Talk:Cangaço
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'd recommend that other contributors take a look at this page. Aside from copyediting, I'm hoping that others can add perspective and content.
It's been too long since I've researched this subject. I want to go back and add content in light of any connection with the ongoing landless movement in Brazil, which has received quite a deal of national and international attention, particularly since the election of their old ally, Lula da Silva. Right now I'm a bit fuzzy on the details. Generally, this topic receives inadequate attention in the literature about Brazilian history (considering the traditionally large share of the Brazilian population for which the peasantry accounts), which itself is to scarce, considering that this country has the world's fifth largest population and 9th largest economy.
In short, this is not a widely researched topic, but an important one.
Does anyone want to add content? I'm having trouble finding people interested in Brazilian history.
[edit] Origin of the word "Cangaço"
< person who could not adapt itself to the litoraneous lifestyle >
I wonder if "litoraneous" is the best word here. It is very obscure: Websters Third New International Unabridged (2002 ed.) does not list it, nor does the latest Merriam Webster Collegiate (11th ed. 2003), nor does Wictionary. A Google search brings up 8 primary hits (including two referencing this very article) but no definition.
The word seems to be related to “littoral,” meaning a coastal region (from Latin “litus,” seashore or shore of a lake or river). Literaneous would appear to mean “coastal.”
In the context of this article, I'm guessing that litoraneous is used here to refer to the culture of the coastal cities of Brazil, as opposed to the historically less European-influenced interior. I would not be surprised if the word has a close cognate in Brazilian Portuguese, and that it is not uncommonly found in learned discourse among Brazilian historians and social scientists.
Even if this is so, I suggest that the word doesn't belong in an English language encyclopedia article (certainly not without an accompanying definition). I don't advocate “dumbing down” Wikipedia articles, long and hard words are fine, but a reader should be able to find a definition for them online, or by using standard reference materials.
Any discussion? I would not wish to change the article without some expert input. Bog 17:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
