Talk:Confederados

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm removing:[edit]

"Their Brazilian neighbors considered this practice unusual and even scandalous[citation needed]. The majority of Confederados were white Americans, but the group also included Cherokee, Choctaw and Muscogee Indians who also owned slaves or were invited to settle in Brazil due to their advanced farming skills[citation needed]." I can find no source to show that American Indians emigrated with Confederates. I am removing the part about the Brazilian neighbors finding teaching slaves scandalous because I found a source that said they taught there slaves and they also taught women. It does mention a scandal but the scandal was teaching the women. In Brazil during this time period class meant much more than race. There race didn't constitute social hierarchy like it did in the USA.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree deletion. Some Confederados were, I think, part-descended from N American Indian stock, but not ethnic Indians per se.Davidships (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The few Cherokee came from Indian Territory (now Oklahoma) arrived to South America from Arkansas. They were westernized, English-speaking and Protestant Christian, they even adapted the practice of owning black slaves. There is clear evidence the Cherokee migrated to Mexico from Texas (Cherokee Nation of Mexico), but I hold skepticism on how many Cherokee migrated all over Latin America. 71.102.1.95 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Confederados. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also section[edit]

108.16.135.228 and I have reverted one another over the inclusion of a link to Ratlines (World War II) in the "See also" section of this article. They feel the link is irrelevant; I'm inclined to disagree. See their edit summary today and my comment on their talk page yesterday. I'm beginning a discussion here to request comment from others and to see if a consensus exists. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American immigrants who went to Brazil can hardly be compared to WWII Nazi. --Lecen (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think inclusion in a "See also" section implies a moral/ethical comparison? That isn't my understanding of what those sections are for. Note also that this article is not about American immigrants to Brazil in general, but specifically about people associated with the Confederate States of America. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Confederados. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italic[edit]

It seems to me that Confederados should be italicized, as a foreign word. It's not "Confederates" but the Portuguese word Confederados. Anyone have a problem with italic? deisenbe (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting claim that education of slaves and freedmen was common in the US South[edit]

I rarely revert anything, but the changed made by IP address 97.94.149.3 on Sept. 9 required it. The reverted content's original edit summary said: "Fixed biased information, it was quite common to educate slaves and freedmen in the South."

This is a claim that is outside the consensus understanding about how uncommon formal education for African Americans was prior to the US Civil war.[1]

I thought that due to the seriousness of this issue, that I should explain this more fully on the talk page. Jmbranum (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

Largest exodus in USA history?[edit]

This article claims that confederates moving to Brazil was the largest exodus in US history. The link to the source doesn’t work, but even if the article did say that, this seems suspect.

Most sources online say 8,000 to 20,000 southerners made the move. After the revolutionary war, an estimated 85,000 loyalists left, which was 2% of the population. The confederados would be at most 0.05% of population. So whether it’s total number of people or percent, the loyalist exodus is definitely bigger - so the confederation exodus can’t be the biggest 73.166.206.30 (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes that's a good point. Rjensen (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Refugee”[edit]

The ex-patriates are referred to as “refugees” multiple times in this article. That is a gross mischaracterization of their status, even per Wikipedia’s definition of “refugee”. A more fitting term is “ex-patriate” since they were not under pressure from persecution nor were they disowned or unrecognized by their country. They could at any time return to the US and not be at risk of harm unlike actual refugees. 23.119.61.60 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confederados&oldid=1195440940"