This page 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. |
There are two versions, version one is the established version that the article is locked at, one editor mass edited the article to this position some involved users are requesting the new rewritten position to be replaced. another editor (me) has reverted to the established version and is resisting the rewrite, there is also another involved editor that supports the established version. The discussion is locked, opinions and comments are requested from the community. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The short version is unsourced, and will stay so, because no source supports the absurd definition it contains. Ninguém ( talk) 07:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Firmly on the side of brevity in an introduction, DGG prefers the short version of the introduction that's in the locked version. You'll note that he doesn't OK it; rather, he thinks that it is better than the longer version as a basis for improvements. One important point he makes is that A discussion of just where [the boundary between "White" and other] is drawn belongs in the article, but not the lede. If the matter can be summarized into one clear sentence, then it should be added to the short lede. I'd like to know what people think of this.
And if that is acceptable.....
|
---|
2px |
I very tentatively suggest:
The process will be neither short nor painless but it need not be too arduous or painful if everyone sticks to sources that should be reliable, and, where these sources disagree (as they will) remembers to read material in context ("Writer X says Y about branco, but, unusually, he uses branco to mean Z"). |
Just one reason for my tentativeness is that the RfC has only just been started. It needs a few days. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoary also asked me to look at the article. I did not have time to do a thorough review, but I have a couple of observations (based in part on my examination -- which was aided by machine translations -- of Brazilian census reports and documents cited in the article):
-- Orlady ( talk) 19:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Per agreement with Hoary, and discussion at ANI, I've restored the full protection notice in my own name. I can't help but notice that the very existence of this article may be problematic, but its continuation is completely in the hands of the content editors. I understand that Hoary is interested in this topic and will be continuing to work on the content.
As soon as you think that consensus has been reached on the various disputes, let me know, or if I'm not available, ask at WP:RFPP for unprotection. Meanwhile, use {{ editprotected}} to ask for individual changes that seem to have consensus. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
As quite a few people have said that they have issues about the articles actual existence and what its value and boundaries actually are seems to be unclear, does anyone support AFD? Off2riorob ( talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
An obvious premise of DGG's comments is that the article would continue to exist and would not be deleted or merged. That of course doesn't mean that he's against its deletion or merger, merely that these weren't questions he dealt with.
To me a merger sounds not only attractive but practicable in the medium term. "White Brazilian", Pardo and perhaps one or two other articles could and perhaps should be merged to Ethnic groups in Brazil (EGP).
However, EGP itself is already problematic. It even starts off-cock, with a prominent quotation that (at least as it stands) makes little sense. (We're told that It should be assumed that this way the Brazilian population will be homogenised, so that in future all people will share a common multiracial genetic heritage. In what way? "Homogenised" in which sense? In which sense beyond that in which it is already shared will the heritage be shared?) So a merge to EGP won't be easy at all.
DGG's main objection to this article as revised by Ninguém was to its introduction. And I've read very little lucid criticism of any part of it beyond its introduction. For this reason I have been thinking about the introduction; some time in the next few days I hope to present a version that satisfies me and might satisfy you as well. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Lecen. Ninguém ( talk) 12:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I am starting to work a little looking at improving the lede as it is now to a bit better, imo. comments. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
from this...
White Brazilians make up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] Whites are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants. Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese.[3]
to this...
White Brazilians Recent censuses in Brazil have been conducted on the basis of self-identification, as is standard practice. In the 2000 census, 53% of Brazilians (approximately 93 million people in 2000; around 100 million as of 2006) self declared as identifying themselves as 'white', these Brazilians made up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] They are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. Using the 2006 census results according to this self declaration method Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. Brazilian ancestry includes immigrants from Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany, Lebanon and the largest population of Japanese people outside of Japan.[3] Demographers estimate that of the Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by methods used to classify groups in the United States.[55] .... Off2riorob ( talk) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
the largest population of Japanese people outside of Japan.[3] . Japanese are Yellow, not White. . Demographers estimate that of the Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by methods used to classify groups in the United States. . As many so called Brown and Blacks have more European DNA than African. Should we can them White? And what methods are those used in USA that says that they would be considered Blacks if in that country the census is also based on self-reports? --
Lecen (
talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
From the pdf..There are five classifications in the consensus, white, black, yellow, brown (pardo) and indigenous Indians.. a half a percent self declared as yellow, the so called yellows are in the Asian Brazilian article on wikipedia. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob ( talk) 01:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
So removing the struck and alts.. you prefer this..?
White Brazilians are Brazilians who report to be White in Brazilian Censuses. Brazil Censuses, adhering to international practice, are conducted on the basis of self-identification. According to the IBGE's 2008 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Households), White Brazilians are 48.4% of Brazil's population[4], or around 92 million people[1] They are spread in Brazil as a whole, although the highest numbers are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. According to the 2008 PNAD results Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. However, we should have in mind that India's Census does not count people according to "race" or "colour"[7] , so the actual size of the White population of India is unknown.
Are you proposing this edit to the lede? Here is my offer, anyway, here is my small write to compare. Off2riorob ( talk) 03:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
White Brazilians Recent censuses in Brazil have been conducted on the basis of self-identification. In the 2000 census, 53% of Brazilians (approximately 93 million people in 2000; around 100 million as of 2006) self declared as identifying themselves as 'white', these Brazilians made up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] They are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. Using the 2006 census results according to this self declaration method Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. Brazilian ancestry includes immigrants from Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany, Lebanon and the largest population of Japanese people outside of Japan.[3] Demographers estimate that of the Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by methods used to classify groups in the United States.[55] .... Off2riorob ( talk) 03:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
White Brazilians make up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] Whites are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants. Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese.[3] Off2riorob ( talk) 03:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Off2riorob wrote: Is there some evidence that Brazil is exceptional in asking people to self declare ? No, there isn't, and it is not. In which case, why is this highlighted, as if it were something extraordinary?
But what is immigration doing here? This is an article about White Brazilians, not about Immigration to Brazil, and not all or even most White Brazilians are of immigrant descent.
But only if it is not assumed as the "correct" or "standard" way to classify people. Look, the lead version I had written actually explained those differences. It was too long, right? So let's keep the lead without talking about the difference without explaining it. Ninguém ( talk) 21:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Off2riorob wrote:
No problems with stating that this is "self expressed", as long as we clarify that this is international standard practice.
