![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
The issue is: in 20 October 2009, user:Lecen started to erase several sourced informations from article Brazil ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His justification to erase them was "Adding a much better and correct text with sources to Empire section" [1]. After a few days, the entire section about History of Brazil was erased by this user, and replaced with his own contributions.
Lecen is free to point the parts that he found to be "incorrect" or "worse" in the original History section. However, I can't find any rule from Wikipedia allowing an user to erase sourced informations because he deslikes what was writen there, and giving no reasons to erase them. Wikipedia does not allow this type of behaviour. Comments please. Opinoso ( talk) 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Nothing of what I wrote was taken out of my head or based on personnal opinions. They were all taken from history books written by renowned Brazilian and foreign historians. Anyone who reads it, will surely notice that is identical to what I wrote. I am putting in here a few of them. If any one wants it, I can put as many others as necessary until I prove the fairness of my allegations. I remain faithful to my sources, the opposite of what Opinoso does. And if to any of you they might seem "biased" it is because as historian José Murilo de Carvalho said (p.265) the all historians "tend to be sympathetic toward the monarch if not openly praiseful".
(Munro, Dana Gardner. The Latin American Republics; A History. New York: D. Appleton, 1942, pp.273-274)
(Skidmore, Thomas E. Uma História do brasil. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2003, p.73)
(Barman, Roderick J. Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825–1891. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999, pp.XIII-XIV)
(Calmon, Pedro. História da Civilização Brasileira. Brasília: Senado Federal, 2002, p.217)
(Carvalho, José Murilo de. D. Pedro II. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2007, p.9)
-- Lecen ( talk) 19:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(Olivieri, Antonio Carlos. Dom Pedro II, Imperador do Brasil. São Paulo: Callis, 1999, p.22)
-- Lecen ( talk) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(Vasquez, Pedro Karp. Nos trilhos do progresso: a ferrovia no brasil imperial vista pela fotografia. São Paulo: Metavídeo, 2007, p.38)
-- Lecen ( talk) 21:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Lecen, how are you doing?! This is the place for User:Lecen to explain why he decided to erase the ENTIRE History text of this article. Lecen said that the original History part of this article had "incorrect" and "worse" informations, and that's why he choose to erase them all. Maybe all the informations were wrong, maybe they were not. Then, he's gotta prove it, right? Since he erased ALL the History text, it means that ALL the original sentences were "wrong" and "worse". Could Lecen please show us the wrong informations it had? Because, as far as I can, everything seemed to be well sourced and neutral. I'd like to see him commenting on each information he erased (since he erased everything, he must comment each sentence of the original text), and explain why he erased it, and why the sentence was wrong. For that, he cannot use his personal opinion or theories. He must bring us sources which claim the opposite of what was writen.
This is what Lecen should have done before he decided to erase sourced informations: to comment on each erased information, and why he decided to delete them, and why it deserved to be deleted (with sources that we can read, not personal theories).
I'm giving Lence the opportunity to explain his attitude. However, if Lence cannot explain why he removed a certain sentence or information, I will return with the deleted information to the article and remove the new ones that were posted in their place. This is because a sourced information can only be removed if somebody can prove it was wrong. If the person cannot prove it, it cannot be removed. Then, Wikipedia allowes me to re-post what was removed with no reason.
Good luck Lecen. I will wait the comments on each information that you removed (not only about Emperor Pedro II, but about the entire History text, since you erased it all). It's fair, isn't it? What was wrong and removed, will continue be removed. What was correct and was removed, will return. Then, in the end, everybody will be happy with a beautiful article and move on. Opinoso ( talk) 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Then, he wrote in his user page [2] that he wrote "all History sections of Brazil article". It seems user Lecen whats to show the world that he was able to write everything in the History section, and that may be the reasons he is trying to remove the contributions of other users to this specific article. There's something real wrong here.
Lecen accuses me of faking sources. I think this user should read the entire book I used as a source before making such a huge accusation (he addimits that he read only a tiny part of the book). In fact, he is only trying to change the focus of this discussion to me. I'm not the focus of this discussion, neither you are. The focus is the fact that you erased several sourced informations without explaining why were removing them. You only said you were going to remove them because they were "wrong". Ok, were they wrong? So, show us the mistakes they had! It seems you're not able to shows us what was wrong there, then you started to change the focus of the discussion to me. No, no. I'm not the focus of this discussion. Your attitude is.
It's funny that in Lacen's own user page, it seems that all his contributions are dedicated to talk about the Monarchy, noble and monarchist people. [3] ( History of the Empire of Brazil, José Maria da Silva Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, etc...) Lacen said he does not have any adimiration for Monarchy or noble people, but his contributions are dedicated to talk about the subject. Strange, isn't it? Later, this user apperead here erasing sourced informations, mostly informations that showed negative points of Monarchy, and replacing them with another vision of Monarchy: only positive. Strange, isn't it?
Now, I ask the user to show us why he erased sourced informations, a great opportunity, and he denies my suggestion. I'm sorry Lecen, but if you are not able to explain why an information was "wrong", then you're not able to erase it. It's not me who is saying that, they're the rules of Wikipedia. You cannot erase an entire History text because you just don't like it.
You cannot say you were "improving" the article, because what is "better" or "worse" is a subjective conseption. In my opinion, the old History text is better, and Wikipedia does allow me to re-post it, since you cannot even explain why you removed it. Debresser agreed with me, because this is the most wise way to solve this issue.
Won't you really comment on each information you erased from the original History text? Opinoso ( talk) 15:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If Lecen finds that some information is wrong, he is able to use this talk page to show us (with sources) why that information is wrong. Or, if the finds a source is not reliable, he is able to discuss the issue in the correct place. However, if Lecen starts to remove sourced informations once again without any justification, then he will be vandalyzing the article. Opinoso ( talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Quote: "And the 5% of slaves as late as 1888 is an scandal. You also ommited the fact that the Empire of Brazil was the last country to free slaves on earth. Why did you ommit that?". Opinoso'(talk) 13:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
"The Empire of Brazil was the last country to free slaves on earth": that's completely false. Slavery continued in many other places in the world after 1888, you just have to look for them to find them. No more than 2 decades after the US by the way. And the labour system which was practiced in Brazil was a result of the system which was implanted by the Portuguese invaders, who since from the XV century were capturing slaves, soon to be followed by Britain, France, Spain and the Netherlands (in spite of that, and a lot more, Europeans claim to be the champions of the human rights cause; and this is what has been omitted from history books for a long time). As a European colony Brazil was forced to accept slavery from 1500 to 1822, massive slavery, first the Native Americans, and then Africans who were traded by the Portuguese by the millions. From 1822 to 1888 that's only 66 years.
