This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I have changed the statement "Besides the USA, Brazil has received the largest amount of immigrants than anywhere else in the Western Hemishpere" to account for the fact that both Canada and Argentina have historicaly received more immigrants than Brazil For example, total immigration figures in Argentina between the mid-19th century and the mid-20th century are estimated to be in excess of 6,000,000 versus something like 4.5 million in Brazil.12:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I was reading the article on immigration to Brazil today and I couldn't help noticing the paragraph that says:
The statement above is clearly racist and non-encyclopedic, and should be removed. As the text stands now, it indirectly implies that Brazilians with African, native American or primarily Portuguese ancestry lack (or used to lack) a work ethic as opposed to Brazilians with a different European or Asian ancestry. Second, it is also implied that southern and southeastern states in Brazil are wealthier because they are "more European" (a.k.a "whiter") than their northern and northeastern counterparts. 200.177.0.128 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Nationalities | 1819-1883 | 1884-1940 | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Italians | 96.018 | 1.412.263 | 1.508.281 |
Portuguese | 223.626 | 1.204.394 | 1.428.020 |
Spaniards | 15.337 | 581.718 | 597.055 |
Germans | 70.781 | 256.435 | 327.166 |
Japanese | 183.799 | 183.799 | |
Russians | 8.835 | 108.121 | 116.956 |
Poles | 47.765 | 47.765 | |
Frenchmen | 8.008 | 32.375 | 40.381 |
Total | 546.650 | 4.158.717 | 4.705.367 |
from História da vida privada no Brasil, vol. 3, p. 23.
Immigrants to Brazil (1881-1930)
Italy: 35%
Portugal: 28%
Spain: 13%
Germany: 5%
Japan: 3%
other countries: 16%
from Des origines de l'humanité au XXIe s., Atlas de l'histoire du monde. Sélection du Reader's Digest.
-- Elnuevomercurio 16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they should be placed here, and re-written, and inserted in the article over time. SamEV ( talk) 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
User Opinoso is trying to omit that the French, the Dutch and the Spaniards settled in Brazil. This is a distortion of history. I therefore ask an administrator to please revert his edition on this article. -- 91.141.238.10 ( talk) 13:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems a quite interesting claim. Why should it go unsourced? Ninguém ( talk) 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This does not answer my question: why would the information that most settlers in Brazil, for a few decades after Pedro Álvares Cabral' trip, "jumped ship to live among the Indians", be accepted without sources? Ninguém ( talk) 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Opinoso, don't you know that "Turkish" immigrants to Brazil are actually Syrian and Lebanese immigrants who travelled under Ottoman passports at a time when both Syria and Lebanon were part of the Ottoman Empire?
Have you ever seen or heard about actual Turkish immigrants to Brazil? Ninguém ( talk) 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The article includes figures for immigration during the period from 1820 to 1876, but this is not a good periodization. The period of the Great Immigration starts from 1872, not 1877: the average anual number of immigrants for 1820-1871 is below 4,500, while the average number for 1872-1876 is already between 15,000 and 30,000. Moreover, the first Brazilian Census is of 1872 and reflects only the limited immigration up to 1871; the increased immigration of 1872-1876 will only be reflected by the 1890 Census.
So I am proposing to change the periodization so to include the 1872-1876 immigrants in a second period (1872-1889).
Is anyone against this change, and why? Ninguém ( talk) 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Both that and the sub-section "Imigration Under the Empire", in its third paragraph. Ninguém ( talk) 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
After independence from Portugal, the Brazilian Empire focused on the occupation of the provinces of Southern Brazil. It was mainly because Southern Brazil had a small population, vulnerable to attacks by Argentina and the Kaingang Indians.
This seems unlikely.
Argentina and Uruguay were sparsely populated, and militarily too weak to pose a threat to the Empire (the opposite is true: the Empire constantly interfered in the internal affairs of both countries, deposing "problematic" governments).
Initial immigration came to places as distant from the Southern boundaries as Espírito Santo and Bahia. Even in the case of Rio Grande do Sul, immigration was mainly directed to the central and northern parts of the (then) Province, certainly not to the border areas, which were more populated at the time. The concern - as long as it involved any military reasons - seems to have been logistic, not manpower.
