazine.) It talks in the context of Brazil about "American" standards, seemingly to refer to specifically US standards, but it doesn't say what these "standards" are. I (nowhere in the Americas) had thought that there was no objective standard, and that instead the standard was that of self-reporting. If, or so far as, the US "standard" is self-reporting, it sounds very much like the Brazilian "standard". Now, even this US "standard" does have some sort of relationship with the fairly objective matter of skin pigmentation and perceived "race" of one's parents; but (putting aside complications such as "Native", "Asian", and "Hispanic") I believe that, as the result of generations of more or less overt racism in the US, you're "black" if there's any doubt that you're "white". It's a system that's understandable, but it's a historical accident. I might as well say that of the X million US Americans who classify themselves as Black, as many as Y percent have enough European ancestry to be considered White by Brazilian standards. &para; Or I could be entirely wrong and there could be objective and/or scholarly "American standards" for whiteness or blackness that I haven't heard of. &para; Incidentally, I'm not at all surprised to read of racism within Brazil: (i) I'd already known of it; (ii) stupidity is endemic in every society (my own certainly included). -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC) .... slightly retouched Hoary (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Hoary makes an important thing above: he approaches a source critically. This is absolutely essential when building a text based on sources. Sources are of uneven quality, and we cannot rely on some "meta-source" to assess their reliability. The only way to understand if they are reliable or not is critique, both internal and external. Hoary goes exactly to the point, concerning the Ebony article: he points out that Ebony takes the American way of classifying people according to "race" for granted, and consequently assumes that classifying people in a different way, like Brazilians informally do, is "wrong". Thus, while this article certainly can illustrate the differences between those "two ways of being racist", and even the Brazilian ongoing debate on race (because there certainly is a trend in Brazil to copy the American way), it cannot be taken as an emanation of absolute truth.

The other sources provided by Opinoso are in Portuguese; I'm going to take a shot at translating the relevant pieces, and at a critique of them.

First,, a paper by Prof. Simon Schwartzman, ex-chairman of the IBGE, an actual demographer, who has already been called an "unreliable source" within this discussion. Here is the whole original paragraph:


 * Existe muita insatisfação com estas categorias. Uma boa parte da população não se identifica e não gosta de alguns destes termos, como veremos abaixo. Os resultados que se encontram são também criticados. Tipicamente, as pesquisas mais recentes encontram cerca de 5% de pretos, 50% de brancos, e 45% de pardos, com uma pequena percentagem nas categorias de "amarelos" (orientais) e indígenas (a PNAD 1997, que cobre todo o país exceto a região rural da Amazônia, encontrou 54.4% de brancos, 5.2% de pretos, 39.9% de pardos, 0,4% de amarelos e 0,1% de indígenas). Estes números, segundo alguns críticos, ocultariam o verdadeiro tamanho da população negra no Brasil, que, se definida de forma análoga ao que ocorre nos Estados Unidos, chegaria a pelo menos 50% da população; e também deixaria de medir o verdadeiro tamanho da população indígena.

Opinoso already translated part of it, but I'm going to make a fresh translation below:


 * There is much dissatisfaction with those categories [the traditional ternary division used by the IBGE, "branco/pardo/preto" (note by Ninguém)] . An important part of the population does not like and identify with those terms, as we are going to see below. The results found are also under criticism. Typically, the more recent researchs find 5% "pretos", 50% "brancos", and 45% "pardos", with a small percent under the categories of "amarelos" (Asian) and "índigenas" (the 1997 PNAD, covering all the country except the rural region of the Amazonic area, found 54.4% of "brancos", 5.2% of "pretos", 39.9% of "pardos", 0.4% of "amarelos" and 0.1% of "indígenas"). These figures, according to some critiques, would hide the true size of the Black population in Brazil, which, if defined in the same way as in the United States, would reach at least 50% of the population; and it would also fail to measure the true size of the "indígena" population.