1865 United States abolishes slavery 1888 Brazil abolishes slavery 1894 Korea abolishes slavery 1905 Siam (Thailand) abolishes slavery 1906 China abolishes slavery 1923 Afghanistan abolishes slavery 1942 Ethiopia abolishes slavery 1958 Bhutan abolishes slavery 1962 Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery 1963 United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery 1970 Oman abolishes slavery 1981 Mauritania abolishes slavery
30 October 2009 Grenzer22
It seems some I just don't like this is going on. That being said, the passages have some problems, I'm commenting on the new ones since the old ones have already been commented:
Added:
Hope that helps. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 15:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed some "brand new users" are appearing at this discussion. I hope they are not sockpuppets of other users already involved at this discussion, and I hope the votes of these "brand new users" won't also "appear" here.
Just as a note, Opinoso, you should probably change User:Lence to User:Lecen. I don't think they are the same person. I'm not able to because other editors are not allowed to modify another editor's comments. I'll cast a vote after I hear what Lecen has to say. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. ... in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used. ... even in cases that appear to be 'votes', few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a 'majority rule' basis, because Wikipedia is not a democracy." -- WP:Vote -- Rico 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Lecen, as a person who has been following the discussions related to Brazilian subjects, I can tell you that Opinoso is not Brazilian. He is a foreigner, a biased foreigner, who simply has managed to control Brazilian related themes, and to implant his lies and biased agenda. As seen above (e.g that Brazil was the last country on earth to abolish slavery), he has said many wrong things about Brazil, and he carries his stick everywhere to spread his biased message on Brazil. It is not like I am delirious, but I suspect he may work for a foreign government or a foreign agency. He has had many conflicts with Brazilians over the years, he has always won (even when wrong), and he still controls Brazilian subjects. The very fact that he presents himself as a Brazilian, when he obviously isn't, should be enough for him not to be allowed to dictate Brazilian subjects as he is. Be aware that this guy is truly dangerous and has no good will towards Brazil or Brazilians (or Latin America and Latin Americans in general). Grenzer22
I will explain each and every single action I did on this article on this place, not because Opinoso requested it, but because other editor did. I have ended writing, as you will see, what I did improved the text and didn´t harm it. And more important: I took as a model the history section of the United States. This is why it has similar titles and number of subsections. -- Lecen ( talk) 19:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Opinoso wrote: Moreover, Lecen is always claiming that book sources are more reliable than website sources. I can't find any rule from Wikipedia supporting this idea. Then, since he claims that the books he uses are highly reliable sources
Opinoso wrote:It's funny that in Lacen's own user page, it seems that all his contributions are dedicated to talk about the Monarchy, noble and monarchist people. (History of the Empire of Brazil, José Maria da Silva Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, etc...) Lacen said he does not have any adimiration for Monarchy or noble people, but his contributions are dedicated to talk about the subject. Strange, isn't it?
Opinoso wrote: It is amazing how you desperately try to delete informations about African slaves or the absolute poverty of the Brazilian people. Perhaps because a country of blacks and poor is far from a prototype designed by some people.
Opinoso wrote: When you try to diminish the African influence in Brazil, it only shows your biased and "strange" point of view.
Extended content
|
---|
![]() Most native peoples who live and lived within Brazil's current borders are thought to descend from the first wave of immigrants from North Asia ( Siberia) that crossed the Bering Land Bridge at the end of the last Ice Age around 9000 BC. In 1500 AD, the territory of modern Brazil had an estimated total population of nearly 3 million Amerindians divided in 2,000 nations and tribes. A not-updated linguistic survey found 188 living indigenous languages with 155,000 total speakers. In 2007, Fundação Nacional do Índio (English: National Indian Foundation) reported the presence of 67 different tribes yet living without contact with civilization, up from 40 in 2005. With this figure, now Brazil has the largest number of uncontacted peoples in the world, even more than the island of New Guinea. [1] When the Portuguese explorers arrived in 1500, the Amerindians were mostly semi- nomadic tribes, with the largest population living on the coast and along the banks of major rivers. Unlike Christopher Columbus who thought he had reached India, the Portuguese sailor Vasco da Gama had already reached India sailing around Africa two years before Pedro Álvares Cabral reached Brazil. Nevertheless, the word índios ("Indians") was by then established to designate the peoples of the New World and stuck being used today in the Portuguese language, while the people of India are called indianos. Initially, the Europeans saw the natives as noble savages, and miscegenation of the population began right away. Tribal warfare and cannibalism convinced the Portuguese that they should " civilize" the Amerindians. [2] |
Extended content
|
---|
![]() Portugal had little interest in Brazil, mainly because of the high profits to be gained from its commerce with India, Indochina, China and Japan. Brazil's only economic exploitation was the pursuit of brazilwood for its treasured red dye. Starting in 1530, the Portuguese Crown devised the Hereditary Captaincies system to effectively occupy its new colony, and later took direct control of the failed captaincies. [3] Although temporary trading posts were established earlier to collect brazilwood, with permanent settlement came the establishment of the sugar cane industry and its intensive labor. Several early settlements were founded along the coast, among them the colonial capital, Salvador, established in 1549 at the Bay of All Saints in the north, and the city of Rio de Janeiro on March 1567, in the south. The Portuguese colonists adopted an economy based on the production of agricultural goods for export to Europe. Sugar became by far the most important Brazilian colonial product until the early 18th century. [4] [5] Even though Brazilian sugar was reputed to be of high quality, the industry faced a crisis during the 17th and 18th centuries when the Dutch and the French started to produce sugar in the Antilles, located much closer to Europe, causing sugar prices to fall. ![]() During the 17th century, private explorers from São Paulo Captaincy, now called Bandeirantes, explored and expanded Brazil's borders, mainly while raiding the hinterland tribes to enslave native Brazilians. [6] In the 18th century, the Bandeirantes found gold and diamond deposits in the modern-day state of Minas Gerais. Profits from the development of these deposits were mostly used to finance the Portuguese Royal Court's expenditure on the preservation of its Global Empire and the support of its luxurious lifestyle. The way in which such deposits were exploited by the Portuguese Crown and the powerful local elites burdened colonial Brazil with excessive taxation, giving rise to some popular independence movements such as the Tiradentes in 1789; however, the secessionist movements were often dismissed by the colonial authorities. Gold production declined towards the end of the 18th century, beginning a period of relative stagnation in Brazil's hinterland. [7] Both Amerindian and African slaves' man power were largely used in Brazil's colonial economy. [8] In contrast to the neighboring Spanish possessions in South America, the Portuguese colony of Brazil kept its territorial, political and linguistic integrity, through the efforts of the colonial Portuguese administration. Although the colony was threatened by other nations during the era of Portuguese rule, in particular by the Dutch and the French, the authorities and the people ultimately managed to protect its borders from foreign attacks. Portugal even sent bullion (a rare naturally occurring metallic chemical element of high economic value) to Brazil, a spectacular reversal of the colonial trend, in order to protect the integrity of the colony. [9] |
What is the wrong:
Brazil kept its territorial integrity because of Portuguese colonial administration (untrue, as what kept Brazil united was the victory of the central government over the rebellions in the 1830s and 1840s, more than 100 years after the period mentioned).
