In January 1992 I went to a small town in the interior of the state of Rio de Janeiro to conduct field research on race and racism. In planning for this trip, I had consulted with graduate student colleagues and scholars who specialized in Brazilian Studies. In giving advice, no one had suggested that racism might be a factor in field research.1 In fact, some had even suggested that race, or at least my phenotype, would be an advantage. In my field research, I still vividly remember one graduate student’s encouraging words: "They will love you in Brazil because you’ll be a mulatta there."
Despite these silences and "assurances" I did not go to Brazil expecting to find a racial paradise. Having informed myself of the experiences of other U.S. black anthropologists working in Latin America and the Caribbean I thought I was prepared for the multiple ways that my body might be coded as a light-skinned black American (Bolles 1985; Whitehead 1986; Harrison 1991; Gilliam 1970). However, what I had not anticipated was the suspicion, distrust, and racism to which I would be subjected by Brazilians of African ancestry. I had assumed that white Brazilians would exhibit some antiblack racism, but I was not prepared for the degree to which Brazilians of color would share their worldview. For instance, the following sentiments expressed by Henrique, a forty-three-year-old self-identified negro, were typical of those of other dark-skinned Brazilians interviewed. "Blacks marry whites because whites have good hair. [Whites] have good hair, their nose is not ugly [like ours]. Blacks normally have very large lips, like an animal’s and people think this is ugly. I am trying to say that black people know that [their features] are ugly and white people also know that blacks are ugly" (Twine 1998: 91).
Negotiating a symbolic terrain in which my body was so disagreeable was difficult and emotionally challenging. And even more disquieting was confronting the fact that some of the Afro-Brazilians I knew assumed that I shared their valorization of whiteness simply because my partner, Jonathan Warren, who accompanied me to the field, was white. Without expressing any concern about the appearance of children I might have in the future, I was repeatedly told by Brazilian friends of color: "Don’t worry, your children won’t look like you. They will be whiter and have straighter hair and olhos azuis (blue eyes)."2 Thus they projected on to me their desires of embranquecimento (whitening).
In retrospect I realize that even though I did not go to Brazil expecting to be a racial "insider" with Brazilians of salient African ancestry, I did assume that we would share some political and ideological affinities, given a similar history of slavery and white supremacy. In particular I erroneously took it for granted that we would have some shared critiques of antiblack racism. Consequently I did not anticipate their denial of their familial connections to African slavery. I was further surprised by the erasure slave ancestors of African descent in the family memories of people only two or three generations removed from slavery.3 I was shocked when Brazilians of color accused me of being a racist simply for asking questions about racial disparities. I had expected to be treated as a professional researcher and was not prepared for the assumption by Brazilians of color that I was a maid, the illegitimate sister of my white partner, or his whore.
In the midst of negotiating this very unfamiliar and disorienting racial terrain, I decided to consult the South American Handbook (1991) in preparation for a trip to northeastern Brazil. Given the routine racism I had already encountered in Brazil, I wondered if this issue would be addressed. It wasn’t. While the guidebook provided special suggestions for women and dealt with some of the problems of gender inequality and possible sexual harassment, neither race nor racism were mentioned as issues that could affect travelers of color. This was surprising, given the handbook’s claim to being the "complete guide to South America." In view of the intensity of the everyday racism I had been negotiating I wrote a letter to the editor suggesting that they attempt to deal with this issue since they had demonstrated some sensitivity to the way gender could affect the travel experience. In my letter I expressed my concerns as a brown-skinned traveler of color:
Your handbook lacks any specific hints for the brown traveler who may encounter racism and color prejudice in Brazil. This gap in your introduction results in an implicit assumption that foreign travelers are European or of European descent and thus physically distinct from much of the native South American population in countries such as Brazil. Although I found some benefits to being able to "blend" in with the native population [such as not being robbed since it was assumed that nonwhites don’t have as much money as white tourists], I also found that I was subjected to qualitatively different treatment and to racism as compared to my white American partner. I believe that your section entitled "Introduction and Hints" could be expanded and thus made even more useful to the nonwhite traveler, if you included a section on racism and color prejudice. As a cultural anthropologist and traveler, I strongly encourage you to consider adding this section since there are tourists and business people from North America, Asia, and Africa who may be unexpectedly confronted with racism and prejudice if they leave the beaten track.
On January 11, 1994, Mr. Box responded to my letter. His letter reflected a general reluctance to include racism as a subsection in the "Helpful Hints" section. He claimed that he had no knowledge about racism in South America since he had received no previous letters documenting this phenomenon. He asked for the names of individuals and organizations who could provide him with information about it. Finally, he informed me that they had no intention of renaming the handbook a "guide for white travelers," as I had suggested.