(I have refrained from translating the IBGE categories, because it is necessary here to stress that the text is confronting two different "racial" systems: the American White/non-White (with non-White implying "Black", even when used towards "Caucasian" people like Arabs) and the Brazilian branco/pardo/preto. The literal translations are, of course, branco->white, pardo->brown, preto->black, amarelo->yellow, and indígena->indian.)

Now to the text proposed as a source.

First, Schwartzman is by no means endorsing the position of those (unnamed) critiques ("críticos"). He is here merely reporting, as he is reporting the dissatisfaction of an important part of the population with IBGE's ternary classification.

In this paragraph, he doesn't even explain this dissatisfaction; if this lack is amalgamated with what comes after, about classifying people "in the same way as in the United States", the impression that most of this dissatisfaction tends to demand the adoption of a White/Black system with the suppression of the intermediate "parda" category. This is far from true; the data he is discussing show the dissatisfaction goes in different ways, with certainly a part of the Black (in the American sence) population preferring the label "negro" as a generic term for "pardo/preto", but other significant part preferring terms (especially "moreno") that tend to erase the "branca/parda" boundary (in fact, the "standard" usage of "moreno" translates into English as "White person of dark hair and/or olive complexion).

Then he also reports some criticism of the results. If the American system was used, the Black population would be at least 50% of the Brazilian population. But as he is also reminding us that researchs tend to find 5% "pretos" and 45% "pardos", this does not seem to imply any mis-self-classification by the populace; if both "pardos" and "pretos" were reported as Black, Blacks would be about 50% - if we ignore, as the unnamed critiques of IBGE's system seem to do - that the "parda" category also includes people of Amerindian and Euro-Amerindian extraction.

Of course, the unnamed critiques also ignore another problem - that of self misidentification. With three categories, one of them already allowing for an intermediate non-White and non-Black "identity", there are already people willing to self-identify as "moreno" (13.94% of "pretos", 53.96% (!) of "pardos", as can be seen in Table 1 in page 6 of Schwartzman's paper): the possibility that the Black self-identified populace would as low as 25% seems to be quite obvious. Labels don't change reality; reality changes labels.

Then there is the problem of the "indígena" category. As Schwartzman reports, it is strongly rejected by the populace. In fact, most Brazilians see "indígena" as a cultural category, not a racial one. According to this popular reasoning, if you live in a city and adopt "civilised" ways, you cannot be "indígena", never mind your genetic ancestry or phenotype.

So, as we see, the quoted part of Schwartzman's text cannot be used to support the proposed positions, even if we agree that he is a usually reliable source: he is not exposing his position, but reporting that of others (who he doesn't name) without endorsing them. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Opinoso quotes Schwartzman a second time, saying:


 * According to Simon Schwartzman the younger generations are more confortable to idenfity themselves as non-white. (Opinoso)


 * This is quite true. Here is the relevant paragraph:


 * O gráfico 2 mostra que a proporção de pessoas que se identificam como "brancas" diminui sistematicamente para os grupos mais jovens, enquanto que aumenta a dos "pardos", ficando constante a de "pretos". Uma interpretação possível seria que os brancos vivem mais, e os pardos, menos. Se isto fosse assim, no entanto, a proporção de "pretos" também cairia, já que as condições de vida deste grupo é semelhante à dos pardos. A outra interpretação, que parece mais plausível, é que as gerações mais novas se sentem mais à vontade para se identificarem como pardos do que as mais velhas.


 * Translating,


 * Graphic #2 [which can be found in page 13 of Schwartzman's paper] shows that the proportion of people who identify as "brancas" systematically diminishes for the younger groups, while that of "pardos" increases, and that of "pretos" remains stable. A possible interpretation would be that "brancos" live longer, and "pardos", shorter. If that was the cause, though, the proportion of "pretos" should fall too, as the life conditions of this group are similar to those of "pardos". The other interpretation, that seems more plausible, is that the younger generations feel more comfortable to identify as "pardos" than the older ones.


