March 17

Controversies about the "discovery" of Brazil

Acoording to the Wikipedia in Portuguese: Vicente Yanéz Pinzón, navegador espanhol, partiu de Palos de la Frontera, Espanha em 19 de novembro de 1499. Em Janeiro de 1500 desembarcou no Brasil no local atualmente chamado Praia do Paraíso, Cabo de Santo Agostinho, Pernambuco. O local foi batizado por Pinzon como Cabo de Santa Maria de la Consolación. Pinzón seguiu sua viagem e em fevereiro de 1500 chegou à foz do Rio Amazonas, que batizou como Mar Dulce. A Viagem de Pinzón e sua chegada ao Brasil não constam da maior parte dos registros oficiais de história do Brasil pois pelo tratado de Tordesilhas as terras descobertas por Pinzón pertenciam, de fato, a Portugal. Mas existe grande probabilidade de que mesmo a esquadra de Pinzón não seria a primeira expedição européia a desembarcar em terras brasileiras. Já em 1325 circulavam em Portugal lendas e mapas sobre uma terra rica em pau-brasil situada além mar. Na disputa com a Espanha por novas terras, os portugueses realizam expedições sigilosas chamadas "de arcano". Assim há relatos de que João Coelho da Porta da Cruz e Duarte Pacheco Pereira teriam estado no Brasil respectivamente em 1493 e 1498. Diogo de Lepe, navegador espanhol, teria atingido a costa brasileira em março de 1500. Gimferrer 14:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

YES! I've tried to deal with this issue sometyme ago, but someone (can't remember whom...) reverted my changes to the article, giving it its present and Spanish-centred POV form, where it is stated, blumtly and without discussion, that Vicente Yáñez Pinzón, and not Pedro Álvares Cabral, was the discoverer of Brazil. I think I'm going to change this, doing something in the lines of what is done in the Portuguese Language Wikipedia. That is to say, creating a section (or even an article if it's too long) on the Controversies about the "discovery" of Brazil. What does everyone think? The Ogre 19:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There is a controversy and it should be treated as such, instead of arguing which version is right. Actually, there are at least two navigators who are claimed to reach Brazil before Cabral besides Pinzón: spanish Diego de Lepe and portuguese Duarte Pacheco Pereira, I think they should be mentioned on the new article, too Kensuke 20:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not only that subject. As far as I know History starts with a civilization with writing hability, not with nomads - that's pre-history. One can talk about these peoples but one cannot say that history starts with these nomad tribes. The best would be to translate the one from the Port. language one. A lot of people could have been in brazil before, everybody knows that because of strategical secrets, Pedro Alvares cabral made the OFFICIAL discovery. And the Tordesilhas triety is in fact, a proof of that. Portugal very probably had discovered Brazil before the triety was made due to sea birds, the sea streams, this is a strong proof and is even studied in schools, I was teached this version. Because it is not recorded (it was a secret), maybe it is also pre-history ;) hugs ppl. -82.155.36.206 00:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Discovery of what?

It is curious that someone discovered "Brazil", since Brasil is a politically defined country in South America and the country didn't exist for much time after its "discovery". On the other hand, South America has a land connection to North America, so it is difficult to "discover" one of them without "discovering" the other, unless we accept that whoever "discovered" a tiny bit of the territory in today's northern Brazil didn't discover the whole Brazil. On the other hand (the third hand), I don't know whether Columbus dicovered "America", since he went only as far as Cuba or something.

So: what are we talking about?! Velho 01:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

unless we accept that whoever "discovered" a tiny bit of the territory in today's northern Brazil didn't discover the whole Brazil. I think that's it? TransUtopian 14:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

African contacts

I have heard there is also evidence for 14-century contacts between South America and traders from the Mali Empire in west Africa; if so, that should be mentioned here as well. --Russ Blau (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No longer appropriate with the article name change. Nurg 05:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

English navigator Sancho Brandão?

Would someone please explain how an English navigator could be called Sancho Brandão? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

Sure, most of the people who contribute to these articles know zilch about the topic and get whatever they write from some outdated school book, or from some stale Encyclopedia article. When a professional historian intervenes with correct info, it is removed as "unhelpful." Hilarious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.9.30.236 (talk • contribs).

Sancho Brandão is the name that character is known by in Portuguese. The Ogre 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about Sancho Brandao, but in that period names were fluid and would often be adapted by whatever country an individual was visiting or working for. Hence, Giovanni Caboto was known in England as John Cabot. Christophero Colombo was known in Spain as Cristobal Colon. By the quirks of history a few of these names have become the moniker by which that individual is best known. 69.108.230.116 15:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

European discovery

I suggest this article should be renamed Controversies about the European discovery of Brazil. Nurg 11:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No objection, so done. Nurg 05:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to that. In order to name this article "controversies", there needs to be evidence of a controversy, otherwise it falsely gives the reader that a controversy exists. This is simply an "alternative theory", and I have renamed the article accordingly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally Unbalanced Article

This article lends far too much weight to the "alternative" view, given that only one source has been provided, and that in Portuguese too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The language of the source material should be irrelevant as long as a known lexicon exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Duarte pacheco Pereira wrote in this Book "ESMERALDO SITU ORBIS" his own Discovery of many lands in "Grande Terra firme" in west(Great land in west) in the "West"(New World) in 1498, in a Mission of the King Manuel. So, is no any speculation - He spoke and wrote about that. Before this Voyage, He (Duarte Pacheco Pereira) Negociate in Tordesillas in 1494 the Line in west. Duarte pacheco wrote about the Continent in west, Islands also in his voyage of 1498. He wrote about Brazilian wood. He was one of the Principal Man in Tordesillas. You believe that a perfect line from Amazonas Delta to "Laguna" inflexion in the southern coast on and the Number of 370 Milles was a "invention of no where" by the Portuguese in Tordesillas?

Remember Columbus two Weks with King John II in Lisbon and Santarém(Val Paraíso) after his Firts Voyage in 1493 and what the King said to him about a great Mailand in South(this document is disputed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.235.52 (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge into History of Brazil

Seriously, is there any logical reason not to merge this into History of Brazil? It's daft to have it sitting out here on its own when it's so short.Rubble pile (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)