"One way to assess the legacy of King John VI is to address the contrary: How would Brazil be today if the Portuguese court had not come to Rio de Janeiro? (..) But the former Portuguese colony would be a fragment of small autonomous countries, much like their Spanish American neighbors, with no other affinity than the language". Opinoso ( talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
What is right:
A final commentary about the changes:
I see no reason why the modified version cannot be kept.
Extended content
|
---|
![]() When arriving in April 1500 in the coast of what would later be known as Brazil, the Portuguese fleet commanded by Pedro Álvares Cabral found the primitive people that inhabited it. [10] They were divided in several distinct tribes, that fought among themselves [11] and that shared the same Tupi-Guarani linguistic family. [10] The “men were hunters, fishers and food collectors and the women were encharged of the reduced agricultural activity that was practiced.” [10] Some of the tribes were nomads and other sedentary; they knew the fire but not metal casting and a few were cannibals. [10] The settling was effectively initiated in 1534, when King Dom João III divided the Brazilian territory in twelve hereditary captainships that would be governed by members of the lesser nobility or proceeding from educated families. [12] The experience revealed itself to be an utter disaster, and in 1549 the king assigned a governor-general to administrate the entire colony. [13] With the foundation of villages appeared the municipal councils, and consequently, the beginning of the democratic representative system in Brazil. [14] Up to 1549, most of the (few) settlers were exiled men, but from that date and on, the voluntary emigrants (including women and children) from Portugal became predominant. [15] Around 1530, the Tupiniquim (the same tribe that Cabral met) and their bitter enemies the Tupinambá, the largest and most important tribes in Brazil, allied themselves with the Portuguese and the French, respectively. [11] Between the Portuguese and the Tupiniquim “occurred a certain intermittently pacific inter-racial assimilation.” [16] While the Tupinambás, however, were mostly exterminated in long wars and mainly by European diseases to which they had no immunities. [17] The ones that survived were enslaved by other tribes or by the Portuguese or fled toward the countryside. [17] By the middle of the 16th century, sugar had become the most important item of the Brazilian exportations. [11] Thus, the Portuguese turned to other forms of man power to handle with the increasing international demand. [17] Enslaved Africans were imported and became the “basic pillar of the economy” in the most populous areas of the colony. [18] |
Extended content
|
---|
Through wars against the French, the Portuguese slowly expanded their territory to the Southeast, taking Rio de Janeiro in 1567, and to the northwest, São Luís in 1615. [19] They suffered a setback with the Dutch invasions that began in 1630 and that managed to conquer large portions of the Brazilian northeastern coastline. The Dutch domain did not last long and they were expelled definitively in 1649. [20] The Portuguese sent military expeditions to the Amazon rainforest that defeated and conquered British and Dutch strongholds. The Portuguese settlement in the region initiated in 1669, with the foundation of villages and forts. [21] In 1680 they reached the far south and founded Sacramento at the side of the Rio de la Plata, in the Eastern Strip region (current Uruguay). [22] At the end of the 17th century sugar exports entered in decline due to competition with the British and Dutch colonies in the Caribbean and also due to high taxes. [23] The discovery of gold by explorers in the region that would later be called Minas Gerais (General Mines) between 1693 and 1695 saved the colony from its imminent collapse. [24] From all over Brazil, as well from Portugal, thousands of immigrants, from all ethnicities, departed toward the mines. [25] A 20% tax over the gold extraction created dissatisfaction that resulted in an open rebellion in 1720. The Portuguese government suffocated it with relative easiness, assuring its rule over the region for the next seventy years, [26] until the discovery of two small secessionist conspiracies in Minas Gerais and Bahia. [27] In the following decades other gold mines were found in current Mato Grosso and Goiás, in the Brazilian Central-West. [28] The Spanish tried to prevent the Portuguese expansion on the territory belonged to them according to the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 and succeeded on conquering the Eastern Strip in 1777. All in vain as the Treaty of San Ildefonso signed in the same year confirmed Portuguese domain over all lands proceeding from its territorial expansion, thus creating most of current Brazilian borders. [29] In 1808, the Portuguese Royal family, fleeing from the troops of the French Emperor Napoleon I that were invading Portugal and most of Central Europe, established themselves in the city of Rio de Janeiro, which thus became the seat of the entire Portuguese Empire [30] In 1815 King Dom João VI, then regent on behalf of his incapacitated mother, elevated Brazil from colony to sovereign Kingdom united with Portugal. [30] The Portuguese invaded French Guiana in 1809 (that was returned to France in 1817) [31] and the Eastern Strip in 1816 that was subsequently renamed Cisplatine. [32] |
Extended content
|
---|
![]() In 1808, the Portuguese court, fleeing from Napoleon's troops who were invading Portugal and most of Central Europe, established themselves in the city of Rio de Janeiro, which thus became the seat of government of Portugal and the entire Portuguese Empire, even though it was located outside of Europe. Rio de Janeiro was the capital of the Portuguese empire from 1808 to 1815, while Portugal repelled the French invasion in the Peninsular War. After that, the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves (1815–1825) was created with Lisbon as its capital. After João VI returned to Portugal in 1821, his heir-apparent Pedro became regent of the Kingdom of Brazil, within the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. Following a series of political incidents and disputes, Brazil achieved its independence from Portugal on 7 September 1822. On 12 October 1822, Dom Pedro became the first Emperor of Brazil, being crowned on 1 December 1822. Portugal recognized Brazil as an independent country in 1825. In 1824, Pedro closed the Constituent Assembly, stating that the body was "endangering liberty." Pedro then produced a constitution modeled on that of Portugal (1822) and France (1814). It specified indirect elections and created the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government; however, it also added a fourth branch, the "moderating power", to be held by the Emperor. Pedro's government was considered economically and administratively inefficient. Political pressures eventually made the Emperor step down on 7 April 1831. He returned to Portugal leaving behind his five-year-old son Pedro II. Until Pedro II reached maturity, Brazil was governed by regents from 1831 to 1840. The regency period was turbulent and marked by numerous local revolts including the Malê Revolt, [33] the largest urban slave rebellion in the Americas, which took place in Bahia in 1835. [34] The Cabanagem, one of the bloodiest revolts ever in Brazil, which was chiefly directed against the white ruling class, reduced the population of Pará from about 100,000 to 60,000. [35] ![]() On 23 July 1840, Pedro II was crowned Emperor. His government was marked by a substantial rise in coffee exports, the War of the Triple Alliance, which left more than 300,000 dead, [36] and the end of slave trade from Africa in 1850, although slavery in Brazilian territory would only be abolished in 1888. By the Eusébio de Queirós law, [37] Brazil stopped trading slaves from Africa in 1850. Slavery was abandoned altogether in 1888, thus making Brazil the last country of the Americas to ban slavery. [38] [39] When slavery was finally abolished, a large influx of European immigrants took place. [40] [41] [42] By the 1870s, the Emperor's control of domestic politics had started to deteriorate in the face of crises with the Catholic Church, the Army and the slaveholders. The Republican movement slowly gained strength. The dominant classes no longer needed the empire to protect their interests and deeply resented the abolition of slavery. [43] Indeed, imperial centralization ran counter to their desire for local autonomy. By 1889 Pedro II had stepped down and the Republican system had been adopted in Brazil. In the end, the empire really fell because of a coup d'état. |
What is the wrong:
casualties on Cabanagem (a smaller rebellion during the regency, the War of Tatter was much more important and is not even mentioned);
the other rebellions are not mentioned at all;
more than 300,000 deads on the War of the Triple Alliance (this is how many Paraguayans died, no reason to be in here);
wrong reasons to why the monarchy fell.
