Stilt-Root Subsistence: Colonial Mangroves and Brazil’s Landless Poor

Abstract

In 1677, the Jesuit prelate in Rio de Janeiro, Father Silveira Dias, summarily excommunicated every distinguished member of the city’s municipal council. Although priests frequently quarreled with local officials over such issues as control of indigenous labor, marching order in annual processions, or the extent of clerical exemption from municipal taxation, only in the most extreme scuffles did clerics make heretics of the local elite. In this case, the Jesuits exercised excommunication, their ultimate weapon, in defense of a fetid mangrove swamp.1This was not an isolated instance. In the next decade, the Benedictines and individual landholders, with respective threats of excommunication and arrest against trespassers, pursued exclusive claims to the mangrove forests that bordered their lands on Rio’s extensive Guanabara Bay.2 As a result, the bay’s wretched free poor—abruptly barred from a resource that had supplied much of their food and had been traditionally open to all—appealed to the municipal council for redress. Despite strong ties to landed interests, the council challenged all corporate and private claims to areas seaward of the high tide. With crown support, the council reaffirmed the mangroves’ public status, holding that, as in Portugal, tidelands were state property and open to the use of all. In a colony where forest and field were generally hoarded by fidalgo, priest, and king, Brazil’s tidal forests—due in part to their brackish location—escaped elite monopolization.This study investigates the relationship between two peripheral populations: the mangroves at the fringes of the colonial landscape, and the peoples at the margins of the plantation economy.3 Brazil’s rural poor, landless due to latifundia and wageless due to slavery, prioritized subsistence in their economic life and engaged various strategies to evade the prospect of hunger. These strategies, of course, included subsistence planting on plots granted at the landholder’s consent, but sources suggest that where possible the rural poor preferred hunting, fishing, and gathering from nature’s abundance. While many explained these activities as unproductive and the result of the free poor’s lazy disposition, the drive to eat seems to best explain the poor’s unique set of “indolent” strategies. Subsistence security—having enough to eat—was at the center of their economic life, and it outweighed all other ambitions.The ruling elite acknowledged the poor’s basic right to eat and defended a primitive moral economy by reserving some mangroves for the exclusive use of the poor. Hence, by the coincidence of the poor’s hunger, the state’s paternalism, and the mangrove’s own unrivaled fecundity, mangroves outside immediate urban areas survived the onslaught of colonization. Today mangroves still grace as much as one-third of Brazil’s coastline. Conservation can only take a portion of the credit for mangrove survivals, but what is exceptional is that, at least in some areas, strict conservation policies were shaped not by the commercial interests of the elite but by the subsistence requirements of the poor.The mangrove forest was commonly deprecated as the epitome of wilderness, the antithesis of civilization, and the primary breeder of tropical disease.4 But recurring conflicts evidence the mangroves’ role in meeting the subsistence needs of the poor and the commercial interests of the elite.5 Due to the mangroves’ many extractives (including firewood, timber, lime, clay, tannin, fish, shellfish, and feathers) and its easy access by water, these swamps of rank muck and impassable tangles were among the colony’s most exploited resources. Baltasar da Silva Lisboa, formerly the colony’s highest forest official, opined that, had the king granted the Jesuits exclusive control over Rio de Janeiro’s mangroves in 1677, he might as well have given them the city and captaincy as well, “for all of their inhabitants would have been sold to the avarice of great corporations, which would have become the rulers and only lords of the fortunes and persons of their fellow citizens.”6 Silva Lisboa may be accused of anticlerical exaggeration, but he points to the mangroves’ notable place in the colonial economy.Mangroves, adapted to the brackish waters and anaerobic muds of tropical tidelands, framed much of Brazil’s colonial coastline, particularly the estuarine waters on which her chief urban centers were located. In fact, all of Brazil’s major colonial ports held extensive reserves.7 Brazil’s mangrove formations, unlike most tropical forests, are simple in composition, consisting largely of three arboreal varieties: mangrove commonly as and and mangrove for its the mangrove the immediate and as in the mangrove and as it the mangrove’s by for as as a for in which to its the by the of that from the and by the on its with the highest with a of and these the a that was by other colonial in de a Jesuit that the mangrove had of it for this various of to the forests are an extreme of an by the meeting of two most of mangrove’s own is in a food that of and mangroves the their with of and various this and and various the their among the and the mangroves as and exploited the and as sources of the of the of the and a of the the only the of the In fact, the by Brazil’s peoples were the mangroves’ some of which are and a the subsistence the primary of the mangrove and what the inhabitants and it was the of the mangrove’s the state to the of this on the subsistence needs of the in the mangroves’ but was the of that the its a might of and was the to their particularly the among the mangrove’s of the part of its life in the mangroves’ on the and were and and the were enough to a from their and such a that from their were were to the it was a due to their and In the the that to them in the and that the was enough to the and various of were from the mangroves’ or to by its indigenous was the most and for was for its that from But and in the in as of all this particularly of the and In the decade, de that the on shellfish, and by their a by the of its and the only the de explained that is on the of not an to these and from or of these three to all in and on their own as Jesuit to their or to them a to food as this to take what had at the of the to in of a for with shellfish, was the Hence, was not on local and great of from the and colonial extensive that the at the of in these which had been a of the were in great among as or which in the were had to be to be and their with of as and in which were a of many right on the mangrove from which were at tide. de that were on the