In thinking about the handbook’s assumptions of a white traveler and its failure to even briefly acknowledge that race could be an issue, I began to reflect on my training in research methods as a graduate student. The anthropology department at the Berkeley campus of the University of California offered no graduate courses in qualitative research methods,4 which is...
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 363 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Fri 19 May 2006 00:56 Post subject:
Quote:
In January 1992 I went to a small town in the interior of the state of Rio de Janeiro to conduct field research on race and racism.[...]no one had suggested that racism might be a factor in field research.
If you are going to study racism, you generally would not go to a place where you didn't expect there to be racism, correct?
Quote:
"They will love you in Brazil because you’ll be a mulatta there."
The person who told her this should have said "they will think you are brazillian and treat you like any other person they don't know until you open your mouth and once you do they won't know what to make of you."
Quote:
I was further surprised by the erasure slave ancestors of African descent in the family memories of people only two or three generations removed from slavery
Someone with her phenotype in Brazil might be 3 generations removed from slavery, or they might be 15 generations removed from slavery, and you can't tell by looking at someone.
Quote:
Your handbook lacks any specific hints for the brown traveler who may encounter racism and color prejudice in Brazil. This gap in your introduction results in an implicit assumption that foreign travelers are European or of European descent and thus physically distinct from much of the native South American population in countries such as Brazil.
I suppose he could say if you don't look like a tourist, you won't be treated as such at face value. Less likely to be robbed, more likely to recieve bad service or be ignored in tourist areas for the same reason.
She goes on to write.
Quote:
Although Brazilians are materially and symbolically marginalized on account of their ancestry phenotype, Brazilians of salient African descent do not typically possess a different political standpoint from whites when questioned about definitions of racism, and racial disparities (Twine 1998). Thus, rather than mistrusting a white researcher, racial subalterns in Brazil may be more likely to identify with them. My experiences suggest that some Brazilians of color do not necessarily feel more comfortable discussing the topic of race and racism with those who resemble them racially. Rather, this particular topic generates discomfort regardless of the racial origins or phenotype of the interviewer. Moreover, prestige hierarchies and the valorization of whiteness resulted in some Brazilians of color preferring to be interviewed by my white research partner.
I think she is absolutely right that people in Latin America don't like talking about race. It is not something people commonly discuss.
She should also not discount the possiblity that the people naturally gravitated towards her partner not because of his race or color but because of his sex. Sexism is very ingrained in Latin America, and when presented with a man and a woman working together in a professional capacity, people will naturally assume the man is in charge, and that the woman is his assistant, regardless of the color of the man and woman.
I think one of the biggest errors committed by North Americans is to expect people of partial African descent in Latin America to have some sort of group cohesion as has existed in the African American community. While racism is as present if not more present in Latin America than it is in the United States with respect to popular representations of beauty, the lack of a one drop rule has prevented partially African descended Latin Americans from uniting and fighting racism. You are always whiter than sombody, and you can always marry a white person and have white children. Or you can get rich, because in Latin America, money whitens. And there have never been Jim Crow days to look on as a motivator.
Finally, if you ask a Brazillian who looks like her what it is like to be a black person in Brazil, they will probably respond "Sorry, I don't know. Why don't you ask a black person?"
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 19 May 2006 01:37 Post subject: Latin American
Hi Mr. Lawyer:
Please, let me comment on you.
MisterLawyer wrote:
Someone with her phenotype in Brazil might be 3 generations removed from slavery, or they might be 15 generations removed from slavery, and you can't tell by looking at someone.
In the family tree of any "Black" Brazilians there are lots of white ancestors; no wonder slavery is just something for historians to study. In any Brazilian the dad, the grand dad, an uncle, a friend or a girlfriend is descendent from Europeans. So it is impossible Brazilians complain today for things that happened long time ago.
Quote:
I think she is absolutely right that people in Latin America don't like talking about race. It is not something people commonly discuss.
Yes. In Latin America it is considered very bad manners to tell someone you are "such and such". If the lady were a man, the response could have been more violent.
Quote:
She should also not discount the possiblity that the people naturally gravitated towards her partner not because of his race or color but because of his sex. Sexism is very ingrained in Latin America, and when presented with a man and a woman working together in a professional capacity, people will naturally assume the man is in charge, and that the woman is his assistant, regardless of the color of the man and woman.
I don't thing so. It is ingrained in low class people rather than in Latin America as a whole. What it is different between North America and Latin America is the sense of "family". That's radically different. But "machism" is out of fashion these days.
Quote:
I think one of the biggest errors committed by North Americans is to expect people of partial African descent in Latin America to have some sort of group cohesion as has existed in the African American community.