What is right:
A final commentary about the changes:
I see no reason why the modified version cannot be kept.
Extended content
|
---|
King Dom João VI returned to Europe in 26 April, 1821, leaving his elder son Dom Pedro as regent to rule Brazil. [44] The Portuguese government attempted to turn Brazil into a colony once again, thus depriving it of its achievements since 1808. [45] The Brazilians refused to yield and Prince Pedro stood by their side declaring the country's independence from Portugal in September 7, 1822. [46] On October 12, 1822, Pedro was acclaimed first Emperor of Brazil as Dom Pedro I and crowned on 1 December 1822. [47] In 1822 almost all Brazilians were in favor of a monarchical form of government. Republicanism was an ideal supported by few individuals at that moment of the Brazilian history. [48] The subsequent Brazilian War of Independence expanded through almost its entire territory, with battles that were fought in the northern [49], northeastern [50] and southern [51] regions of Brazil. The last Portuguese army surrendered in March 8, 1824 [52] and Brazilian independence was recognized by Portugal in November 25, 1825. [53] ![]() The first Brazilian constitution was promulgated in 25 March 1824, after its acceptance by the municipal councils across the country. [54] [55] [56] [57] It was “a highly advanced charter for the time where it was elaborated” [58] and had all individual guarantees that would be found in the subsequent Brazilian republican constitutions. [59] The government form was a hereditary, constitutional and representative (and after 1847, parliamentary [60]) monarchy. [61] The State was divided in four branches: Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and Moderating (or Royal Prerogative) [57] – the latter, responsible for the “consolidation of the national unit and for the stability of the Empire’s political system”. [62] The Brazilian defeat in the Argentina-Brazil War resulting in the loss of Cisplatine (nowadays Uruguay), [63] Pedro I incapacity in dealing with a representative system where he would have to take in account the opinion of the parliamentary opposition [64] and the provincial desire for a higher decentralization [65] all contributed for lowering his prestige among the Brazilians. But the main reason for his abdication was due to his continuous interest in the succession crisis in Portugal. [66] The emperor refused the Portuguese crown in favor of his eldest daughter in 1826, [67] but his brother Dom Miguel usurped the throne. [68] For the surprise, and against the will, of the Brazilians, [69] [70] [71] Pedro I abdicated in 7 April 1831 and departed to Europe to reclaim his daughter’s crown leaving behind his son and heir who became Dom Pedro II. [72] |
Extended content
|
---|
![]() As the new emperor could not exert his constitutional prerogatives as Emperor ( Executive and Moderating Power) until he reached majority, a regency was created. [74] Disputes between political factions that led to rebellions resulted in an unstable, almost anarchical, regency. [75] The rebellious factions, however, continued to uphold the throne of Pedro II as a way of giving the appearance of legitimacy to their actions (that is, they were not in revolt against the monarchy). The Cabanagem [76] the Sabinada [76] and the Balaiada, [76] [77] all followed this course, even though some declared the secession of the provinces as independent republics (but only so long as Pedro II was a minor). [78] The "generation of politicians who had come to power in the 1830s, following upon the abdication of Pedro I, had learned from bitter experience the difficulties and dangers of government. By 1840 they had lost all faith in their ability to rule the country on their own. They accepted Pedro II as an authority figure whose presence was indispensable for the country's survival." [79] Thus, Pedro II was prematurely declared of age and “Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress.” [80] From then "onward the Empire’s stability and prosperity when compared to the turmoil and poverty of the Spanish American republics gave ample proof” of the emperor’s successful government [81] Brazil also won three international wars during his long reign of 58 years ( Platine War, [82] Uruguayan War [83] and War of the Triple Alliance). [84] The emperor, who never owned slaves, [85] also led the abolitionist campaign [86] that eventually extinguished slavery after a slow but steady process that went from the end of international traffic in 1850 [87] up to the complete abolition in 1888. [88] However, he "took too long to trespass the political obstacles” [89] and Brazil became the last american country to abolish slavery. [90] Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; [91] and finally to less than 5% in 1887. [92] Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country [93] when the monarchy was overthrown in November 15, 1889. [94] There was no desire in Brazil (at least among the majority of its population) to change the form of government [95] and Pedro II was on the height of his popularity among his subjects. [96] [97] Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown.” [98] After the death of his two male sons, he believed that “the imperial regime was destined to end with him.” [99] The emperor did not care about its fate [100] [101] and did nothing (nor allowed anyone) to prevent the military coup [102] that was backed by former slave owners that resented the abolition of slavery. [103] The monarchist reaction after the fall of the empire “was not small and even less its repression”. [104] |
Another matter to be debated are Opinoso conduct and edits done on this article. First, I will put a list of his edits that will be followed by a commentary by me.
Conclusion: Opinoso has created false information, damaging Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable enciclopaedia. He has ignored Wikipedia rules by reverting texts when it was still being discussed (only to hide the fake infromation he had put). He falsely accused another editor (in that case me) of being racist and having a secret political agenda. He is a troublemaker that is untrusworthy and that has to be stopped at once from causing further damage on Wikipedia. - -- Lecen ( talk) 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
References
A Journal of Comparative Studies
Aspects of an Economic and Political Controversy between Great Britain and Brazil, 1865-1870.