From Portugal, arriving here from 1530 to 1808. Colonial settlers, not immigrants. Immigrants are the people arriving from then on - in practice, from 1876 on, during the period known as "Great Immigration".
Look, either we compare the two different reasonings about race in the lead - but then we actually compare them, explaining the difference, which will make the lead long - or we keep this out of the lead and discuss the issue in a different section of the article.
What exactly are you failing to understand? I mean, if you want the lead short, then let's keep it short, without giving a half-explanation that confuses instead of actually explaining.
Point of view? Are you kidding? It was made manu militari, with people who opposed it being killed. Or why do we call these people Conquistadors? Ninguém ( talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is not the differing options for self declarations (if you are really interested, you can see those here [3] for Brazil and here [4] for the United States). The problem is that, given a set of options, an average American will chose among them according to a different reasoning than an average Brazilian. And this unhappily cannot be explained in one line; it will take one or two (not too small) paragraphs. Some things just are complicated. Ninguém ( talk) 23:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not the reason why different results occur.
You give options such as "Black", "White" and "Mixed" to an American, s/he reasons like this:
You give the same options to a Brazilian, s/he reasons in a completely different way:
Well...so your suggesting the differing results would be as a result of racial programming, this would be imo uncitable...I still remember the first time I heard the expression..Oi, Vem ca neguinho... I was shocked as this would get you arrested in England...But imo social attitudes to race is only a small part of this article. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
My proposal stands: a lead without "ancestries" and without comparisons to the United States. There is no simple and straightforward relation between ancestry and race in Brazil, and a comparison to the US is too complex to fit into a short lead. If the lead is going to state that it is the world's third greatest White population, the caveat about India (which the CIA says has 821 million "Indo-Aryans") must stay. If it is going to mention "self identification", it has to say that this is standard international practice.
Can we move forward? Ninguém ( talk) 00:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Brazil became indepedent from Portugal in 7 September, 1822. Then, a Portuguese who settled in Brazil in 6 September, 1822 was not an immigrant, but a Portuguese who settled in Brazil in 8 September, 1822 was an immigrant? This is ridiculous.
And no, Black in Brazil is not a person who "looks Black". Brazil is full of people who have clear Black African physical type, but only 6% of the population report to be Black in the census. What a ridiculous figure for the country that more imported slaves from Africa in the Americas. Few Brazilians want to embrace a Black classification. And this is not because few people look to be of African descent, because many people, if not the majority of the population, are visibly of African descent. It's because in the popular imagination Blackness is confused with negative points, while Whiteness is confused with positive points. That's why the national censuses do not reflect the reality, and everybody knows that, even though there are people pretending that Brazilians are not affected by those racial stigmas when classifying themselves on censuses and that Brazilians only see the physical apparence.
Impossible. Brazil imported 4 million slaves from Africa and 6% report to be Black. On the other hand, Brazil received 5 million immigrants from Europe (the vast majority of whom arrived "recently" in the 19th and 20th centuries) and nearly 50% are reported as White. What a huge difference, when the numbers of Africans and Europeans who settled in Brazil was quite similar. Of course that slaves had a much higher mortality rate, but on the other hand many of the European immigrants returned to Europe after settling in Brazil for a short time. Even with those differences, 6% of Blacks and 50% of Whites do not seem compatible with the migratory movements to Brazil. Even though genetic studies do show that European ancestry predominates in Brazilians as whole, it is not really predominant in the physical type of the population (Brazilians in general are not known for "looking European") what is contraditory with the census data.
Like I read before while in the United States a drop of African blood makes a person Black, in Brazil a drop of European blood makes a person White. Both are racist societies. While in the United States a person with some African blood was considered to be Black to stay away and segregated from the larger White society, in Brazil a person with some European blood was considered to be White to be incorporated into the smaller White society, creating an imaginary society where Blacks would disappear in a couple of decades. Of course they did not disappear and the majority of the Brazilian society has African ancestry, even though for some people it was, and still is, a tragic fact. But, thanks God, this kind of people are gradually disappearing from our society and our African heritage begins to be valued, but still not even close to the appreciation of the European or even Amerindian heritage. It's not uncommon for Brazilians to claim imaginary remote European ancestry from Portugal or from "exotic" countries like France or the Netherlands (usually people who know nothing about their ancestry and invent an imaginary European ancestry. But to see people claiming African ancestry is still rare, and to be Black is still offensive. But things gradually are changing. But this is the minority, because Brazilians in general do not care about race or other people's skin color or ancestry. Not an interesting subject for Brazilians. Opinoso ( talk) 03:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Somebody brought the unsourced information that a White Brazilian is a person who "looks White" or who is "accepeted as White".
First of all: who is a person who looks White? Many people in Europe itself do not have a "White" skin, but a light brown or olive skin. This is particuarly evident in Southern Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain. The myth that all Europeans have a White skin is only present in the imagination of a person who has never been to Europe.
Who looks White? Is an olive-skinned Spaniard or Greek considered to be White in Norway or Finland? Is a person considered to be White in a Black community in Bahia also considered to be White in a German-speaking community in Sourthern Brazil? In the early 20th century Southern Italians were not considered to be White in the United States because of their darker skin complexion when compared to the average Anglo-American, but in Brazil or Argentina they were Whites.
Then, there's no such a thing as a "person who looks White", because this is very relative and Whiteness is in the eye of the behaviour.
Do people "accepted as White" exist? No, they don't. An interesting resource published on Folha de S. Paulo newspapers interviewed 2,982 Brazilians and asked them to racially classify some Brazilian celebrities. [8]
Let's start with soccer player Ronaldo, who was already described here: 64% of Brazilians think Ronaldo is Black or Pardo, while 23% say he is White.
Former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso: 70% say he is White, 17% he is Pardo and 1% he is Black. (he describes himself as a "little Mulatto")
Actress Camila Pitanga: 36% say she is Parda and only 27% say she is Black. (she describes herself as Black)
Actress Taís Araújo: only 54% say she is Black. (she describes herself as Black)
Soccer player Romário: 51% say he is Pardo and 31% he is Black.
Singer Zeca Pagodinho: 52% say he is Pardo and 22% he is Black.
As one can see, in Brazil the "race" of each individual is "in the eye of the behavior". There's no such a thing as a "person accepted as White". What is White for me is Pardo or Black for another person, and vice-versa.