German immigrants were not wanted as soldiers, but as farmers, and only in the XX century their descent's presence in the Brazilian Army became remarkable. Rio Grande do Sul saw repeated military action during the XIX century ( Argentina-Brazil War, deposal of Juan Manuel Rosas, deposal of Manuel Oribe, deposal of Atanasio Aguirre, War of the Triple Alliance), and while the Gaúcho troops were a huge part of the Imperial Army in those wars, German immigrants played no significant role in them - nor in the two civil wars in XIX century Rio Grande do Sul, War of the Farrapos and 1893's Revolution. Ninguém ( talk) 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
"This mass of mulattoes and caboclos, Lusitanized because of the Portuguese language that they spoke, for the vision of the world, were shaping the Brazilian ethnicity and promoting, simultaneously, their integration in the form of a nation-state. It was already mature when large numbers of immigrants arrived from Europe and Japan, which allowed them all to be assimilated under the condition of generic Brazilians (...) They even forgot from where they came from and the miserable lives they faced in their homelands (...) A mixed-race people in flesh and in spirit, because here race-mixing was never a crime or a sin." |
O Povo Brasileiro, Darcy Ribeiro, pag 16. [1] |
This text seems misplaced here; it certainly does not help us to understand the subject of this article. Is anyone opposed to simply removing it? Ninguém ( talk) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
References
Since you took the time to go to my talk page and ask me if I am crazy or stupid, let me ask you what exactly do you think is stupid or crazy in the edits I have made to this page. And please sign your comments. Ninguém ( talk) 18:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The article has a section with the title, "Slave-immigrant transition". It includes some false and self-contradictory information:
It also contains some apparently unrelated info:
And finally, it comes to discuss the subject:
So this section essentially says nothing about "slave-immigrant transition". I am proposing removing it completely, since it serves no purpose. Is anyone opposed to this, or is anyone willing to rewrite the section, in order to eliminate nonsence, contradictions, and unrelated stuff, and to actually explain something about its subject? Ninguém ( talk) 16:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The following text
is featured twice in this article, the first in the lead, and the second in the subsection "Second Period: 1877-1903". I have tried more than once to remove one of them, but it has been systematically reversed. So: is it really necessary to keep this repetition? Why? If there is no reason, can we reach a consensus for the removal of this repetition? Ninguém ( talk) 19:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This section is unhapilly completely unreadable. I thought it was a problem of mistranslation of a source in Portuguese, but in fact the source itself is in "English" - or, more exactly, in a language that uses English words with a weird, ununderstandable, grammar. Is anyone able to find a source in Portuguese, or proper English? Or to translate the text into proper English? Ninguém ( talk) 13:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This map is being challenged by user Opinoso. I would like to see arguments defending it, a description of the methodology used, etc, so that we can stop what promises to be another edit war. Hentzer? Ninguém ( talk) 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
"Statistics" and "Consequences" were edited to improve their accuracy.-- CEBR ( talk) 10:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
From this article, one would reach the conclusion that Brazil never really had any racial preferences in their immigration policy and that it followed a totally race blind policy. Not the case, from the article Japanese Brazilian
In the government's conception, the non-White population of Brazil should disappear within the dominant class of Portuguese Brazilian origin. This way, the mixed-race population should be "whitened" through selective mixing, then a preference for European immigration. In consequence, the non-white population would, gradually, achieve a desirable White phenotype. The formation of "ethnic cysts" among immigrants of non-Portuguese origin prevented the realization of the whitening project of the Brazilian population. The government, then, started to act on these communities of foreign origin to force them to integrate into a "Brazilian culture" with Portuguese roots. It was the dominant idea of a unification of all the inhabitants of Brazil under a single "national spirit". During World War II, Brazil severed relations with Japan. Japanese newspapers and teaching the Japanese language in schools were banned, leaving Portuguese as the only option for Japanese descendants. Newspapers in German or Italian were also advised to cease production, as Germany and Italy were Japan's allies in the war.[18] In 1939, research of Estrada de Ferro Noroeste do Brasil, from São Paulo, showed that 87.7% of Japanese Brazilians read newspapers in the Japanese language, a high figure for a country with many illiterate people like Brazil.[28]
So indeed Brazil had an ethnocentric immigration policy just as America did at times. It wasn't uniform or constant, it shifted back and forth of course, but just like America the focus was on bringing in immigrants who would assimilate and who weren't black. This article shouldn't ignore this aspect of history since the article is not simply a list of who came to Brazil, but an account of the history of immigration to Brazil, so it should endeveour to explain why this group of people came instead of that group of people. As such I will gradually work to include this aspect in this article. ProgressiveThinker ( talk) 23:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltese Brazilian, I support this merger.