The Independence of Brazil and the Abolition of the Brazilian Slave Trade: Anglo-Brazilian Relations, 1822-1826
The Empire, 1822-89
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
The issue is: in 20 October 2009, user:Lecen started to erase several sourced informations from article Brazil ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His justification to erase them was "Adding a much better and correct text with sources to Empire section" [1]. After a few days, the entire section about History of Brazil was erased by this user, and replaced with his own contributions.
Lecen is free to point the parts that he found to be "incorrect" or "worse" in the original History section. However, I can't find any rule from Wikipedia allowing an user to erase sourced informations because he deslikes what was writen there, and giving no reasons to erase them. Wikipedia does not allow this type of behaviour. Comments please. Opinoso ( talk) 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Nothing of what I wrote was taken out of my head or based on personnal opinions. They were all taken from history books written by renowned Brazilian and foreign historians. Anyone who reads it, will surely notice that is identical to what I wrote. I am putting in here a few of them. If any one wants it, I can put as many others as necessary until I prove the fairness of my allegations. I remain faithful to my sources, the opposite of what Opinoso does. And if to any of you they might seem "biased" it is because as historian José Murilo de Carvalho said (p.265) the all historians "tend to be sympathetic toward the monarch if not openly praiseful".
(Munro, Dana Gardner. The Latin American Republics; A History. New York: D. Appleton, 1942, pp.273-274)
(Skidmore, Thomas E. Uma História do brasil. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2003, p.73)
(Barman, Roderick J. Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825–1891. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999, pp.XIII-XIV)
(Calmon, Pedro. História da Civilização Brasileira. Brasília: Senado Federal, 2002, p.217)
(Carvalho, José Murilo de. D. Pedro II. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2007, p.9)
-- Lecen ( talk) 19:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(Olivieri, Antonio Carlos. Dom Pedro II, Imperador do Brasil. São Paulo: Callis, 1999, p.22)
-- Lecen ( talk) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(Vasquez, Pedro Karp. Nos trilhos do progresso: a ferrovia no brasil imperial vista pela fotografia. São Paulo: Metavídeo, 2007, p.38)
-- Lecen ( talk) 21:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Lecen, how are you doing?! This is the place for User:Lecen to explain why he decided to erase the ENTIRE History text of this article. Lecen said that the original History part of this article had "incorrect" and "worse" informations, and that's why he choose to erase them all. Maybe all the informations were wrong, maybe they were not. Then, he's gotta prove it, right? Since he erased ALL the History text, it means that ALL the original sentences were "wrong" and "worse". Could Lecen please show us the wrong informations it had? Because, as far as I can, everything seemed to be well sourced and neutral. I'd like to see him commenting on each information he erased (since he erased everything, he must comment each sentence of the original text), and explain why he erased it, and why the sentence was wrong. For that, he cannot use his personal opinion or theories. He must bring us sources which claim the opposite of what was writen.
This is what Lecen should have done before he decided to erase sourced informations: to comment on each erased information, and why he decided to delete them, and why it deserved to be deleted (with sources that we can read, not personal theories).
I'm giving Lence the opportunity to explain his attitude. However, if Lence cannot explain why he removed a certain sentence or information, I will return with the deleted information to the article and remove the new ones that were posted in their place. This is because a sourced information can only be removed if somebody can prove it was wrong. If the person cannot prove it, it cannot be removed. Then, Wikipedia allowes me to re-post what was removed with no reason.
Good luck Lecen. I will wait the comments on each information that you removed (not only about Emperor Pedro II, but about the entire History text, since you erased it all). It's fair, isn't it? What was wrong and removed, will continue be removed. What was correct and was removed, will return. Then, in the end, everybody will be happy with a beautiful article and move on. Opinoso ( talk) 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Then, he wrote in his user page [2] that he wrote "all History sections of Brazil article". It seems user Lecen whats to show the world that he was able to write everything in the History section, and that may be the reasons he is trying to remove the contributions of other users to this specific article. There's something real wrong here.
Lecen accuses me of faking sources. I think this user should read the entire book I used as a source before making such a huge accusation (he addimits that he read only a tiny part of the book). In fact, he is only trying to change the focus of this discussion to me. I'm not the focus of this discussion, neither you are. The focus is the fact that you erased several sourced informations without explaining why were removing them. You only said you were going to remove them because they were "wrong". Ok, were they wrong? So, show us the mistakes they had! It seems you're not able to shows us what was wrong there, then you started to change the focus of the discussion to me. No, no. I'm not the focus of this discussion. Your attitude is.
It's funny that in Lacen's own user page, it seems that all his contributions are dedicated to talk about the Monarchy, noble and monarchist people. [3] ( History of the Empire of Brazil, José Maria da Silva Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, etc...) Lacen said he does not have any adimiration for Monarchy or noble people, but his contributions are dedicated to talk about the subject. Strange, isn't it? Later, this user apperead here erasing sourced informations, mostly informations that showed negative points of Monarchy, and replacing them with another vision of Monarchy: only positive. Strange, isn't it?
Now, I ask the user to show us why he erased sourced informations, a great opportunity, and he denies my suggestion. I'm sorry Lecen, but if you are not able to explain why an information was "wrong", then you're not able to erase it. It's not me who is saying that, they're the rules of Wikipedia. You cannot erase an entire History text because you just don't like it.
You cannot say you were "improving" the article, because what is "better" or "worse" is a subjective conseption. In my opinion, the old History text is better, and Wikipedia does allow me to re-post it, since you cannot even explain why you removed it. Debresser agreed with me, because this is the most wise way to solve this issue.
Won't you really comment on each information you erased from the original History text? Opinoso ( talk) 15:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If Lecen finds that some information is wrong, he is able to use this talk page to show us (with sources) why that information is wrong. Or, if the finds a source is not reliable, he is able to discuss the issue in the correct place. However, if Lecen starts to remove sourced informations once again without any justification, then he will be vandalyzing the article. Opinoso ( talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Quote: "And the 5% of slaves as late as 1888 is an scandal. You also ommited the fact that the Empire of Brazil was the last country to free slaves on earth. Why did you ommit that?". Opinoso'(talk) 13:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
"The Empire of Brazil was the last country to free slaves on earth": that's completely false. Slavery continued in many other places in the world after 1888, you just have to look for them to find them. No more than 2 decades after the US by the way. And the labour system which was practiced in Brazil was a result of the system which was implanted by the Portuguese invaders, who since from the XV century were capturing slaves, soon to be followed by Britain, France, Spain and the Netherlands (in spite of that, and a lot more, Europeans claim to be the champions of the human rights cause; and this is what has been omitted from history books for a long time). As a European colony Brazil was forced to accept slavery from 1500 to 1822, massive slavery, first the Native Americans, and then Africans who were traded by the Portuguese by the millions. From 1822 to 1888 that's only 66 years.