 * The problem here is not that Prof. Schwartzman didn't say what was attributed to him (though he is obviously more cautious when he speaks himself than when he is quoted; "seems more plausible" rather than "are" is the phrase he chooses), but that, with the due respect, he fails to analyse what seems to be the most obvious possibility: that the proportion of "pardos" is increasing as a result of the progress of miscigenation itself, ie, that more children report being "pardos" because there are in fact more "pardos" in the younger generations. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Having discussed what Prof. Schwartzman does not say about the "branco/pardo/preto" system when compared to the American White/Black system, let me bring into discussion what he actually says. In pages 15-16 of his paper, he writes the following:


 * Estes dados também nos dizem, pela sua própria fluidez e imprecisão, e pelas importantes variações que se dão entre gerações, que não seria recomendável que instâncias administrativas resolvessem assumir a responsabilidade de classificar as pessoas do ponto de vista étnico, usando uma classificação qualquer. O principal resultado desta análise parece ser que a população brasileira, em sua grande maioria, se recusa a ser classificada de uma ou outra forma, muda suas identidades com o tempo, e esta permeabilidade cultural e social do país, que existe apesar das grandes desigualdades de oportunidade que persistem, deve ser respeitada.

Translating:


 * These data also tell us, through their own fluidity and imprecision, and through the important variations between generations, that it wouldn't be recommendable that administrative instancies decided to take the responsibility of classifying people from an ethnic point of view, using any given classification. The most important result of this analysis seems to be that the Brazilian population, by a considerable majority, refuses to be classified in one or other way, changes its identities with time, and that this cultural and social permeability, which exists regardless the huge opportunity inequalities that persist, must be respected.

And a few lines below, describing the discussion within the Executive Comission of the IBGE (which he chaired at that moment), he tells us:


 * Diversas alternativas para melhorar a questão sobre "cor ou raça" foram discutidas, e descartadas. Substituir a cor "parda" por "morena" provocaria menos rejeição por parte dos entrevistados, mas esta alternativa reuniria tantas respostas que se tornaria ainda mais difusa,e por isto difícil de interpretar, do que a forma atual. Substituir "preto" por "negro", eliminando a alternativa "pardo", significaria forçar, para o Brasil, uma visão da questão racial como uma dicotomia, semelhante à dos Estados Unidos, que não seria verdadeira.

Translating,


 * Several alternatives to improve the item about "colour or race" were discussed and rejected. To substitute "morena" for "parda" would rise less rejection from people being interviewed, but this alternative would gather so many responses that would become even more diffuse, and thence difficult to interpretate, than the present format. Substitute "negro" for "preto", suppressing the "pardo" alternative would mean to impose unto Brazil a vision of the racial issue as a dichotomy, similar to that of the United States, which wouldn't be true.

So, not only the paper does not support the interpretation attributed to it, but it quotes, approvingly, an opposite interpretation. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then, let's see this,, which reports the results of the Censo Escolar (School Census) of 2005:


 * 18.1% of the students did not answer the question, 46.1% of those who did said they were "pardos", 41.6% "brancos", 10% "pretos" and the remaining 2.4%, of "amarela" and "indígena" color/race.


 * It shows that the proportion of "pretos", "pardos", "amarelos" and "indígenas" is bigger, and that of "brancos" is smaller, among school students than among the populace in general. Does this mean that the general Census data are wrong? Or that the actual proportion is different among school students? That the same people who declared themselves "brancos" at home declare themselves "pardos" at school? We don't know and the quoted text does not address this issue.


 * We can, of course, take our own conclusions. Doing so is "original research"? I really don't care, but here we are facing a problem that allows different solutions. Maybe this is a problem of self misidentification and the school environment, for some unexplained reason, makes people more at ease with self-identificating as non-White. Maybe the methodology of the school census is different from the methodology of the general census. Maybe the actual racial composition of the younger generation is different from the general population. Maybe, even, the age composition of the different colours is different in school. Maybe all, or some, of these factors play a role here. I don't know, I believe that only through a thorough analysis of the microdata of both Censi - that I don't have and that are not available in the internet - can these questions be solved, and, consequently, I object to any apparently easy solution being reported in this article as an objective truth. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally, we do have this:, which is a third party comment, in the right-wing central trade union Força Sindical about a Datafolha research on race. Here we have an advantage: the paper compares (though very incopletely) data from the same source from 1995 and 2008. According to it, in 1995 half of the people interviewed by Datafolha considered themselves "brancos"; in 2008, this proportion was of 37%. This paper gives two (and implies the existence of more) different explanations for this change:


