O problema da defesa do território na Capitania de Goiás no século XVIII

• Ano de defesa: 2011
• Autor(a) principal: MARCONDES, Java Isvi Pinheiro
• Orientador(a): SALOMON, Marlon Jeison
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Goiás
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Mestrado em História
• Departamento: Ciências Humanas
• País: BR
• Palavras-chave em Português: Goiás; defesa; território; século XVIII
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Goiás; defense; territory; 18th century
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::HISTORIA
• Link de acesso: http://repositorio.bc.ufg.br/tede/handle/tde/2324

This work is a study of the territory defense problem in Captiancy of Goiás in the 18th Century, and how one must realize that the the logic that motivated its functioning was not of an economic nature, but obeyed principles devised within a particular political device. Between the 1720s and the 1750s, the defence of the mines of Goiás touted indigenous settlements as true barracks, which served as shelter for the pacified indigenous that were used as soldiers in attacks against the region s indigenous. At that point, it interested organizing the closing of territory, a phenomenon that joined the concentration of fiscal activities under Royal Road, the prohibition of navigation of the Tocantins and Araguaia rivers and fighting against smuggling. However, since the early years of the 1750s, new issues emerged within what was meant by defending the of Goiás. The idea of settlement of the captaincy, now conceived as a more efficient way to defend the royal possessions, articulated the creation of new settlements, now understood as unities of population, evidence of portuguese presence along the full territory extension. Moreover, the creation of roads linking the camps, the opening of communications with others Colony s Captaincy and the franchising of rivers navigation integrated mechanisms triggered in defending territory. Therefore, the aim of this work is the distinction between these two ways of thinking about territory defense.