Former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who describes himself as a "Mulatto" is described by 70% as "White" and by 17% as "Pardo" and by 1% as "Black". Is Cardoso "accepeted as White"? Which percentage of people describing him as "White" is necessary for him to be "accepeted as White"? 70%, 80%, 90% or 100%? Even if only 0.001% said he is non-White, then he would not be completly "accepted as White". There would always be somebody not considering him to be White.
A White Brazilian is a person who said to be White in the census. That's all. It's not a person who "looks White", neither is a person "accepeted as White". Since Brazil was a country build under the strong Racial whitening ideology, among those 93 million self-reported "Whites", there are plenty of people who have clear Black African and\or Native Indian physical type. Opinoso ( talk) 02:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I am European, from Spain. Here we have many recent "pure blood" black immigrants from Africa (subsaharan) and I can assure you that none of those shown (Romario, Cardoso etc.) looks like a black African, NONE of them. Blacks are much darker. Just go to Angola to discover the reality of how a real black looks like.-- 83.53.110.189 ( talk) 07:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
A question that no longer interests the questioner
|
---|
2px |
Before veering off into irrelevancy (or worse), the current version of the article tells us that
Putting aside for a moment the question of whether an elaboration would be an improvement, this could be elaborated as:
The census of India does indeed not count people according to race or colour. (It does take some note of caste, however.) And it's imaginable that the Hindi or Malayalam or Telugu or other language has an adjective equivalent to "white" that's used for very large numbers of Indians. Problem is, I don't read any of those languages, and in English (the only Indian language I happen to be able to read), "White Indian" seems to be a colonial throwback, referring to people in the (now happily departed) British colonial overlord class, whose number of course never approached the number of "White Brazilians". Thinking of India and populous nations quickly took me to Indonesia. Again, I don't read Bahasa Indonesia or any Indonesian language. As for English (for what this is worth), googling suggests that "White Indonesian" is the Dutch colonial equivalent of "white Indian" and therefore also numerically insignificant beside the tens of millions of "White Brazilians". Of course there's no reason to assume that something that could be translated/calqued from a locally used language into English as "white" (for "colour"/"race") or "White Indian", "White Indonesian", "White Chinese", "White Congolese", "White Tuareg" or whatever would normally be so translated/calqued into English for my monolingual googling convenience. So again, I'm very willing to believe that there's some "White" people(s) whose existence puts "White Brazilians" into fourth (or lower) place. Incidentally Japan has a large population and does have the word hakujin (literally "white person/people"), but this is only used about non-Japanese and thus is an irrelevance. However, Japanese does also have the terms irojiro and iroguro (literally "colour-white" and "colour-black" respectively), which can be used informally to describe paler and darker skinned [Japanese] people. I don't live in Kyūshū but if I did I wonder if I'd occasionally hear talk about tens of millions of irojiro up in the UV-deprived north. I still think Japan is an irrelevance here, but I do start to wonder about (for example) how speakers of Cantonese might refer to those taller, paler people native to areas north of Nanjing. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
|
It was me who asked the collapsed question above. It's related to the assertion that the population of "White Brazilians" is third greatest in a list of populations of "White" citizens/residents of individual nations. But the assertion leads off into wild goose chases and should I think be dropped, so I withdraw the question. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Dump any footnotes from above here:
How's the following? -- Hoary ( talk) 10:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Regions with significant populations | |
---|---|
Brazil: Entire nation; highest numbers found in southern and southeastern Brazil | |
Languages | |
Predominantly Portuguese | |
Religion | |
Roman Catholic 74.7% · Protestant 15.2% · Non-religious 6.09% · Kardecist 1.87% · Other Christian (includes Jehovah's Witnesses, Brazilian Catholics, other Christians, Mormons, and Orthodox) 1.19% [1] | |
Related ethnic groups | |
Other
Brazilians,
Portuguese,
Italians,
Germans,
Spaniards,
Ukrainians,
Poles,
Lebanese, White Americans, Armenians, Lithuanians, Jews |
White Brazilians make up 48.4% of Brazil's population, [4] or around 92 million people, [2] according to the IBGE's 2008 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Households). " Whites" are present across Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country.
As "race" is a social construct, [5] the Brazilian meaning of "White" differs from the concept elsewhere, and even varies by region. [6]
The degree of miscegenation in Brazil has been very high, as it was colonized by male Portuguese adventurers who tended to procreate with Amerindian and African women. [7] [8] This made possible a myth of "racial democracy" that tends to obscure a widespread discrimination connected to certain aspects of physical appearance: [9] aspects related to the concept of cor (literally "colour"), used in a way that is roughly equivalent to the English term "race" but based on a combination of skin colour, hair type, and shape of nose and lips. It is possible for siblings to belong to different "colour" categories. [10] So a "White" Brazilian is a person perceived and socially accepted as "White", regardless of ancestry or sometimes even immediate family.
While miscegenation has been one factor leading to a Brazilian population with features ranging from the stereotypically African to the stereotypically European, a second has been "assortative mating". The genome of the first generation offspring of European fathers and African mothers was 50% European and 50% African, but the distribution of the genes that affect relevant features (skin colour, hair type, lip shape, nose shape) was random. Those of the second generation with features considered closer to a "White" stereotype would have tended to procreate with others like themselves, while those considered closer to "Black" would also have tended to procreate among themselves; in the long term producing "White" and "Black" groups with surprisingly similar proportions of European and African ancestry. [11]
It seems a bit lumpy to me and I think it could be improved. I look forward to reading your suggestions.
(Yes I realize that it needs manicuring -- e.g. different footnotes have ". Accessed", "; accessed" and " (accessed" -- but let's not nitpick until more important matters are fixed.) -- Hoary ( talk) 10:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Even though the researcher said that, that is not really true, as many Brazilians ("white", "pardo" or "black") can trace their female lineage to an Amerindian or an African woman and be overwhelmingly European. The off-spring would marry European newcomers thus diluting the non European ancestry. Sérgio Pena, the genetic researcher, has a sketch about this process at his site: http://www.laboratoriogene.com.br/?area=genealogiaAncestralidadeDiferenca. This is related by Pedro Taques de Almeida Paes Leme, and it has been shown by genetics. Sérgio Pena himself, even though he can trace a Native American ancestry on his female line(his mtDNA is haplogroup A, which is Native American), has an overwhelming European autosomal ancestry (99,9% European), which would make his % ancestry different than of those who kept in the Native American group. The same goes for the African ancestry. The best example of this is José Sarney, former president of Brazil, from the interior of Maranhão (one of the most "African" provinces of Brazil). His mtDNA is African (from Central Africa), and yet his autosomal contribution is overwhelmingly European (at 99,9%). This is my own case too, my mtDNA is native American, and yet my autosomal ancestry is 98% European and 1,5% Native American (according to a DNA test performed by 23andme, which scans over 500000 markers). My ancestry is entirely of colonial times, and I have traced my ancestry back to European women too (Margarida Correa and Genebra Leitão de Vasconcelos, just to name a few, who arrived both in Brazil in the XVI century, at the very beginning of the colonization process). - Grenzer22 ( talk) 11:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. They're rather a lot to digest, and because I am tired (for reasons unrelated to Wikipedia), I don't propose to go through them right now. Please don't take that to mean lack of interest or appreciation.