 * Duas razões principais explicam o crescimento dos autodeclarados pretos e pardos.A primeira é demográfica. O Relatório Anual das Desigualdades Raciais no Brasil, organizado pelos pesquisadores Marcelo Paixão e Luiz Carvano, mostra que, em 1995, o número médio de filhos de mulheres pretas e pardas era 3,0. Entre brancas, a taxa era de 2,2.Dez anos depois, a diferença caiu, mas as mulheres pretas e pardas seguem tendo, em média, mais filhos (2,3 ante 1,9).No entanto, como a definição de cor ou raça pelo IBGE é autodeclaratória (é o entrevistado quem escolhe entre cinco opções fornecidas), outra razão apontada por especialistas para esse aumento é que pessoas que antes se identificavam como brancas deixaram de se classificar assim.

Translating,


 * Two main (emphasys mine) reasons explain the growth of self-declared "pretos" and "pardos". The first one is demographic. The Relatório Anual das Desigualdades Raciais no Brasil ("Annual Report on Race Inequality in Brazil"), organised by researchers Marcelo Paixão e Luiz Carvano, shows that, in 1995, the average number of children of "pardas" and "pretas" women was of 3.0. Among "brancas" women, the rate was 2.2. Ten years later, the difference was smaller, but "pretas" and "pardas" women still have, in the average, more children (2.3 against 1.9). However, as the definition of colour or race by the IBGE is self-declaratory (it is the interviewed person who choses between five given options), other reason indicated by specialists for that growth is that people who used to identify as "brancas" ceased to classify themselves as such.


 * The problem is, we don't know what the Datafolha methodology is, and how the differences between it and the Census' methodology affect the difference in the results between the two researches. The only known difference is that the Census is an actual count, while the Datafolha research is applied to a representative sample.


 * We see, however, that this paper does acknowledge the (considerable) difference in prolificity between White and non-White women, even if it fails to realise that some of the White women's children are non-White children. What it does not is to quantify how much of the racial change is due to each of the causes it points to. For all we know, most of the change could be due to the "demographic" cause, with the "identity" cause being comparatively minor. Or the opposite could be true. To take definite conclusions on such a shaky base does not seem wise. Ninguém (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Footnote quality
The average quality of the footnotes is very disappointing. Two that are particularly grotesque are a citation of a Wikipedia article (WP is not a reliable source) and a reference to something unidentified at Google Books.

I've put some work into formatting notes here and I'll do more IFF others help.

See this list of notes as pretty good examples of the kind of thing that's acceptable. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Footnote #1 could be replaced by, which is more readable. Ninguém (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to make this kind of change. But also please be informative about where the link points. (For example, if it's a PDF file, say it's a PDF file; and if it's very big, say so.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed footnote 1 and 3 (which are the same). Footnote 2 would need some explanation, it's not intuitive. Footnote 4 does not support the text. It's in English, you can see it for yourself. It says,


 * Distinct footprints of Italian immigration to southern Brazil, migration of Moroccan Jews to the Amazon region, and possible relics of the 17th-century Dutch invasion of northeast Brazil could be seen in the data.

Evidently, while the research was able to distinguish European haplogroups from Subsaharan ones, distinguishing between different origins within Europe is much more complicated. Germans and Spaniards are not mentioned concerning the research findings.

It also says,


 * Portuguese and Italian immigrants arrived in almost equal numbers (comprising almost 70% of the total), followed by immigrants from Spain, Germany, Syria, Lebanon, and Japan.

Which refers exclusively to the ancestries of recent immigrants, totally leaving aside the issue of people of colonial ancestry. About these, it says what we already know:


 * With the exception of an unknown number of colonizers who arrived during the Dutch 30-year domination of the northeast of Brazil in the 17th century, Portugal was the only significant source of European immigrants to Brazil until 1808.

