Talk:Colonial Brazil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Merger
Isn't colonial Brazil part of Brazil history?? The article about brazilian history should have contained colonial Brazil in the first place!! by Benhpark
- It shouldve, but i dont think this article be merged. Portugal had other colonies too. by Jodavid 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The article should not be merged. The article is part of a series in the HISTORY OF BRAZIL. Not the history of Portugese colonization.
- I disagree. The history of the Portuguese colonization of the Americas coincides 100% with that of Colonial Brazil, since Portugal never had any other colonies in the Americas. FilipeS 13:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge: Brazil was the only colony. Chico 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Do not merge: Portugal also attempted to colonise parts of North America, like Newfoundland in Canada, which could be dealt with in Portuguese colonization of the Americas. Besides, the history of colonial Brazil includes the unsuccessfull attempts by the French and the Dutch to colonise parts of Brazil, and a great part of Brazil (Amazon, the South) legally belonged to Spain under the Treaty of Tordesillas, and was explored by the Spaniards (like the Amazon river, which was first explored by Spanish explorers). Thus, even though colonial Brazil coincides almost 100% with the Portuguese colonization of the Americas, they are not exactly the same thing. Fsouza 12:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- You do have a point there. will remove the merger proposal. FilipeS 23:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Heir requested to return To/From Brazil
In section United Kingdom period (1808-1822), we have:
The heir of João VI, Prince Pedro, remained in Brazil. The Portuguese Cortes demanded Brazil to return to its former condition of colony and the return of the heir to Brazil.
Which doesn't make sense. As I recall, the Portugues Cortes demanded his return FROM Brazil (to Portugal), as he would continue the royal family line in Portugal. Therefore, I will edit this, as it looks like a typo/mistranslation. Feel free to discuss and revert. 201.25.2.32 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Needs more references
Many parts, if not all of the article has been writen without references nor footnotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IngeniusDodo (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)