Do 'we' as editors write from within or from the outside? Do I write from within Brazil and say "x millin people immigrated to Brazil", or do I write from the outside and say "x million people emigrated to Brazil"? I changed the caption on the first image (map) to "European and Arab countries from where there was significant emigration to Brazil" as it seems to make more sense. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 16:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Immigration to Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JN3g5dpwFg0J:www.tropicalfm99.com.br/noticia.php%3Fnoticia%3D000714+treze+tilias+lingua+alema&cd=13&hl=pt-PT&ct=clnkWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Immigration to Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.brasilalemanha.com.br/pomerode/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.brasil.kiev.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=172%3Aucranianos-no-brasil&catid=45%3Aucranianos-no-brasil&Itemid=110When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Immigration to Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Immigration to Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.editorasaomiguel.com.br/correio/edicoes/reportagem.php?cod_rep=6071{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.editorasaomiguel.com.br/correio/edicoes/reportagem.php?cod_rep=6071{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.camaranovapetropolis.com.br/UPLarquivos/201220101443063.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.franciscobeltrao.pr.gov.br/arquivos/legislacao/898.DOC{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www1.leismunicipais.com.br/legislacao-de-francisco-beltrao/669887/lei-3018-2003-francisco-beltrao-pr.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
it's a Chinese link and it has nothing to do with Bolivian immigration to Brazil 2804:431:C7D9:4DEE:94D3:AE9E:4502:E7B6 ( talk) 22:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
There is an issue, I think, when a distinction between colonization and immigration is abused to link to this article with a confusing header in other articles. An example: the city of Porto Alegro was, according to its Wikipedia article, legally founded by “immigrants”.
“Porto Alegre was founded in 1769 by Manuel Jorge Gomes de Sepúlveda, who used the pseudonym José Marcelino de Figueiredo to hide his identity; but the official date is 1772 with the act signed by immigrants from the Azores, Portugal.”
These original “immigrants” were sent by the Portuguese Crown to set up missions in the area, thus settling it, and working completely within the legal bounds of, in fact in concert with the prerogatives of colonialism. This is the case for many “immigrants” to Brazil. In fact, the time frame this is assumed to apply to and the pioneer status of these “immigrants” seriously calls in to questions whether a distinction can be made between immigration to Brazil and colonialism as this article does, particularly when those immigrants are moving to frontiers or newly acquired terrories. 157.131.206.151 ( talk) 08:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I have changed the statement "Besides the USA, Brazil has received the largest amount of immigrants than anywhere else in the Western Hemishpere" to account for the fact that both Canada and Argentina have historicaly received more immigrants than Brazil For example, total immigration figures in Argentina between the mid-19th century and the mid-20th century are estimated to be in excess of 6,000,000 versus something like 4.5 million in Brazil.12:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I was reading the article on immigration to Brazil today and I couldn't help noticing the paragraph that says:
The statement above is clearly racist and non-encyclopedic, and should be removed. As the text stands now, it indirectly implies that Brazilians with African, native American or primarily Portuguese ancestry lack (or used to lack) a work ethic as opposed to Brazilians with a different European or Asian ancestry. Second, it is also implied that southern and southeastern states in Brazil are wealthier because they are "more European" (a.k.a "whiter") than their northern and northeastern counterparts. 200.177.0.128 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Nationalities | 1819-1883 | 1884-1940 | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Italians | 96.018 | 1.412.263 | 1.508.281 |
Portuguese | 223.626 | 1.204.394 | 1.428.020 |
Spaniards | 15.337 | 581.718 | 597.055 |
Germans | 70.781 | 256.435 | 327.166 |
Japanese | 183.799 | 183.799 | |
Russians | 8.835 | 108.121 | 116.956 |
Poles | 47.765 | 47.765 | |
Frenchmen | 8.008 | 32.375 | 40.381 |
Total | 546.650 | 4.158.717 | 4.705.367 |
from História da vida privada no Brasil, vol. 3, p. 23.
Immigrants to Brazil (1881-1930)
Italy: 35%
Portugal: 28%
Spain: 13%
Germany: 5%
Japan: 3%
other countries: 16%
from Des origines de l'humanité au XXIe s., Atlas de l'histoire du monde. Sélection du Reader's Digest.
-- Elnuevomercurio 16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they should be placed here, and re-written, and inserted in the article over time. SamEV ( talk) 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
User Opinoso is trying to omit that the French, the Dutch and the Spaniards settled in Brazil. This is a distortion of history. I therefore ask an administrator to please revert his edition on this article. -- 91.141.238.10 ( talk) 13:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems a quite interesting claim. Why should it go unsourced? Ninguém ( talk) 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This does not answer my question: why would the information that most settlers in Brazil, for a few decades after Pedro Álvares Cabral' trip, "jumped ship to live among the Indians", be accepted without sources? Ninguém ( talk) 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Opinoso, don't you know that "Turkish" immigrants to Brazil are actually Syrian and Lebanese immigrants who travelled under Ottoman passports at a time when both Syria and Lebanon were part of the Ottoman Empire?