I think that your comments have all addressed this tentatively suggested draft rather than other comments on it. That's healthy, but perhaps you can also look at each other's comments, preferably neither simply to support them nor simply to oppose them, but rather to pick among them to see what's valuable in them, and then to suggest how the draft above might be improved.
I'd prefer that you didn't fiddle above with the draft above -- not because it's "mine" (it isn't), but because by doing so you might lose sight of what some of the comments already made are referring to. However, it might be a good idea to copy this draft and paste it below (giving it a different background colour, to reduce the risk of confusion), and then to work on this copy. Primer for background colours: In "background-color:#xyz" (in which "color" must be spelt the American way), x, y and z are the values for red, green and blue respectively. The value of each can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, or F; where 0 is zero and F is maximum.) Happy editing! -- Hoary ( talk) 13:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I do have a lot of sympathy with the notion that a discussion of "colour" in Brazil shouldn't be in this article but instead should be in the article on "colour", "race" and ethnic groups in Brazil. However, that article is awful, and we are here. -- Hoary ( talk) 16:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I go to bed as the Americas are waking up, hours later I wake up, and what do I see here? No flaming row among editors, nothing: just a single and most interesting message from Grenzer22. (There may be more new stuff hidden above, of course.) Perhaps it's busy-ness closing down (paid) work for the year or preparing for festivities, or perhaps it's exhaustion; but whatever the explanation I'm happy to see that nobody's shouting or complaining.
Unfortunately I can't read Portuguese but nevertheless I like to think that I can understand the title "DNA de brasileiro é 80% europeu, indica estudo". Trouble is, I can't understand much more than the title. So really, I'm not the best [text] researcher for these matters. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
After sleeping on the matter, I'm more certain that "White Brazilian" is little more than a variety of "'Colour' in Brazil", and a lot what needs to be said about "White Brazilians" also needs to be said about "Black Brazilians" (and others) and should be said in a single place. (Michael Hanchard's introduction to the book Racial Politics in Contemporary Brazil tells me that "colour" -- which of course means more than simple pigmentation -- is more important than "race". Grenzer22 may perhaps cite current sociological thinking that disagrees.) But there's no such article. (There is Human skin color as well as such articles as Afro-textured hair.)
However, there does exist an article on Ethnic groups in Brazil; and although parts of it seem sound enough, other parts look terrible to me. Should there be a centralized treatment there of cor/"colo(u)r"? If there were, I don't delude myself that the discussions toward it would be simple; but if it could eventually be got right, it could well avoid wasteful repetition elsewhere and a seemingly endless series of skirmishes in "Talk:XYZ Brazilian". -- Hoary ( talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
One "side" is an unsourced fantasy about White Brazilians being people of full or main European ancestry, whose proponents attempt to make stick by arguing that White Brazilians are people who call themselves White when asked by the Census. Why would this "side" be included in the article? Ninguém ( talk) 14:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Also, it would be necessary to take a close look at Immigration to Brazil, Demographics of Brazil, Brazilian people, Indigenous peoples in Brazil, etc. Ninguém ( talk) 03:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Mkay. A few questions: should those articles all be admined by the same person? Should they receive "content is disputed" tags? Should their present rating (which is, in most cases that I have seen, "B Class") stay or be reassessed? Ninguém ( talk) 11:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just now proposed this at WikiProject Brazil. Although I had to simplify the story a little, I tried not to misrepresent people's opinions and hope that I succeeded. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's see: White American does not exist. That explains why I am uncomfortable with this article. I believe merging this article into ethnic groups or demography of brazil is a good option.
I quite like the things Ninguém is saying in this talk page, I hope to continue to visit this page and contribute to the discussion.-- Kiyarrlls- talk 13:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to know how a real black looks like you just have to go to Angola, where the population is really black, not mixed (well there is a 1% mulatto and white minority): in Angola any Brazilian can know if he is black or not.-- 83.53.110.189 ( talk) 07:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The "whitening" of Brazil was a complete success and today the overwhelming majority of Brazilians have European names and last names, speak a European language, are Christian and have a Caucasian phenotype as European is the main ancestry of Brazilians, followed by African and then by Native. Also Arabs in different countries have more or less black mixture (blacks being taken usually as slaves by the Arabs) but they have a Caucasian phenotype. On the other side, in countries like the Philippines or Vietnam the phenotype is Asian even if they are usually darker than the Koreans or the Japanese. The Caucasian phenotype can even have a dark color as many Indians have. Asians too can have a dark color, above all in Indo-China, Indonesia and the Philippines but keeping the Asian phenotype...-- 83.53.110.189 ( talk) 07:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
As the conversation above was, I thought, moving in the direction of converting Race in Brazil from (a) a redirect to Ethnic groups in Brazil into (b) its own article, I proposed this at the talk page of "Ethnic groups in Brazil".
Thus far, a grand total of one (1) of the participants above has agreed there, and no (0) one else has said anything at all. You may wish to voice your support (or opposition). Without a clear show of support, any conversion from the redirect into an article is likely to be reverted. -- Hoary ( talk) 15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Since the protection was removed, I am reintroducing the edits that were blindly reversed. However, I am keeping the lead short, in order to avoid pretexts for massive un-editing of the page. So far, rebuilt the lead, taking off absurd sentence about White Brazilians being defined by ancestry - which the article itself states is irrelevant in other ("Conception of White") section, removed comparison with other countries (as the concept of White is different in different countries, the data are actually not comparable), reintroduced more recent data from 2008, removed sentence about "main ancestries" of White Brazilians, which was completely unsupported by the given source.
Later, on to History.
