Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T01:08:46.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developments in the Situation of Brazilian Tribal Populations from 1976 to 1982

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2022

Greg Urban
Greg Urban*
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Since 1976 profound changes have occurred in Brazilian national society, changes that have implications for the tribal populations in Brazil as well as for those conducting anthropological and linguistic research among these populations. Many of these changes can be linked to the government policy of abertura (opening). This policy was begun implicitly under the regime of Ernesto Geisel (1974-79) and has been continued more explicitly by the current President, João Baptista de Oliveira Figueiredo, who is scheduled to remain in office until 1985. Perhaps equally as important at the infrastructural level have been the global economic changes that were largely linked to earlier increases in oil prices. These steep increases have severely shaken the Brazilian economy, causing annual inflation rates in 1980, 1981, and 1982 of approximately 100 percent.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , 1985 , pp. 7 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the University of Texas Press

Footnotes

∗

I would like to thank Professors Sylvia M. Caiuby Novaes and Lux B. Vidal of the University of São Paulo and Professor David Maybury-Lewis of Harvard for their numerous comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

Notes

1. Darcy Ribeiro, Os Indios e a Civilização, 1957, p. 8.

2. For information on the dam projects, see Paul Aspelin and Sílvio Coelho dos Santos, Indian Areas Threatened by Hydroelectric Projects in Brazil, published by the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), 1981.

3. For information on the Polonoroeste project, see David Maybury-Lewis et al., “In the Path of Polonoroeste: Endangered Peoples of Western Brazil,” Occasional Paper No. 6, published by Cultural Survival, September 1981.

4. There is, as of this writing, no single best source of information on the Grande Carajás project. A great deal of information can be found in Folhetim no. 248 of the Folha de São Paulo, 18 October 1981. Continuous reportage has appeared in newspapers and magazines, including “Carajás” in the magazine Istoé, 14 April 1982, pp. 26–37.

5. “Carajás,” Istoé, 14 April 1982, p. 26.

6. “FUNAI: Novo Presidente,” Veja, 3 April 1974, p. 29.

7. From A Gazeta (Vitória), 22 July 1980. Reprinted in Povos Indígenas no Brasil, 1980, published by the Centro Ecuménico de Documentação e Informação (CEDI). For CEDI's address, see note 10.

8. Some observers localize the problem not in the presidency, but in the assistant to the president, Ivan Zanoni Hausen, who survived the transition from Nobre da Veiga to Leal.

9. For most of this information, I have relied upon the invaluable chronology put together by Fany Ricardo, “O Conselho Indigenista Missionário (CIMI): Cronologia das Transformações Recentes da Pastoral Indigenista Católica no Brasil: 1975–1979,” in Cadernos do Instituto Superior de Estudos da Religião (ISER) no. 10, pp. 1–25.

10. Persons wishing more information on the levantamento should write to: CEDI, Levantamento das Populações Indígenas no Brasil, Avenida Higienópolis 983, 01238 São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

11. See the Debate section of Religião e Sociedade 7 (July 1981), which contains statements on the role of SIL by Yonne Leite, Anthony Seeger, and Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira.

12. FUNAI estimated recently that there are some ten thousand Indians in Brazil still without contact. See “10 Mil ainda sem Contato,” O Estado de São Paulo, 16 May 1982, p. 28. These include at least three small tribes in Rondônia (200-300 Uru-eu-uau-uau, 130–80 Zoró, and 60 Caripuna), where the Polonoroeste project is underway, and 150 Guajá Indians in Maranhão, scene of the Grande Carajás project.

13. For purposes of explication, I have simplified the “tribal model.” In most cases, political autonomy is not at the level of the “tribe,” which may consist of a number of distinct villages or bands, but at the level of the village or band itself.