Yes, because people has cohesion to their countries, not to a color of skin. And they don't feel identified with Blacks Americans or Africans, in the same way White Brazilians don't identify with Russians. All of those are foreigners.
Quote:
While racism is as present if not more present in Latin America than it is in the United States with respect to popular representations of beauty, the lack of a one drop rule has prevented partially African descended Latin Americans from uniting and fighting racism.
The fact that Backs marry to Whites in Latin America is a proof that there is mutual attraction. Latin Americans make a sharp distinction between uglyness and beauty. However, they consider pretty and ugly people exist in any race or mixtures. Uglies are left behind, regardless of race.
What is considered ugly in certain Blacks in the lack of armony of facial features, for example. Too thick lips, too much progmatism or too wide a nose play against certain people in the same way certain French people could be rejected for having a long that is too long, Cyrano de Bergerac style.
So if a Black woman, for instance, have a very disgusting face and body, for sure would be rejected. But if other woman have a nice body and armonious facial features, I can assure you she would be attractive to all.
And color of skin has nothing to do with it. In fact, a very dark black woman with nice facial feature is a lot more appreciated than a white rose woman with ugly facial features.
Quote:
You are always whiter than sombody, and you can always marry a white person and have white children. Or you can get rich, because in Latin America, money whitens. And there have never been Jim Crow days to look on as a motivator.
People in Latin America is not so obsesive with skins unlike Americans are. People discriminate based on behavoir, intelligence and success (money), rather than in color of skin.
Quote:
Finally, if you ask a Brazillian who looks like her what it is like to be a black person in Brazil, they will probably respond "Sorry, I don't know. Why don't you ask a black person?"
Yes. In Brazil a Black is a person that is color Black, literally. No brown wannabies are Black. (Actually, the women of the report IS a mullata; unfortunately not very pretty one) Moreover, most "Black" Brazilians have more White and Red on them than African.
And in culture, all Brazilians have the culture of Brazil: e pais mais grande do mundo (the greatest country on eath!)
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Fri 19 May 2006 10:39 Post subject:
MisterLawyer wrote:
France Winddance Twine wrote:
In January 1992 I went to a small town in the interior of the state of Rio de Janeiro to conduct field research on race and racism.[...]no one had suggested that racism might be a factor in field research.
If you are going to study racism, you generally would not go to a place where you didn't expect there to be racism, correct?
Your logic is faultless, sir.
MisterLawyer wrote:
France Winddance Twine wrote:
"They will love you in Brazil because you’ll be a mulatta there."
The person who told her this should have said "they will think you are brazillian and treat you like any other person they don't know until you open your mouth and once you do they won't know what to make of you."
I suspect you are correct. Apparently they "love" mulattos more than negros in Brazil, but not as much as the admixture of very light colored skin close to "white".
MisterLawyer wrote:
France Winddance Twine wrote:
Although Brazilians are materially and symbolically marginalized on account of their ancestry phenotype, Brazilians of salient African descent do not typically possess a different political standpoint from whites when questioned about definitions of racism, and racial disparities (Twine 1998). Thus, rather than mistrusting a white researcher, racial subalterns in Brazil may be more likely to identify with them. My experiences suggest that some Brazilians of color do not necessarily feel more comfortable discussing the topic of race and racism with those who resemble them racially. Rather, this particular topic generates discomfort regardless of the racial origins or phenotype of the interviewer. Moreover, prestige hierarchies and the valorization of whiteness resulted in some Brazilians of color preferring to be interviewed by my white research partner.
I think she is absolutely right that people in Latin America don't like talking about race. It is not something people commonly discuss.
Race is something people everywhere rather not discuss.
Twine's point that Brazilians of African descent typically possess the same political standpoint as whites, dispite the rampant color racism in Brazil is only proof of the triumph of the inferiorization darker skinned Brazilians have been made to internalise. I wonder if Twine found that they cannot discuss race with foreign people who look like they themsleves do, but find it easier among fellow Afro-Brazilans.
Quote:
She should also not discount the possiblity that the people naturally gravitated towards her partner not because of his race or color but because of his sex. Sexism is very ingrained in Latin America, and when presented with a man and a woman working together in a professional capacity, people will naturally assume the man is in charge, and that the woman is his assistant, regardless of the color of the man and woman.
I think you may have a point there. At the end of the day people implicitly understand the hierachy: the "white man" is usually in charge.
Quote:
I think one of the biggest errors committed by North Americans is to expect people of partial African descent in Latin America to have some sort of group cohesion as has existed in the African American community. While racism is as present if not more present in Latin America than it is in the United States with respect to popular representations of beauty, the lack of a one drop rule has prevented partially African descended Latin Americans from uniting and fighting racism. You are always whiter than sombody, and you can always marry a white person and have white children. Or you can get rich, because in Latin America, money whitens. And there have never been Jim Crow days to look on as a motivator.