Ninguém (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I take your point. However, let's discuss this particular issue within the section above.


 * I think I set off this thread in an unsatisfactory way. I don't retract my criticism of the Wikipedia reference, but let's forget that kind of problem.


 * I'll try to restart, below. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Footnote #5 is the same as #13; I have changed it to fit the same standard. Ninguém (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Restart
The article has many footnotes. Many are presented as mere titles, or even just as URLs. However, readers should not have to take a link in order to see what it is. The footnote should clearly identify what the source is, as well as providing the specific link to it.

As you add footnotes, please make them as informative as possible. If you are happy with the link within a particular footnote, please consider making the footnote more informative about the link. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm going to have a try. Please keep in mind that in some cases I will have to change the text, as it is not always supported by the source; in others, I will have to bring the source itself into question, as it seems to misrepresent reality (by the way, how do we handle these cases in which the source's claims are evidently contrary to reality?)


 * Footnote #6 links to another Wikipedia article, so it is invalid. I tried going to that article, History of immigration to the United States to see if I could find the source of the information there, but the figure of 530,000, which is given here, cannot be found there. I suppose I am going to have to google up this information.


 * Footnote #7 is problematic due to its content. It refers to an offline publication, Raízes ocultas do Brasil ("Hidden Roots of Brazil"), by Professor Anita Novinsky. I was never able to find it online, but from what I could gather from comments on it in many websites (newspapers, blogs, etc) it seems to support a very polemic and unusual reasoning about Judaism in Brazil (a sentence that I have often found attributed to Prof. Novinsky goes "Jews made Brazil", which seems to, erm, downplay a little bit the contributions of Black people). My impression is that it relies too much in the Inquisition as a primary source about Judaism. We know that the earthly possessions of those sentenced by the Inquisition were confiscated to the benefit of the Catholic Church, so the Inquisition had a material interest in accusing people of being Jews. The text supported by it seems to me mistaken:


 * Most of the immigrants were ethnically Portuguese, but some of the first settlers were, actually, Portuguese Jews.


 * The Portuguese Jews, as far as I can understand, were ethnically Portuguese, as they came to Portugal mostly as a result of the Muslism invasion in the VIII Century, and the whole population brought to Portugal by this conquest - Arabs, Berbers, Jews - became firmly assimilated into Portuguese ethnicity. Besides, most - if not all - those Jews had converted to Christianism (the Cristãos Novos) and we cannot actually know how much of them continued to practice Judaism in clandestinity (the only actual source being the Inquisition). Certainly, however, given the scarcity of European women in Brazil, the Halachic matrilineal lineages were broken, in practice exterminating Judaism here. So the correct text would be,


 * Most of the immigrants were ethnically Portuguese, some of them certainly Portuguese Jews, most of which forced converts to Catholicism.


 * Footnote #8 was misquoted; I have corrected this . Otherwise it seems to be OK, except for the lack of the authors' names, which I am going to include now. Ninguém (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. However, I suggest that you ignore any note that you think is a miscitation, and deal with these via the (very laborious) "one at a time" process. -- Hoary (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may strongly echo Hoary, "one at a time" is the only way to get this content settled into something sourced, helpful and at least somewhat lasting. There is no quick fix, but there is a "slow and steady" fix, so to speak. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes #9 to #14 seem to be allright. While footnote #15 is valid for the information it is supporting, it is not a really good source, with too much emphasys on the military reasons for the immigration. I am proposing to substitute for it. I don't like Giralda Seyferth's work (which seems too much philogermanic to me) very much either, but here it seems to be adequate. Ninguém (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the article's figures on Brazilian Whites to match the referenced source, which is the 2000 Census. If anyone wants to replace that by one of the more recent PNADs, that's OK with me, but it must be changed both in text and references, both in absolute values and percents, and also in the fact box. Ninguém (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Now we again have the article talking about 2006 data, with footnotes that point to 2000 data. Ninguém (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Solved, I think.