Beringia what if

[Disenfrancised]

I don't see why not. Brazil is not Mexico or Peru; the indians are in fact a very small part of our national heritage. Things would be pretty much the same, except in the North where most people are mixed indian/portuguese.

Actually the vice-royality of Brazil, the southern one of the several that existed prior to the 1775 unification, got its start through exploration and trade with/assualt upon the Indians of the interior. Without them you'd only have the Captaincy of Pernambuco succeeding at the start leading into a 'brazil' (might not be called that) that had a much less diverse and smaller economy and one that will probably loose most of its original timeline southern portions to the spanish.

 

[luiz]

Actually the vice-royality of Brazil, the southern one of the several that existed prior to the 1775 unification, got its start through exploration and trade with/assualt upon the Indians of the interior. Without them you'd only have the Captaincy of Pernambuco succeeding at the start leading into a 'brazil' (might not be called that) that had a much less diverse and smaller economy and one that will probably loose most of its original timeline southern portions to the spanish.

Um, no. Trade with the indians was never particularly important. In the South, or rather specifically in the São Vicente Captaincy, what was relatively important to the economy was the "indian bandeiras", where bandeirantes would essentially "hunt down" indians and sell them as slaves. However, indian slavery was condemned by the Church, and soon even in São Vicente african slaves arrived in considerable numbers, and they became the basis of brazilian economy untill circa 1850.

The Southeast only begun to really develop after gold was discovered in Minas Gerais; the paulistas may be proud of their slave hunting forefathers (I wouldn't), but fact is they had a small impact on the formartion of the national economy. The only economic cycle that indians played a significant role was the first one, brazilwood. But that was by far the least important - in fact Brazil wasn't even settled during it. All other cycles of the colonial period - namely sugarcane and gold - were based on african slaves (during the imperial period slave labour was gradually replaced by free labour of european immigrants, particularly italians).

Your claims about losing the southern provinces to Spain is even more puzzling. The portuguese, particularly the Marquis of Pombal, thought of the indians living there as a threat to the borders of Brazil. The borders were defined after centuries of skirmishes between the portuguese and the spanish, and later the brazilians and argentinians.

 

[TheLastOne36]

So coastal brazil will still be portuguese and would be pretty much the same. Going inland would've been less of a problem, and in South America it would pretty much be Spain having troubles with the unconquerable (or hard to conquer) Polynesians.

 

[North King]

Actually, given everything, you'd have a much less developed America, and probably a much worse off world in general. No Natives means no maize or potatoes being domesticated until relatively late; both of those crops have been boons to the world. Also, the Natives did quite a lot that impacted the landscape. The rainforest, for one, would be much more hostile to human settlement; farming would be much harder in the Andes; the forests of North America would be much thicker and the plains much more dispersed, and so on.