This page 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. |
There are two versions, version one is the established version that the article is locked at, one editor mass edited the article to this position some involved users are requesting the new rewritten position to be replaced. another editor (me) has reverted to the established version and is resisting the rewrite, there is also another involved editor that supports the established version. The discussion is locked, opinions and comments are requested from the community. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The short version is unsourced, and will stay so, because no source supports the absurd definition it contains. Ninguém ( talk) 07:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Firmly on the side of brevity in an introduction, DGG prefers the short version of the introduction that's in the locked version. You'll note that he doesn't OK it; rather, he thinks that it is better than the longer version as a basis for improvements. One important point he makes is that A discussion of just where [the boundary between "White" and other] is drawn belongs in the article, but not the lede. If the matter can be summarized into one clear sentence, then it should be added to the short lede. I'd like to know what people think of this.
And if that is acceptable.....
|
---|
2px |
I very tentatively suggest:
The process will be neither short nor painless but it need not be too arduous or painful if everyone sticks to sources that should be reliable, and, where these sources disagree (as they will) remembers to read material in context ("Writer X says Y about branco, but, unusually, he uses branco to mean Z"). |
Just one reason for my tentativeness is that the RfC has only just been started. It needs a few days. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoary also asked me to look at the article. I did not have time to do a thorough review, but I have a couple of observations (based in part on my examination -- which was aided by machine translations -- of Brazilian census reports and documents cited in the article):
-- Orlady ( talk) 19:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Per agreement with Hoary, and discussion at ANI, I've restored the full protection notice in my own name. I can't help but notice that the very existence of this article may be problematic, but its continuation is completely in the hands of the content editors. I understand that Hoary is interested in this topic and will be continuing to work on the content.
As soon as you think that consensus has been reached on the various disputes, let me know, or if I'm not available, ask at WP:RFPP for unprotection. Meanwhile, use {{ editprotected}} to ask for individual changes that seem to have consensus. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
As quite a few people have said that they have issues about the articles actual existence and what its value and boundaries actually are seems to be unclear, does anyone support AFD? Off2riorob ( talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
An obvious premise of DGG's comments is that the article would continue to exist and would not be deleted or merged. That of course doesn't mean that he's against its deletion or merger, merely that these weren't questions he dealt with.
To me a merger sounds not only attractive but practicable in the medium term. "White Brazilian", Pardo and perhaps one or two other articles could and perhaps should be merged to Ethnic groups in Brazil (EGP).
However, EGP itself is already problematic. It even starts off-cock, with a prominent quotation that (at least as it stands) makes little sense. (We're told that It should be assumed that this way the Brazilian population will be homogenised, so that in future all people will share a common multiracial genetic heritage. In what way? "Homogenised" in which sense? In which sense beyond that in which it is already shared will the heritage be shared?) So a merge to EGP won't be easy at all.
DGG's main objection to this article as revised by Ninguém was to its introduction. And I've read very little lucid criticism of any part of it beyond its introduction. For this reason I have been thinking about the introduction; some time in the next few days I hope to present a version that satisfies me and might satisfy you as well. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Lecen. Ninguém ( talk) 12:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I am starting to work a little looking at improving the lede as it is now to a bit better, imo. comments. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
from this...
White Brazilians make up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] Whites are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants. Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese.[3]
to this...
White Brazilians Recent censuses in Brazil have been conducted on the basis of self-identification, as is standard practice. In the 2000 census, 53% of Brazilians (approximately 93 million people in 2000; around 100 million as of 2006) self declared as identifying themselves as 'white', these Brazilians made up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] They are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. Using the 2006 census results according to this self declaration method Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. Brazilian ancestry includes immigrants from Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany, Lebanon and the largest population of Japanese people outside of Japan.[3] Demographers estimate that of the Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by methods used to classify groups in the United States.[55] .... Off2riorob ( talk) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
the largest population of Japanese people outside of Japan.[3] . Japanese are Yellow, not White. . Demographers estimate that of the Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by methods used to classify groups in the United States. . As many so called Brown and Blacks have more European DNA than African. Should we can them White? And what methods are those used in USA that says that they would be considered Blacks if in that country the census is also based on self-reports? --
Lecen (
talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
From the pdf..There are five classifications in the consensus, white, black, yellow, brown (pardo) and indigenous Indians.. a half a percent self declared as yellow, the so called yellows are in the Asian Brazilian article on wikipedia. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob ( talk) 01:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
So removing the struck and alts.. you prefer this..?
White Brazilians are Brazilians who report to be White in Brazilian Censuses. Brazil Censuses, adhering to international practice, are conducted on the basis of self-identification. According to the IBGE's 2008 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Households), White Brazilians are 48.4% of Brazil's population[4], or around 92 million people[1] They are spread in Brazil as a whole, although the highest numbers are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. According to the 2008 PNAD results Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. However, we should have in mind that India's Census does not count people according to "race" or "colour"[7] , so the actual size of the White population of India is unknown.
Are you proposing this edit to the lede? Here is my offer, anyway, here is my small write to compare. Off2riorob ( talk) 03:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
White Brazilians Recent censuses in Brazil have been conducted on the basis of self-identification. In the 2000 census, 53% of Brazilians (approximately 93 million people in 2000; around 100 million as of 2006) self declared as identifying themselves as 'white', these Brazilians made up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] They are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. Using the 2006 census results according to this self declaration method Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. Brazilian ancestry includes immigrants from Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany, Lebanon and the largest population of Japanese people outside of Japan.[3] Demographers estimate that of the Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by methods used to classify groups in the United States.[55] .... Off2riorob ( talk) 03:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
White Brazilians make up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] Whites are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants. Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese.[3] Off2riorob ( talk) 03:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Off2riorob wrote: Is there some evidence that Brazil is exceptional in asking people to self declare ? No, there isn't, and it is not. In which case, why is this highlighted, as if it were something extraordinary?
But what is immigration doing here? This is an article about White Brazilians, not about Immigration to Brazil, and not all or even most White Brazilians are of immigrant descent.
But only if it is not assumed as the "correct" or "standard" way to classify people. Look, the lead version I had written actually explained those differences. It was too long, right? So let's keep the lead without talking about the difference without explaining it. Ninguém ( talk) 21:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Off2riorob wrote:
No problems with stating that this is "self expressed", as long as we clarify that this is international standard practice.