1865 United States abolishes slavery 1888 Brazil abolishes slavery 1894 Korea abolishes slavery 1905 Siam (Thailand) abolishes slavery 1906 China abolishes slavery 1923 Afghanistan abolishes slavery 1942 Ethiopia abolishes slavery 1958 Bhutan abolishes slavery 1962 Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery 1963 United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery 1970 Oman abolishes slavery 1981 Mauritania abolishes slavery
30 October 2009 Grenzer22
It seems some I just don't like this is going on. That being said, the passages have some problems, I'm commenting on the new ones since the old ones have already been commented:
Added:
Hope that helps. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 15:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed some "brand new users" are appearing at this discussion. I hope they are not sockpuppets of other users already involved at this discussion, and I hope the votes of these "brand new users" won't also "appear" here.
Just as a note, Opinoso, you should probably change User:Lence to User:Lecen. I don't think they are the same person. I'm not able to because other editors are not allowed to modify another editor's comments. I'll cast a vote after I hear what Lecen has to say. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. ... in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used. ... even in cases that appear to be 'votes', few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a 'majority rule' basis, because Wikipedia is not a democracy." -- WP:Vote -- Rico 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Lecen, as a person who has been following the discussions related to Brazilian subjects, I can tell you that Opinoso is not Brazilian. He is a foreigner, a biased foreigner, who simply has managed to control Brazilian related themes, and to implant his lies and biased agenda. As seen above (e.g that Brazil was the last country on earth to abolish slavery), he has said many wrong things about Brazil, and he carries his stick everywhere to spread his biased message on Brazil. It is not like I am delirious, but I suspect he may work for a foreign government or a foreign agency. He has had many conflicts with Brazilians over the years, he has always won (even when wrong), and he still controls Brazilian subjects. The very fact that he presents himself as a Brazilian, when he obviously isn't, should be enough for him not to be allowed to dictate Brazilian subjects as he is. Be aware that this guy is truly dangerous and has no good will towards Brazil or Brazilians (or Latin America and Latin Americans in general). Grenzer22
I will explain each and every single action I did on this article on this place, not because Opinoso requested it, but because other editor did. I have ended writing, as you will see, what I did improved the text and didn´t harm it. And more important: I took as a model the history section of the United States. This is why it has similar titles and number of subsections. -- Lecen ( talk) 19:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Opinoso wrote: Moreover, Lecen is always claiming that book sources are more reliable than website sources. I can't find any rule from Wikipedia supporting this idea. Then, since he claims that the books he uses are highly reliable sources
Opinoso wrote:It's funny that in Lacen's own user page, it seems that all his contributions are dedicated to talk about the Monarchy, noble and monarchist people. (History of the Empire of Brazil, José Maria da Silva Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, etc...) Lacen said he does not have any adimiration for Monarchy or noble people, but his contributions are dedicated to talk about the subject. Strange, isn't it?
Opinoso wrote: It is amazing how you desperately try to delete informations about African slaves or the absolute poverty of the Brazilian people. Perhaps because a country of blacks and poor is far from a prototype designed by some people.
Opinoso wrote: When you try to diminish the African influence in Brazil, it only shows your biased and "strange" point of view.
Extended content
|
---|
![]() Most native peoples who live and lived within Brazil's current borders are thought to descend from the first wave of immigrants from North Asia ( Siberia) that crossed the Bering Land Bridge at the end of the last Ice Age around 9000 BC. In 1500 AD, the territory of modern Brazil had an estimated total population of nearly 3 million Amerindians divided in 2,000 nations and tribes. A not-updated linguistic survey found 188 living indigenous languages with 155,000 total speakers. In 2007, Fundação Nacional do Índio (English: National Indian Foundation) reported the presence of 67 different tribes yet living without contact with civilization, up from 40 in 2005. With this figure, now Brazil has the largest number of uncontacted peoples in the world, even more than the island of New Guinea. [1] When the Portuguese explorers arrived in 1500, the Amerindians were mostly semi- nomadic tribes, with the largest population living on the coast and along the banks of major rivers. Unlike Christopher Columbus who thought he had reached India, the Portuguese sailor Vasco da Gama had already reached India sailing around Africa two years before Pedro Álvares Cabral reached Brazil. Nevertheless, the word índios ("Indians") was by then established to designate the peoples of the New World and stuck being used today in the Portuguese language, while the people of India are called indianos. Initially, the Europeans saw the natives as noble savages, and miscegenation of the population began right away. Tribal warfare and cannibalism convinced the Portuguese that they should " civilize" the Amerindians. [2] |
Extended content
|
---|
![]() Portugal had little interest in Brazil, mainly because of the high profits to be gained from its commerce with India, Indochina, China and Japan. Brazil's only economic exploitation was the pursuit of brazilwood for its treasured red dye. Starting in 1530, the Portuguese Crown devised the Hereditary Captaincies system to effectively occupy its new colony, and later took direct control of the failed captaincies. [3] Although temporary trading posts were established earlier to collect brazilwood, with permanent settlement came the establishment of the sugar cane industry and its intensive labor. Several early settlements were founded along the coast, among them the colonial capital, Salvador, established in 1549 at the Bay of All Saints in the north, and the city of Rio de Janeiro on March 1567, in the south. The Portuguese colonists adopted an economy based on the production of agricultural goods for export to Europe. Sugar became by far the most important Brazilian colonial product until the early 18th century. [4] [5] Even though Brazilian sugar was reputed to be of high quality, the industry faced a crisis during the 17th and 18th centuries when the Dutch and the French started to produce sugar in the Antilles, located much closer to Europe, causing sugar prices to fall. ![]() During the 17th century, private explorers from São Paulo Captaincy, now called Bandeirantes, explored and expanded Brazil's borders, mainly while raiding the hinterland tribes to enslave native Brazilians. [6] In the 18th century, the Bandeirantes found gold and diamond deposits in the modern-day state of Minas Gerais. Profits from the development of these deposits were mostly used to finance the Portuguese Royal Court's expenditure on the preservation of its Global Empire and the support of its luxurious lifestyle. The way in which such deposits were exploited by the Portuguese Crown and the powerful local elites burdened colonial Brazil with excessive taxation, giving rise to some popular independence movements such as the Tiradentes in 1789; however, the secessionist movements were often dismissed by the colonial authorities. Gold production declined towards the end of the 18th century, beginning a period of relative stagnation in Brazil's hinterland. [7] Both Amerindian and African slaves' man power were largely used in Brazil's colonial economy. [8] In contrast to the neighboring Spanish possessions in South America, the Portuguese colony of Brazil kept its territorial, political and linguistic integrity, through the efforts of the colonial Portuguese administration. Although the colony was threatened by other nations during the era of Portuguese rule, in particular by the Dutch and the French, the authorities and the people ultimately managed to protect its borders from foreign attacks. Portugal even sent bullion (a rare naturally occurring metallic chemical element of high economic value) to Brazil, a spectacular reversal of the colonial trend, in order to protect the integrity of the colony. [9] |
What is the wrong:
Brazil kept its territorial integrity because of Portuguese colonial administration (untrue, as what kept Brazil united was the victory of the central government over the rebellions in the 1830s and 1840s, more than 100 years after the period mentioned).