Have you ever seen or heard about actual Turkish immigrants to Brazil? Ninguém ( talk) 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The article includes figures for immigration during the period from 1820 to 1876, but this is not a good periodization. The period of the Great Immigration starts from 1872, not 1877: the average anual number of immigrants for 1820-1871 is below 4,500, while the average number for 1872-1876 is already between 15,000 and 30,000. Moreover, the first Brazilian Census is of 1872 and reflects only the limited immigration up to 1871; the increased immigration of 1872-1876 will only be reflected by the 1890 Census.
So I am proposing to change the periodization so to include the 1872-1876 immigrants in a second period (1872-1889).
Is anyone against this change, and why? Ninguém ( talk) 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Both that and the sub-section "Imigration Under the Empire", in its third paragraph. Ninguém ( talk) 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
After independence from Portugal, the Brazilian Empire focused on the occupation of the provinces of Southern Brazil. It was mainly because Southern Brazil had a small population, vulnerable to attacks by Argentina and the Kaingang Indians.
This seems unlikely.
Argentina and Uruguay were sparsely populated, and militarily too weak to pose a threat to the Empire (the opposite is true: the Empire constantly interfered in the internal affairs of both countries, deposing "problematic" governments).
Initial immigration came to places as distant from the Southern boundaries as Espírito Santo and Bahia. Even in the case of Rio Grande do Sul, immigration was mainly directed to the central and northern parts of the (then) Province, certainly not to the border areas, which were more populated at the time. The concern - as long as it involved any military reasons - seems to have been logistic, not manpower.
German immigrants were not wanted as soldiers, but as farmers, and only in the XX century their descent's presence in the Brazilian Army became remarkable. Rio Grande do Sul saw repeated military action during the XIX century ( Argentina-Brazil War, deposal of Juan Manuel Rosas, deposal of Manuel Oribe, deposal of Atanasio Aguirre, War of the Triple Alliance), and while the Gaúcho troops were a huge part of the Imperial Army in those wars, German immigrants played no significant role in them - nor in the two civil wars in XIX century Rio Grande do Sul, War of the Farrapos and 1893's Revolution. Ninguém ( talk) 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
"This mass of mulattoes and caboclos, Lusitanized because of the Portuguese language that they spoke, for the vision of the world, were shaping the Brazilian ethnicity and promoting, simultaneously, their integration in the form of a nation-state. It was already mature when large numbers of immigrants arrived from Europe and Japan, which allowed them all to be assimilated under the condition of generic Brazilians (...) They even forgot from where they came from and the miserable lives they faced in their homelands (...) A mixed-race people in flesh and in spirit, because here race-mixing was never a crime or a sin." |
O Povo Brasileiro, Darcy Ribeiro, pag 16. [1] |
This text seems misplaced here; it certainly does not help us to understand the subject of this article. Is anyone opposed to simply removing it? Ninguém ( talk) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
References
Since you took the time to go to my talk page and ask me if I am crazy or stupid, let me ask you what exactly do you think is stupid or crazy in the edits I have made to this page. And please sign your comments. Ninguém ( talk) 18:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The article has a section with the title, "Slave-immigrant transition". It includes some false and self-contradictory information:
It also contains some apparently unrelated info:
And finally, it comes to discuss the subject:
So this section essentially says nothing about "slave-immigrant transition". I am proposing removing it completely, since it serves no purpose. Is anyone opposed to this, or is anyone willing to rewrite the section, in order to eliminate nonsence, contradictions, and unrelated stuff, and to actually explain something about its subject? Ninguém ( talk) 16:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The following text
is featured twice in this article, the first in the lead, and the second in the subsection "Second Period: 1877-1903". I have tried more than once to remove one of them, but it has been systematically reversed. So: is it really necessary to keep this repetition? Why? If there is no reason, can we reach a consensus for the removal of this repetition? Ninguém ( talk) 19:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This section is unhapilly completely unreadable. I thought it was a problem of mistranslation of a source in Portuguese, but in fact the source itself is in "English" - or, more exactly, in a language that uses English words with a weird, ununderstandable, grammar. Is anyone able to find a source in Portuguese, or proper English? Or to translate the text into proper English? Ninguém ( talk) 13:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This map is being challenged by user Opinoso. I would like to see arguments defending it, a description of the methodology used, etc, so that we can stop what promises to be another edit war. Hentzer? Ninguém ( talk) 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