From Portugal, arriving here from 1530 to 1808. Colonial settlers, not immigrants. Immigrants are the people arriving from then on - in practice, from 1876 on, during the period known as "Great Immigration".
Look, either we compare the two different reasonings about race in the lead - but then we actually compare them, explaining the difference, which will make the lead long - or we keep this out of the lead and discuss the issue in a different section of the article.
What exactly are you failing to understand? I mean, if you want the lead short, then let's keep it short, without giving a half-explanation that confuses instead of actually explaining.
Point of view? Are you kidding? It was made manu militari, with people who opposed it being killed. Or why do we call these people Conquistadors? Ninguém ( talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is not the differing options for self declarations (if you are really interested, you can see those here [3] for Brazil and here [4] for the United States). The problem is that, given a set of options, an average American will chose among them according to a different reasoning than an average Brazilian. And this unhappily cannot be explained in one line; it will take one or two (not too small) paragraphs. Some things just are complicated. Ninguém ( talk) 23:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not the reason why different results occur.
You give options such as "Black", "White" and "Mixed" to an American, s/he reasons like this:
You give the same options to a Brazilian, s/he reasons in a completely different way:
Well...so your suggesting the differing results would be as a result of racial programming, this would be imo uncitable...I still remember the first time I heard the expression..Oi, Vem ca neguinho... I was shocked as this would get you arrested in England...But imo social attitudes to race is only a small part of this article. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
My proposal stands: a lead without "ancestries" and without comparisons to the United States. There is no simple and straightforward relation between ancestry and race in Brazil, and a comparison to the US is too complex to fit into a short lead. If the lead is going to state that it is the world's third greatest White population, the caveat about India (which the CIA says has 821 million "Indo-Aryans") must stay. If it is going to mention "self identification", it has to say that this is standard international practice.
Can we move forward? Ninguém ( talk) 00:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Brazil became indepedent from Portugal in 7 September, 1822. Then, a Portuguese who settled in Brazil in 6 September, 1822 was not an immigrant, but a Portuguese who settled in Brazil in 8 September, 1822 was an immigrant? This is ridiculous.
And no, Black in Brazil is not a person who "looks Black". Brazil is full of people who have clear Black African physical type, but only 6% of the population report to be Black in the census. What a ridiculous figure for the country that more imported slaves from Africa in the Americas. Few Brazilians want to embrace a Black classification. And this is not because few people look to be of African descent, because many people, if not the majority of the population, are visibly of African descent. It's because in the popular imagination Blackness is confused with negative points, while Whiteness is confused with positive points. That's why the national censuses do not reflect the reality, and everybody knows that, even though there are people pretending that Brazilians are not affected by those racial stigmas when classifying themselves on censuses and that Brazilians only see the physical apparence.
Impossible. Brazil imported 4 million slaves from Africa and 6% report to be Black. On the other hand, Brazil received 5 million immigrants from Europe (the vast majority of whom arrived "recently" in the 19th and 20th centuries) and nearly 50% are reported as White. What a huge difference, when the numbers of Africans and Europeans who settled in Brazil was quite similar. Of course that slaves had a much higher mortality rate, but on the other hand many of the European immigrants returned to Europe after settling in Brazil for a short time. Even with those differences, 6% of Blacks and 50% of Whites do not seem compatible with the migratory movements to Brazil. Even though genetic studies do show that European ancestry predominates in Brazilians as whole, it is not really predominant in the physical type of the population (Brazilians in general are not known for "looking European") what is contraditory with the census data.
Like I read before while in the United States a drop of African blood makes a person Black, in Brazil a drop of European blood makes a person White. Both are racist societies. While in the United States a person with some African blood was considered to be Black to stay away and segregated from the larger White society, in Brazil a person with some European blood was considered to be White to be incorporated into the smaller White society, creating an imaginary society where Blacks would disappear in a couple of decades. Of course they did not disappear and the majority of the Brazilian society has African ancestry, even though for some people it was, and still is, a tragic fact. But, thanks God, this kind of people are gradually disappearing from our society and our African heritage begins to be valued, but still not even close to the appreciation of the European or even Amerindian heritage. It's not uncommon for Brazilians to claim imaginary remote European ancestry from Portugal or from "exotic" countries like France or the Netherlands (usually people who know nothing about their ancestry and invent an imaginary European ancestry. But to see people claiming African ancestry is still rare, and to be Black is still offensive. But things gradually are changing. But this is the minority, because Brazilians in general do not care about race or other people's skin color or ancestry. Not an interesting subject for Brazilians. Opinoso ( talk) 03:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Somebody brought the unsourced information that a White Brazilian is a person who "looks White" or who is "accepeted as White".
First of all: who is a person who looks White? Many people in Europe itself do not have a "White" skin, but a light brown or olive skin. This is particuarly evident in Southern Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain. The myth that all Europeans have a White skin is only present in the imagination of a person who has never been to Europe.
Who looks White? Is an olive-skinned Spaniard or Greek considered to be White in Norway or Finland? Is a person considered to be White in a Black community in Bahia also considered to be White in a German-speaking community in Sourthern Brazil? In the early 20th century Southern Italians were not considered to be White in the United States because of their darker skin complexion when compared to the average Anglo-American, but in Brazil or Argentina they were Whites.
Then, there's no such a thing as a "person who looks White", because this is very relative and Whiteness is in the eye of the behaviour.
Do people "accepted as White" exist? No, they don't. An interesting resource published on Folha de S. Paulo newspapers interviewed 2,982 Brazilians and asked them to racially classify some Brazilian celebrities. [8]
Let's start with soccer player Ronaldo, who was already described here: 64% of Brazilians think Ronaldo is Black or Pardo, while 23% say he is White.
Former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso: 70% say he is White, 17% he is Pardo and 1% he is Black. (he describes himself as a "little Mulatto")
Actress Camila Pitanga: 36% say she is Parda and only 27% say she is Black. (she describes herself as Black)
Actress Taís Araújo: only 54% say she is Black. (she describes herself as Black)
Soccer player Romário: 51% say he is Pardo and 31% he is Black.
Singer Zeca Pagodinho: 52% say he is Pardo and 22% he is Black.
As one can see, in Brazil the "race" of each individual is "in the eye of the behavior". There's no such a thing as a "person accepted as White". What is White for me is Pardo or Black for another person, and vice-versa.