that not the and that are in their the was by the was In de in the mangroves that the of and against it as In to the was and an in the and them with of in some the that In a of in a which would to their da Silva with their subsistence In to for food the the them with a and and that he them a were to on as But was he to order them to or in the the to eat to only the were to this mangroves were among the primary and with of from to was in the the of of in the mangroves and commonly in a that was in the that was to and he with that all the he in were of and shellfish, that in their the and was among the for largely by the poor. to for a of the at a in the was in as fish, such as the and the mangroves and in were in the which in were to due to their to the with their and the their of this is outweighed by the that were by this in the of the the to the mangroves and were much but the was an not only of subsistence but of to the colony and its in some the rural poor might an But the of the mangroves with their subsistence needs by the that was the in due to its to and its high mangrove is it a in the of or in but and and all of on the mangrove for for to of the of and by the in the of were mangrove to the on and in the of In the to generally of mangrove for the on the an of from in the of course, was in to the needs of the in the the mangroves of all the by Rio’s was and to mangrove in the from the only a for a and a to their in muck and as the and them As the immediate were and the of the to access to the and was labor, but it a and from of Brazil’s which were over and among were largely of not an timber, mangrove was among the to the poor as most had been by the crown and were on private to the for Rio’s urban poor was of mangrove and the of these and other and plantation largely from the and mangrove its the particularly to and the as for de for the which the of for were in the of in part the mangrove’s was for and its was to the had from a to their as the for mangrove the of the that in a between the and the major of the colonial a de the of the access to the and the mangrove’s the which to or and the of which were to the for the of to it on with In the of the Rio’s city council to the of mangrove with which urban and by the of and at a that But this would mangrove for it was in the mangroves that the that the the Brazil’s from the that some them the by as the and the to them to which and to a of of and mangrove firewood, which for to to the was simple and of was not on with that of the that was from as local had a to in the and for such as was but all the for was as as was three of in their But at that was in that the of the and many other and it is still not the of the in Rio the de to the for the and on next to from the many mangroves of the that the of Rio de and in the on the mangroves for and de which he at de as among the most to and a of in the of of their by the that had been from with a the to the from their and waters of the at the mangrove to the colonial the of high of in its supplied to from her but unlike the of that the crown the colony’s own extensive colonial mangrove with and that the to a of In the engaged their own to the but by the a In two of mangrove from its and Rio de Janeiro, to some extent on its bay’s own had it in from and from as as the in of that a the the waters between Rio and with such as to have on the role of In the Brazil’s to as due to the mangrove’s some and of the the of of that were to the of the as Brazil’s and most the Jesuits is the over the of the have been the of the public status, the of the an between the and of and to and was easy enough to that property at the of the high but did that the high or the extreme to of in an as the the were the of between them part of the or the the was on the the the the mangrove was most In with high mangrove been to as much as the and the mangrove the highest by public of the the for exclusive and the and of crown and local officials the of the in and firewood, and But the the by in their all the as this only the the was an public an extreme of property where with in a to nature’s the to and But the over which be given for many of the mangrove’s activities were among the mangroves for were over or the public to be interests the crown with claims the right to take their needs from the mangroves or to all with their As for mangrove did for for the mangroves a and to that is to most other tropical forests over a of are in a but only over on the other are not over as in a but the landscape, life from the that had been for might be every of and Silva Lisboa that mangrove be for every what was of the was not for its and the and of the mangrove in the immediate of local and and the of that with the of only the mangroves the to the food the for food of these an in that mangrove at such that for by that the waters in where the mangroves had been and that a was the had at the of this as was some on the of the for timber, or as to subsistence as mangrove and the of local in local of had a of in the that had to by and by with inhabitants in was its Although some was and labor, and the crown the largely subsistence forests, and waters to their and were In da that was the only place in all of the that had In the crown had it to of the in order to on and were and were of these in on the but was Despite to the where and of by from to in the of and their Baltasar da Silva Lisboa, in and as local that the would the of planting and result in the of the local Silva Lisboa that the did not on but on the for he the economic not to the of the but to the of the Despite to the to and he that for the most part in with the of and which on these and on access to the from the was in a the as the primary of and for the and an of timber, and But he that the is most to is and that the inhabitants in and their the subsistence poor, to free or for local and by fishing, and As their subsistence activities place on the on the or on the Although the of the free rural are among the in the and the it may be well to what the free rural the peoples of at the margins of the on where and what or their can the role of the mangrove in and local were to from the colony’s most a in some the as to the free rural poor by many and at and and and and and and have been for it a of and of that are to the of many of Brazil’s free a be for in the and of the be as and and did not this for labor, but the and be at the for or the might to for or the of by on or the plantation which the colonial was open for such free poor were at the fringes of the property to and mangroves from the of with a of such as was in for in rural and in the the free rural peoples three