"Statistics" and "Consequences" were edited to improve their accuracy.-- CEBR ( talk) 10:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
From this article, one would reach the conclusion that Brazil never really had any racial preferences in their immigration policy and that it followed a totally race blind policy. Not the case, from the article Japanese Brazilian
In the government's conception, the non-White population of Brazil should disappear within the dominant class of Portuguese Brazilian origin. This way, the mixed-race population should be "whitened" through selective mixing, then a preference for European immigration. In consequence, the non-white population would, gradually, achieve a desirable White phenotype. The formation of "ethnic cysts" among immigrants of non-Portuguese origin prevented the realization of the whitening project of the Brazilian population. The government, then, started to act on these communities of foreign origin to force them to integrate into a "Brazilian culture" with Portuguese roots. It was the dominant idea of a unification of all the inhabitants of Brazil under a single "national spirit". During World War II, Brazil severed relations with Japan. Japanese newspapers and teaching the Japanese language in schools were banned, leaving Portuguese as the only option for Japanese descendants. Newspapers in German or Italian were also advised to cease production, as Germany and Italy were Japan's allies in the war.[18] In 1939, research of Estrada de Ferro Noroeste do Brasil, from São Paulo, showed that 87.7% of Japanese Brazilians read newspapers in the Japanese language, a high figure for a country with many illiterate people like Brazil.[28]
So indeed Brazil had an ethnocentric immigration policy just as America did at times. It wasn't uniform or constant, it shifted back and forth of course, but just like America the focus was on bringing in immigrants who would assimilate and who weren't black. This article shouldn't ignore this aspect of history since the article is not simply a list of who came to Brazil, but an account of the history of immigration to Brazil, so it should endeveour to explain why this group of people came instead of that group of people. As such I will gradually work to include this aspect in this article. ProgressiveThinker ( talk) 23:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltese Brazilian, I support this merger.
Do 'we' as editors write from within or from the outside? Do I write from within Brazil and say "x millin people immigrated to Brazil", or do I write from the outside and say "x million people emigrated to Brazil"? I changed the caption on the first image (map) to "European and Arab countries from where there was significant emigration to Brazil" as it seems to make more sense. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 16:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Immigration to Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JN3g5dpwFg0J:www.tropicalfm99.com.br/noticia.php%3Fnoticia%3D000714+treze+tilias+lingua+alema&cd=13&hl=pt-PT&ct=clnkWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Immigration to Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.brasilalemanha.com.br/pomerode/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.brasil.kiev.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=172%3Aucranianos-no-brasil&catid=45%3Aucranianos-no-brasil&Itemid=110When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Immigration to Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Immigration to Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.editorasaomiguel.com.br/correio/edicoes/reportagem.php?cod_rep=6071{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.editorasaomiguel.com.br/correio/edicoes/reportagem.php?cod_rep=6071{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.camaranovapetropolis.com.br/UPLarquivos/201220101443063.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.franciscobeltrao.pr.gov.br/arquivos/legislacao/898.DOC{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www1.leismunicipais.com.br/legislacao-de-francisco-beltrao/669887/lei-3018-2003-francisco-beltrao-pr.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
it's a Chinese link and it has nothing to do with Bolivian immigration to Brazil 2804:431:C7D9:4DEE:94D3:AE9E:4502:E7B6 ( talk) 22:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
There is an issue, I think, when a distinction between colonization and immigration is abused to link to this article with a confusing header in other articles. An example: the city of Porto Alegro was, according to its Wikipedia article, legally founded by “immigrants”.
“Porto Alegre was founded in 1769 by Manuel Jorge Gomes de Sepúlveda, who used the pseudonym José Marcelino de Figueiredo to hide his identity; but the official date is 1772 with the act signed by immigrants from the Azores, Portugal.”
These original “immigrants” were sent by the Portuguese Crown to set up missions in the area, thus settling it, and working completely within the legal bounds of, in fact in concert with the prerogatives of colonialism. This is the case for many “immigrants” to Brazil. In fact, the time frame this is assumed to apply to and the pioneer status of these “immigrants” seriously calls in to questions whether a distinction can be made between immigration to Brazil and colonialism as this article does, particularly when those immigrants are moving to frontiers or newly acquired terrories. 157.131.206.151 ( talk) 08:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)