"One way to assess the legacy of King John VI is to address the contrary: How would Brazil be today if the Portuguese court had not come to Rio de Janeiro? (..) But the former Portuguese colony would be a fragment of small autonomous countries, much like their Spanish American neighbors, with no other affinity than the language". Opinoso ( talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
What is right:
A final commentary about the changes:
I see no reason why the modified version cannot be kept.
Extended content
|
---|
![]() When arriving in April 1500 in the coast of what would later be known as Brazil, the Portuguese fleet commanded by Pedro Álvares Cabral found the primitive people that inhabited it. [10] They were divided in several distinct tribes, that fought among themselves [11] and that shared the same Tupi-Guarani linguistic family. [10] The “men were hunters, fishers and food collectors and the women were encharged of the reduced agricultural activity that was practiced.” [10] Some of the tribes were nomads and other sedentary; they knew the fire but not metal casting and a few were cannibals. [10] The settling was effectively initiated in 1534, when King Dom João III divided the Brazilian territory in twelve hereditary captainships that would be governed by members of the lesser nobility or proceeding from educated families. [12] The experience revealed itself to be an utter disaster, and in 1549 the king assigned a governor-general to administrate the entire colony. [13] With the foundation of villages appeared the municipal councils, and consequently, the beginning of the democratic representative system in Brazil. [14] Up to 1549, most of the (few) settlers were exiled men, but from that date and on, the voluntary emigrants (including women and children) from Portugal became predominant. [15] Around 1530, the Tupiniquim (the same tribe that Cabral met) and their bitter enemies the Tupinambá, the largest and most important tribes in Brazil, allied themselves with the Portuguese and the French, respectively. [11] Between the Portuguese and the Tupiniquim “occurred a certain intermittently pacific inter-racial assimilation.” [16] While the Tupinambás, however, were mostly exterminated in long wars and mainly by European diseases to which they had no immunities. [17] The ones that survived were enslaved by other tribes or by the Portuguese or fled toward the countryside. [17] By the middle of the 16th century, sugar had become the most important item of the Brazilian exportations. [11] Thus, the Portuguese turned to other forms of man power to handle with the increasing international demand. [17] Enslaved Africans were imported and became the “basic pillar of the economy” in the most populous areas of the colony. [18] |
Extended content
|
---|
Through wars against the French, the Portuguese slowly expanded their territory to the Southeast, taking Rio de Janeiro in 1567, and to the northwest, São Luís in 1615. [19] They suffered a setback with the Dutch invasions that began in 1630 and that managed to conquer large portions of the Brazilian northeastern coastline. The Dutch domain did not last long and they were expelled definitively in 1649. [20] The Portuguese sent military expeditions to the Amazon rainforest that defeated and conquered British and Dutch strongholds. The Portuguese settlement in the region initiated in 1669, with the foundation of villages and forts. [21] In 1680 they reached the far south and founded Sacramento at the side of the Rio de la Plata, in the Eastern Strip region (current Uruguay). [22] At the end of the 17th century sugar exports entered in decline due to competition with the British and Dutch colonies in the Caribbean and also due to high taxes. [23] The discovery of gold by explorers in the region that would later be called Minas Gerais (General Mines) between 1693 and 1695 saved the colony from its imminent collapse. [24] From all over Brazil, as well from Portugal, thousands of immigrants, from all ethnicities, departed toward the mines. [25] A 20% tax over the gold extraction created dissatisfaction that resulted in an open rebellion in 1720. The Portuguese government suffocated it with relative easiness, assuring its rule over the region for the next seventy years, [26] until the discovery of two small secessionist conspiracies in Minas Gerais and Bahia. [27] In the following decades other gold mines were found in current Mato Grosso and Goiás, in the Brazilian Central-West. [28] The Spanish tried to prevent the Portuguese expansion on the territory belonged to them according to the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 and succeeded on conquering the Eastern Strip in 1777. All in vain as the Treaty of San Ildefonso signed in the same year confirmed Portuguese domain over all lands proceeding from its territorial expansion, thus creating most of current Brazilian borders. [29] In 1808, the Portuguese Royal family, fleeing from the troops of the French Emperor Napoleon I that were invading Portugal and most of Central Europe, established themselves in the city of Rio de Janeiro, which thus became the seat of the entire Portuguese Empire [30] In 1815 King Dom João VI, then regent on behalf of his incapacitated mother, elevated Brazil from colony to sovereign Kingdom united with Portugal. [30] The Portuguese invaded French Guiana in 1809 (that was returned to France in 1817) [31] and the Eastern Strip in 1816 that was subsequently renamed Cisplatine. [32] |
Extended content
|
---|
![]() In 1808, the Portuguese court, fleeing from Napoleon's troops who were invading Portugal and most of Central Europe, established themselves in the city of Rio de Janeiro, which thus became the seat of government of Portugal and the entire Portuguese Empire, even though it was located outside of Europe. Rio de Janeiro was the capital of the Portuguese empire from 1808 to 1815, while Portugal repelled the French invasion in the Peninsular War. After that, the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves (1815–1825) was created with Lisbon as its capital. After João VI returned to Portugal in 1821, his heir-apparent Pedro became regent of the Kingdom of Brazil, within the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. Following a series of political incidents and disputes, Brazil achieved its independence from Portugal on 7 September 1822. On 12 October 1822, Dom Pedro became the first Emperor of Brazil, being crowned on 1 December 1822. Portugal recognized Brazil as an independent country in 1825. In 1824, Pedro closed the Constituent Assembly, stating that the body was "endangering liberty." Pedro then produced a constitution modeled on that of Portugal (1822) and France (1814). It specified indirect elections and created the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government; however, it also added a fourth branch, the "moderating power", to be held by the Emperor. Pedro's government was considered economically and administratively inefficient. Political pressures eventually made the Emperor step down on 7 April 1831. He returned to Portugal leaving behind his five-year-old son Pedro II. Until Pedro II reached maturity, Brazil was governed by regents from 1831 to 1840. The regency period was turbulent and marked by numerous local revolts including the Malê Revolt, [33] the largest urban slave rebellion in the Americas, which took place in Bahia in 1835. [34] The Cabanagem, one of the bloodiest revolts ever in Brazil, which was chiefly directed against the white ruling class, reduced the population of Pará from about 100,000 to 60,000. [35] ![]() On 23 July 1840, Pedro II was crowned Emperor. His government was marked by a substantial rise in coffee exports, the War of the Triple Alliance, which left more than 300,000 dead, [36] and the end of slave trade from Africa in 1850, although slavery in Brazilian territory would only be abolished in 1888. By the Eusébio de Queirós law, [37] Brazil stopped trading slaves from Africa in 1850. Slavery was abandoned altogether in 1888, thus making Brazil the last country of the Americas to ban slavery. [38] [39] When slavery was finally abolished, a large influx of European immigrants took place. [40] [41] [42] By the 1870s, the Emperor's control of domestic politics had started to deteriorate in the face of crises with the Catholic Church, the Army and the slaveholders. The Republican movement slowly gained strength. The dominant classes no longer needed the empire to protect their interests and deeply resented the abolition of slavery. [43] Indeed, imperial centralization ran counter to their desire for local autonomy. By 1889 Pedro II had stepped down and the Republican system had been adopted in Brazil. In the end, the empire really fell because of a coup d'état. |
What is the wrong:
casualties on Cabanagem (a smaller rebellion during the regency, the War of Tatter was much more important and is not even mentioned);
the other rebellions are not mentioned at all;
more than 300,000 deads on the War of the Triple Alliance (this is how many Paraguayans died, no reason to be in here);
wrong reasons to why the monarchy fell.