de and was the most and that the of the of and their are that of the free rural and that from all or and all as As as that of Brazil’s the and at are and the and as well that of free a of them to the most as in the forests and that the of that and as was two and for at a on the with the of their and were of the the that the or well a and a of its to be to the and that by the free poor of their were as was the of the and that the was he their the planting of at the and the of a of for that and a of which might be sold to the only he moral of this of the was and and that that would be as the rural peoples were lazy and had that the rural poor did not for in or by the state public that some rural poor did in and mangrove on their own but the that this was and was a of in or by what a subsistence a set of needs and that place subsistence all as was in the best to With at their the was not to the of was with the of and to from the of in urban poor and food the of which the municipal rural landless might a and but their primary was access to a of as have to access to nature’s rural poor it did not a subsistence as as did hunting, or subsistence that was was the of food in a place of In the of and food for for two a local for food from a evidence that the or for local which labor, not on and the to food for the but a of for the of and to the the of to poor, he that the poor be a would become or on and was a and of a that Brazil’s free poor was an a that from its to civilization, and of a had of and of in defense of the moral at least on the of These in Brazil’s from that of Brazil’s subsistence poor were not were not but their indigenous an for a in and a to of be it for or a of for it had been the of the among the and to what not be for poor of the of as the for local were to as a to as well as a strong to the of or the of only among only most subsistence strategies as a of from and where food was largely for the and not for Hence, the of their economic might have been most of the rural poor did not have the labor, or to enough food for their own for the local or for that a of in to be may the of such an for but the of the an and the high of Brazil’s rural poor, to on plots of had but to take to the local forests and mangroves to their on may have been by the plantation of the role of on subsistence to two the relationship between the of and the free poor that have not that the landless and wageless rural the of rural and extensive and the of the free is the the of an that the rural poor, and and its in the by and this that from the colonial of on much to where subsistence is and can great is the With all of the free the to for the and best of the free rural to the and to on the the two not a and are to make but the and of the free the to for did in of to other such as the rural and on to open did to that extent the But it is that the and of the of the rural peoples the to own or to their in only did to the of but had become by and all the to be by free the the free poor, to them a basic a by in other to to the for many of the rural free from but with the of to for a at the or an on the lands of with as a had the of the the of to that not only the public but acknowledged subsistence as the mangrove’s of such was the of de the of mangrove for three of the of and the of due to the this In for local and the the de the of mangrove in the with a of in a of to be granted to of public and an to the be These were all three of and the by this had a had in to their interests to local as it to With in the other of the by were in to the of to the to be to not be de the of the to the of as to the of the by and the of the the be he the from the on a which their he a would be had to that the mangroves were public a ruling that which the local inhabitants of over other property claims and resource on the the were to be by the of the to with the local by a of and the and of and in their council had the mangrove or of for was to the had on the mangrove had to a of poor annual for two the the the were is but the may have been between on their own and As and many of the council to the use of these and the of local to the of the as by such to and the were to a for and for or the mangrove in some had that the council had not been as in the as the was given of the which were and the only use the mangrove the other or had been with in and had to make with the mangrove forests that outside the in these areas at with the the of the activities of with a have been or a But this was the mangroves with the which was the the mangroves in order to the that the of the the on their did not the to and on to that to the the of Rio de and had to the crown to be given over their were much mangrove that the of the had become and that in a would of the the of the Although claims of mangrove were the crown the in the of between the two was to mangroves that had not been of their and of and three were With the of in the the crown granted the the of the mangrove of place or from to with the notable of the state of where the in of in and are not their were only to be to have largely in the local mangroves against that was not and are many of the of to the and of But council it had to the to the and had the of and had them annual to be from these but their were de over the to the king, exclusive right to mangroves the council defended the public of the by of for crown Despite the that not and every had in the of the which to be preferred to private of the to at the of was the only had and this in the of the poor to in mangroves are an exceptional of colonial forest While the crown many to forests, largely by only in the and in a in the of urban were forests for other elite But colonial mangrove is exceptional it was on of Brazil’s a for the most part by the colonial municipal may have had a of for to the of the subsistence but sources are on many of the food sources might have been a of but in rural areas such food or are at least the the the of as for mangrove subsistence a have to were it a of local As these rural peoples had for and their to was by da Silva of are of a and but not the of the the were local may have been to the among as the held extensive of the of for their or food for their But the had the to the among the exclusive Although did result from the of the mangroves and and the to by the of this seems an is that the of the mangroves an by local to their interests from it was that and were might be as a to local for local was the of mangroves to their may have been to from with the for in to their own local interests, seems to be a on the part of officials to the fro

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.