Former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who describes himself as a "Mulatto" is described by 70% as "White" and by 17% as "Pardo" and by 1% as "Black". Is Cardoso "accepeted as White"? Which percentage of people describing him as "White" is necessary for him to be "accepeted as White"? 70%, 80%, 90% or 100%? Even if only 0.001% said he is non-White, then he would not be completly "accepted as White". There would always be somebody not considering him to be White.
A White Brazilian is a person who said to be White in the census. That's all. It's not a person who "looks White", neither is a person "accepeted as White". Since Brazil was a country build under the strong Racial whitening ideology, among those 93 million self-reported "Whites", there are plenty of people who have clear Black African and\or Native Indian physical type. Opinoso ( talk) 02:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I am European, from Spain. Here we have many recent "pure blood" black immigrants from Africa (subsaharan) and I can assure you that none of those shown (Romario, Cardoso etc.) looks like a black African, NONE of them. Blacks are much darker. Just go to Angola to discover the reality of how a real black looks like.-- 83.53.110.189 ( talk) 07:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
A question that no longer interests the questioner
|
---|
2px |
Before veering off into irrelevancy (or worse), the current version of the article tells us that
Putting aside for a moment the question of whether an elaboration would be an improvement, this could be elaborated as:
The census of India does indeed not count people according to race or colour. (It does take some note of caste, however.) And it's imaginable that the Hindi or Malayalam or Telugu or other language has an adjective equivalent to "white" that's used for very large numbers of Indians. Problem is, I don't read any of those languages, and in English (the only Indian language I happen to be able to read), "White Indian" seems to be a colonial throwback, referring to people in the (now happily departed) British colonial overlord class, whose number of course never approached the number of "White Brazilians". Thinking of India and populous nations quickly took me to Indonesia. Again, I don't read Bahasa Indonesia or any Indonesian language. As for English (for what this is worth), googling suggests that "White Indonesian" is the Dutch colonial equivalent of "white Indian" and therefore also numerically insignificant beside the tens of millions of "White Brazilians". Of course there's no reason to assume that something that could be translated/calqued from a locally used language into English as "white" (for "colour"/"race") or "White Indian", "White Indonesian", "White Chinese", "White Congolese", "White Tuareg" or whatever would normally be so translated/calqued into English for my monolingual googling convenience. So again, I'm very willing to believe that there's some "White" people(s) whose existence puts "White Brazilians" into fourth (or lower) place. Incidentally Japan has a large population and does have the word hakujin (literally "white person/people"), but this is only used about non-Japanese and thus is an irrelevance. However, Japanese does also have the terms irojiro and iroguro (literally "colour-white" and "colour-black" respectively), which can be used informally to describe paler and darker skinned [Japanese] people. I don't live in Kyūshū but if I did I wonder if I'd occasionally hear talk about tens of millions of irojiro up in the UV-deprived north. I still think Japan is an irrelevance here, but I do start to wonder about (for example) how speakers of Cantonese might refer to those taller, paler people native to areas north of Nanjing. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
|
It was me who asked the collapsed question above. It's related to the assertion that the population of "White Brazilians" is third greatest in a list of populations of "White" citizens/residents of individual nations. But the assertion leads off into wild goose chases and should I think be dropped, so I withdraw the question. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Dump any footnotes from above here:
How's the following? -- Hoary ( talk) 10:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Regions with significant populations | |
---|---|
Brazil: Entire nation; highest numbers found in southern and southeastern Brazil | |
Languages | |
Predominantly Portuguese | |
Religion | |
Roman Catholic 74.7% · Protestant 15.2% · Non-religious 6.09% · Kardecist 1.87% · Other Christian (includes Jehovah's Witnesses, Brazilian Catholics, other Christians, Mormons, and Orthodox) 1.19% [1] | |
Related ethnic groups | |
Other
Brazilians,
Portuguese,
Italians,
Germans,
Spaniards,
Ukrainians,
Poles,
Lebanese, White Americans, Armenians, Lithuanians, Jews |
White Brazilians make up 48.4% of Brazil's population, [4] or around 92 million people, [2] according to the IBGE's 2008 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Households). " Whites" are present across Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country.
As "race" is a social construct, [5] the Brazilian meaning of "White" differs from the concept elsewhere, and even varies by region. [6]
The degree of miscegenation in Brazil has been very high, as it was colonized by male Portuguese adventurers who tended to procreate with Amerindian and African women. [7] [8] This made possible a myth of "racial democracy" that tends to obscure a widespread discrimination connected to certain aspects of physical appearance: [9] aspects related to the concept of cor (literally "colour"), used in a way that is roughly equivalent to the English term "race" but based on a combination of skin colour, hair type, and shape of nose and lips. It is possible for siblings to belong to different "colour" categories. [10] So a "White" Brazilian is a person perceived and socially accepted as "White", regardless of ancestry or sometimes even immediate family.
While miscegenation has been one factor leading to a Brazilian population with features ranging from the stereotypically African to the stereotypically European, a second has been "assortative mating". The genome of the first generation offspring of European fathers and African mothers was 50% European and 50% African, but the distribution of the genes that affect relevant features (skin colour, hair type, lip shape, nose shape) was random. Those of the second generation with features considered closer to a "White" stereotype would have tended to procreate with others like themselves, while those considered closer to "Black" would also have tended to procreate among themselves; in the long term producing "White" and "Black" groups with surprisingly similar proportions of European and African ancestry. [11]
It seems a bit lumpy to me and I think it could be improved. I look forward to reading your suggestions.
(Yes I realize that it needs manicuring -- e.g. different footnotes have ". Accessed", "; accessed" and " (accessed" -- but let's not nitpick until more important matters are fixed.) -- Hoary ( talk) 10:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Even though the researcher said that, that is not really true, as many Brazilians ("white", "pardo" or "black") can trace their female lineage to an Amerindian or an African woman and be overwhelmingly European. The off-spring would marry European newcomers thus diluting the non European ancestry. Sérgio Pena, the genetic researcher, has a sketch about this process at his site: http://www.laboratoriogene.com.br/?area=genealogiaAncestralidadeDiferenca. This is related by Pedro Taques de Almeida Paes Leme, and it has been shown by genetics. Sérgio Pena himself, even though he can trace a Native American ancestry on his female line(his mtDNA is haplogroup A, which is Native American), has an overwhelming European autosomal ancestry (99,9% European), which would make his % ancestry different than of those who kept in the Native American group. The same goes for the African ancestry. The best example of this is José Sarney, former president of Brazil, from the interior of Maranhão (one of the most "African" provinces of Brazil). His mtDNA is African (from Central Africa), and yet his autosomal contribution is overwhelmingly European (at 99,9%). This is my own case too, my mtDNA is native American, and yet my autosomal ancestry is 98% European and 1,5% Native American (according to a DNA test performed by 23andme, which scans over 500000 markers). My ancestry is entirely of colonial times, and I have traced my ancestry back to European women too (Margarida Correa and Genebra Leitão de Vasconcelos, just to name a few, who arrived both in Brazil in the XVI century, at the very beginning of the colonization process). - Grenzer22 ( talk) 11:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. They're rather a lot to digest, and because I am tired (for reasons unrelated to Wikipedia), I don't propose to go through them right now. Please don't take that to mean lack of interest or appreciation.
