User:Jnlambert/Colonial Brazil

Inland expansions: the Entradas and bandeiras
Key to understanding inland expansion in Brazil is understanding the colony’s economic structure. Brazil was constructed as an export colony, and less so as a place for permanent European settlement. This led to a culture of extraction that was unsustainable in terms of land and labor uses.

At sugar plantations in the north, land was worked exhaustively with no concern for ensuring its long-term productivity. As soon as the land was exhausted, plantation owners would simply abandon their plots, shifting the sugar frontier to new plots as the supply of land seemed endless to them. Economic incentives to increase profits drove this pattern of planting, while the abandoned lands rarely recovered.

Banderia expeditions often consisted of a field officer, his slaves, a chaplain, a scribe, a mapmaker, white colonists, livestock, and medical professionals, among others. In several-month-long marches, such groups entered lands that were not yet occupied by colonizers by were doubtless part of the homelands of Amerindians

Colonial Transformation of the Brazilian Environment
Colonial and capitalist practices destroyed much of the Brazilian forest. This was made possible in part by colonial conceptions of the natural world as a disposable collection of utilities with no inherent value.

Mining practices significantly harmed the land. To facilitate the extraction of gold, in some regions large swaths of forest along hillsides were burned. (Dean, 95) 4,000 square kilometers of the Atlantic Forest region were denuded for mining, leaving the terrain “bald and deserted.” (Dean, 97). This massive destruction of the natural environment was a consequence of the colonial culture of extraction and unsustainability.

As the gold rush subsided, many Portuguese colonists abandoned mining for farming and animal husbandry. Farming practices extended inland expansion farther into the Brazilian forest. The colonists began to set in motion what became a nearly unstoppable trend with profound cumulative effects. The Portuguese colonists’ decisions to pursue the economic strategy of agriculture and to adopt particular agricultural practices significantly transformed the Brazilian environment. The Portuguese colonists understood farming as a beneficial taming of the frontier, urging mestizos, mulattoes, and indigenes to abandon life in the wild forest and adopt agriculture. Colonial farming practices in the forest were unsustainable, greatly exploiting the land. Slash-and-burn practices were used liberally, and colonial responses to the presence of the ant genus Atta encouraged both large-scale abandonment of fields and extensive clearing of additional lands. Atta effectively resisted agriculture. In only a few years, the ants constructed elaborate and complex colonies that colonists found nearly impossible to destroy and that made hoeing and plowing extremely difficult. Instead of fighting the ants, colonists ceded their fields to the ants, created new fields through burning, then a few years later ceded their new fields to the ants.

This environmental transformation contrasted sharply with Brazilian Amerindian land-management concepts and practices. Unlike in many areas of Central and South America, in Brazil Amerindians did not significantly disrupt and damage biotic communities. Amerindians maintained very small communities, and their total numbers were small. In addition, they prioritized the long-term agricultural productivity of the land, utilizing cultivation, hunting, and gathering practices that were sustainable.

The introduction of European livestock—cattle, horses, and pigs—also radically transformed the land. Indigenous flora in the interior of Brazil withered and died in the face of repeated trampling by cattle; the flora were replaced by grasses able to adapt to such abuse. Cattle also overgrazed fertile fields, killing vegetation that was able to survive extensive trampling. Scrubby noxious plants, some of which were poisonous, replaced this vegetation. Colonists responded to these unwanted plants by burning innumerable large pastures, a practice that killed countless small animals and greatly damaged soil nutrients.

Runaway slave settlements
These enslaved people worked to resist slavery in many ways. Some of the most common forms of resistance involved engaging in sluggishness and sabotage. Other ways these enslaved peoples resisted was by exacting violence upon themselves and their babies, often to the point of death, and by seeking revenge against their masters. Another

The realities of being on a frontier that was policed in less than optimal ways fostered the successful escapes of enslaved people.

Quilombos were often viewed by Portuguese colonists as “parasitic,” relying upon theft of livestock and crops, “extortion, and sporadic raiding” for sustenance. Often, the victims of this raiding were not white sugar planters but blacks who sold produce grown on their own plots. Other accounts document the actions of members of Quilombos to successfully prospect gold and diamonds and to engage in trade with white-controlled cities.

Portuguese colonists sought to destroy these fugitive communities because they threatened the economic and social order of the slave regime in Brazil. There was a constant fear among colonists that enslaved peoples would revolt and resist slavery. Two settler objectives were to discourage enslaved peoples from trying to escape and to close down their options for escape. Strategies used by Portuguese colonists to prevent enslaved people from fleeing included apprehending escapees before they had the opportunity to band together. Slave catchers mounted expeditions with the intent to destroy fugitive communities. These expeditions destroyed mocambos and either killed or re-enslaved inhabitants These expeditions were conducted by soldiers and mercenaries, many of whom were supported by local people or by the government’s military. As a result, many fugitive communities were heavily fortified. Amerindians were sometimes utilized as ‘slave catchers’ or as part of a larger set of defenses against slave uprisings that had been orchestrated by cities and towns. At the same time, some Amerindians resisted the colonizers’ efforts to prevent uprisings by surreptitiously incorporating into their villages those who had escaped slavery.

The Sugar Age (1530-1700)
Enslaved Africans were more desirable and practical because many came from sedentary, agriculture-based societies and did not require as much training in how to farm as did members of Amerindian societies, which tended to not be primarily agricultural. Africans were also less vulnerable to disease than were Amerindians. The fact that Africans had been removed from their homelands made it more difficult for them to flee.

Slave labor demands varied based on region and on the type of harvest crop. In the Bahia region, where sugar was the principle crop, conditions for enslaved peoples were extremely harsh. It was often cheaper for slaveowners to literally work enslaved peoples to death over the course of a few years and replace them with newly imported enslaved people. Areas where manioc, a subsistence crop, was cultivated also utilized high numbers of enslaved peoples. In these areas, 40 to 60 percent of the population was enslaved. These regions were characterized by fewer work demands and better living and working conditions for enslaved peoples as compared to labor conditions for enslaved populations in sugar regions.