What is right:
A final commentary about the changes:
I see no reason why the modified version cannot be kept.
Extended content
|
---|
King Dom João VI returned to Europe in 26 April, 1821, leaving his elder son Dom Pedro as regent to rule Brazil. [44] The Portuguese government attempted to turn Brazil into a colony once again, thus depriving it of its achievements since 1808. [45] The Brazilians refused to yield and Prince Pedro stood by their side declaring the country's independence from Portugal in September 7, 1822. [46] On October 12, 1822, Pedro was acclaimed first Emperor of Brazil as Dom Pedro I and crowned on 1 December 1822. [47] In 1822 almost all Brazilians were in favor of a monarchical form of government. Republicanism was an ideal supported by few individuals at that moment of the Brazilian history. [48] The subsequent Brazilian War of Independence expanded through almost its entire territory, with battles that were fought in the northern [49], northeastern [50] and southern [51] regions of Brazil. The last Portuguese army surrendered in March 8, 1824 [52] and Brazilian independence was recognized by Portugal in November 25, 1825. [53] ![]() The first Brazilian constitution was promulgated in 25 March 1824, after its acceptance by the municipal councils across the country. [54] [55] [56] [57] It was “a highly advanced charter for the time where it was elaborated” [58] and had all individual guarantees that would be found in the subsequent Brazilian republican constitutions. [59] The government form was a hereditary, constitutional and representative (and after 1847, parliamentary [60]) monarchy. [61] The State was divided in four branches: Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and Moderating (or Royal Prerogative) [57] – the latter, responsible for the “consolidation of the national unit and for the stability of the Empire’s political system”. [62] The Brazilian defeat in the Argentina-Brazil War resulting in the loss of Cisplatine (nowadays Uruguay), [63] Pedro I incapacity in dealing with a representative system where he would have to take in account the opinion of the parliamentary opposition [64] and the provincial desire for a higher decentralization [65] all contributed for lowering his prestige among the Brazilians. But the main reason for his abdication was due to his continuous interest in the succession crisis in Portugal. [66] The emperor refused the Portuguese crown in favor of his eldest daughter in 1826, [67] but his brother Dom Miguel usurped the throne. [68] For the surprise, and against the will, of the Brazilians, [69] [70] [71] Pedro I abdicated in 7 April 1831 and departed to Europe to reclaim his daughter’s crown leaving behind his son and heir who became Dom Pedro II. [72] |
Extended content
|
---|
![]() As the new emperor could not exert his constitutional prerogatives as Emperor ( Executive and Moderating Power) until he reached majority, a regency was created. [74] Disputes between political factions that led to rebellions resulted in an unstable, almost anarchical, regency. [75] The rebellious factions, however, continued to uphold the throne of Pedro II as a way of giving the appearance of legitimacy to their actions (that is, they were not in revolt against the monarchy). The Cabanagem [76] the Sabinada [76] and the Balaiada, [76] [77] all followed this course, even though some declared the secession of the provinces as independent republics (but only so long as Pedro II was a minor). [78] The "generation of politicians who had come to power in the 1830s, following upon the abdication of Pedro I, had learned from bitter experience the difficulties and dangers of government. By 1840 they had lost all faith in their ability to rule the country on their own. They accepted Pedro II as an authority figure whose presence was indispensable for the country's survival." [79] Thus, Pedro II was prematurely declared of age and “Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress.” [80] From then "onward the Empire’s stability and prosperity when compared to the turmoil and poverty of the Spanish American republics gave ample proof” of the emperor’s successful government [81] Brazil also won three international wars during his long reign of 58 years ( Platine War, [82] Uruguayan War [83] and War of the Triple Alliance). [84] The emperor, who never owned slaves, [85] also led the abolitionist campaign [86] that eventually extinguished slavery after a slow but steady process that went from the end of international traffic in 1850 [87] up to the complete abolition in 1888. [88] However, he "took too long to trespass the political obstacles” [89] and Brazil became the last american country to abolish slavery. [90] Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; [91] and finally to less than 5% in 1887. [92] Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country [93] when the monarchy was overthrown in November 15, 1889. [94] There was no desire in Brazil (at least among the majority of its population) to change the form of government [95] and Pedro II was on the height of his popularity among his subjects. [96] [97] Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown.” [98] After the death of his two male sons, he believed that “the imperial regime was destined to end with him.” [99] The emperor did not care about its fate [100] [101] and did nothing (nor allowed anyone) to prevent the military coup [102] that was backed by former slave owners that resented the abolition of slavery. [103] The monarchist reaction after the fall of the empire “was not small and even less its repression”. [104] |
Another matter to be debated are Opinoso conduct and edits done on this article. First, I will put a list of his edits that will be followed by a commentary by me.
Conclusion: Opinoso has created false information, damaging Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable enciclopaedia. He has ignored Wikipedia rules by reverting texts when it was still being discussed (only to hide the fake infromation he had put). He falsely accused another editor (in that case me) of being racist and having a secret political agenda. He is a troublemaker that is untrusworthy and that has to be stopped at once from causing further damage on Wikipedia. - -- Lecen ( talk) 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
References
A Journal of Comparative Studies
Aspects of an Economic and Political Controversy between Great Britain and Brazil, 1865-1870.
The Independence of Brazil and the Abolition of the Brazilian Slave Trade: Anglo-Brazilian Relations, 1822-1826
The Empire, 1822-89