I think that your comments have all addressed this tentatively suggested draft rather than other comments on it. That's healthy, but perhaps you can also look at each other's comments, preferably neither simply to support them nor simply to oppose them, but rather to pick among them to see what's valuable in them, and then to suggest how the draft above might be improved.
I'd prefer that you didn't fiddle above with the draft above -- not because it's "mine" (it isn't), but because by doing so you might lose sight of what some of the comments already made are referring to. However, it might be a good idea to copy this draft and paste it below (giving it a different background colour, to reduce the risk of confusion), and then to work on this copy. Primer for background colours: In "background-color:#xyz" (in which "color" must be spelt the American way), x, y and z are the values for red, green and blue respectively. The value of each can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, or F; where 0 is zero and F is maximum.) Happy editing! -- Hoary ( talk) 13:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I do have a lot of sympathy with the notion that a discussion of "colour" in Brazil shouldn't be in this article but instead should be in the article on "colour", "race" and ethnic groups in Brazil. However, that article is awful, and we are here. -- Hoary ( talk) 16:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I go to bed as the Americas are waking up, hours later I wake up, and what do I see here? No flaming row among editors, nothing: just a single and most interesting message from Grenzer22. (There may be more new stuff hidden above, of course.) Perhaps it's busy-ness closing down (paid) work for the year or preparing for festivities, or perhaps it's exhaustion; but whatever the explanation I'm happy to see that nobody's shouting or complaining.
Unfortunately I can't read Portuguese but nevertheless I like to think that I can understand the title "DNA de brasileiro é 80% europeu, indica estudo". Trouble is, I can't understand much more than the title. So really, I'm not the best [text] researcher for these matters. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
After sleeping on the matter, I'm more certain that "White Brazilian" is little more than a variety of "'Colour' in Brazil", and a lot what needs to be said about "White Brazilians" also needs to be said about "Black Brazilians" (and others) and should be said in a single place. (Michael Hanchard's introduction to the book Racial Politics in Contemporary Brazil tells me that "colour" -- which of course means more than simple pigmentation -- is more important than "race". Grenzer22 may perhaps cite current sociological thinking that disagrees.) But there's no such article. (There is Human skin color as well as such articles as Afro-textured hair.)
However, there does exist an article on Ethnic groups in Brazil; and although parts of it seem sound enough, other parts look terrible to me. Should there be a centralized treatment there of cor/"colo(u)r"? If there were, I don't delude myself that the discussions toward it would be simple; but if it could eventually be got right, it could well avoid wasteful repetition elsewhere and a seemingly endless series of skirmishes in "Talk:XYZ Brazilian". -- Hoary ( talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
One "side" is an unsourced fantasy about White Brazilians being people of full or main European ancestry, whose proponents attempt to make stick by arguing that White Brazilians are people who call themselves White when asked by the Census. Why would this "side" be included in the article? Ninguém ( talk) 14:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Also, it would be necessary to take a close look at Immigration to Brazil, Demographics of Brazil, Brazilian people, Indigenous peoples in Brazil, etc. Ninguém ( talk) 03:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Mkay. A few questions: should those articles all be admined by the same person? Should they receive "content is disputed" tags? Should their present rating (which is, in most cases that I have seen, "B Class") stay or be reassessed? Ninguém ( talk) 11:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just now proposed this at WikiProject Brazil. Although I had to simplify the story a little, I tried not to misrepresent people's opinions and hope that I succeeded. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's see: White American does not exist. That explains why I am uncomfortable with this article. I believe merging this article into ethnic groups or demography of brazil is a good option.
I quite like the things Ninguém is saying in this talk page, I hope to continue to visit this page and contribute to the discussion.-- Kiyarrlls- talk 13:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to know how a real black looks like you just have to go to Angola, where the population is really black, not mixed (well there is a 1% mulatto and white minority): in Angola any Brazilian can know if he is black or not.-- 83.53.110.189 ( talk) 07:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The "whitening" of Brazil was a complete success and today the overwhelming majority of Brazilians have European names and last names, speak a European language, are Christian and have a Caucasian phenotype as European is the main ancestry of Brazilians, followed by African and then by Native. Also Arabs in different countries have more or less black mixture (blacks being taken usually as slaves by the Arabs) but they have a Caucasian phenotype. On the other side, in countries like the Philippines or Vietnam the phenotype is Asian even if they are usually darker than the Koreans or the Japanese. The Caucasian phenotype can even have a dark color as many Indians have. Asians too can have a dark color, above all in Indo-China, Indonesia and the Philippines but keeping the Asian phenotype...-- 83.53.110.189 ( talk) 07:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
As the conversation above was, I thought, moving in the direction of converting Race in Brazil from (a) a redirect to Ethnic groups in Brazil into (b) its own article, I proposed this at the talk page of "Ethnic groups in Brazil".
Thus far, a grand total of one (1) of the participants above has agreed there, and no (0) one else has said anything at all. You may wish to voice your support (or opposition). Without a clear show of support, any conversion from the redirect into an article is likely to be reverted. -- Hoary ( talk) 15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Since the protection was removed, I am reintroducing the edits that were blindly reversed. However, I am keeping the lead short, in order to avoid pretexts for massive un-editing of the page. So far, rebuilt the lead, taking off absurd sentence about White Brazilians being defined by ancestry - which the article itself states is irrelevant in other ("Conception of White") section, removed comparison with other countries (as the concept of White is different in different countries, the data are actually not comparable), reintroduced more recent data from 2008, removed sentence about "main ancestries" of White Brazilians, which was completely unsupported by the given source.
Later, on to History.