Finally, if you ask a Brazillian who looks like her what it is like to be a black person in Brazil, they will probably respond "Sorry, I don't know. Why don't you ask a black person?"
I agree with those remarks. I see little difference between racism in the U.S or Latin America. Though I'm informed and educated by the scholarly work on the color line and the ODR, when it comes down the final analysis it still remains: "If your black stay back, if your brown stick around, if your yellow stay mellow if you white you're alright".
Check it this way: In the U.S it runs binary, south of the Rio Grande it plays analogue - but it all sounds the same to me.
I see little difference between racism in the U.S or Latin America.
There is no conceivable reply to such breath-taking ignorance that is both germane and tactful. In another thread I recommended
Magnus Morner, Race Mixture in the History of Latin America (Boston: Little Brown, 1967)
Marvin Harris, Patterns of Race in the Americas (Westport CT: Greenwood, 1964)
Leslie B. Rout, The African Experience in Spanish America, 1502 to the Present Day (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University, 1976)
Carl N. Degler, Neither Black nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1971)
Frank Tannenbaum, Slave and Citizen, the Negro in the Americas (Boston: Beacon Press, 1946)
I urge Altertude to learn the findings of others. Altertude is oblivious to the fact that the U.S. endogamous color line is unique and that the U.S. is the only New World nation that has somehow managed to preserve a bimodal Euro-African genetic admixture distribution.
First, this author has been an excellent scholar in the past. She co-authored (with her then advisor Jonathan W. Warren) one of the most respected and influential articles yet written about the stretchy blanket of acceptance as "White" that embraces each new immigrant ethnicity once they learn the rules of U.S. society. The article is Jonathan W. Warren and France Winddance Twine, “White Americans, the New Minority?,” Journal of Black Studies 28, no. 2 (1997): 200-218. I urge anyone interested in this author's research to please read this article.
Second, the present article is nothing more than a rant by an ugly American visitor who is disgusted by native customs. It is a disgrace to her profession. The tract resembles that of an anthropologist hiking with an Australian Aborigine subject. When the native turns over a flat rock to scoop up and snack on the uncovered grubs and slugs, instead of observing and taking notes (and maybe even tasting a squirmy morsel), the anthropologist launches into an angry rant about how disgusting and primitive the Australian is. Worse yet--in the light of professional integrity versus moral cowardice--the scholar waits until safely back in a U.S. office before ranting in writing. By morally judging her hosts, she has wrecked her credibility. I sincerely hope that this article was a momentary aberration from an otherwise promising scholar.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Fri 19 May 2006 13:25 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
I see little difference between racism in the U.S or Latin America.
There is no conceivable reply to such breath-taking ignorance that is both germane and tactful. In another thread I recommended
Magnus Morner, Race Mixture in the History of Latin America (Boston: Little Brown, 1967)
Marvin Harris, Patterns of Race in the Americas (Westport CT: Greenwood, 1964)
Leslie B. Rout, The African Experience in Spanish America, 1502 to the Present Day (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University, 1976)
Carl N. Degler, Neither Black nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1971)
Frank Tannenbaum, Slave and Citizen, the Negro in the Americas (Boston: Beacon Press, 1946)
I urge Altertude to learn the findings of others. Altertude is oblivious to the fact that the U.S. endogamous color line is unique and that the U.S. is the only New World nation that has somehow managed to preserve a bimodal Euro-African genetic admixture distribution.
My apologies for my ignorance fwsweet. But I am in a state significant inferiorisation because I have been born into a system which has seen me as an object and subject to its Ultimate Authority.
Your attempting to help me, telling me other places I get more findings, which for all I known will reinforce this very same perspective, that may 'educate' me to ignore the truth of my eyes and ears. I respect the mountain of scholarship you have at your disposal and freely provide. The U.S color legislation may well have been unique, but is that artifical line against genetic distribution in place today? You and your fellow scholars call it a U.S. endogamous color line because that is how it was rationalised. Does that make it the reality? As the subject of my own consciousness can I express those opinions here?
...more findings, which for all I known will reinforce this very same perspective, that may 'educate' me to ignore the truth of my eyes and ears.
Why read the work of others? (Note that Altertude did not ask how many of the recommended authors are African-Americans.) The answer is that any fool can learn from his mistakes. But only smart people learn from the mistakes of others. Comparing and contrasting U.S. "racial" attitudes with those in Latin America has been a topic of interest to U.S. scholars for over a century. Their findings may change your mind or they may reinforce your current belief. Either way, your current belief is built on sand until you at least learn what they uncovered.
Incidentally, I stress "findings," not "conclusions," because even published scholars are subjective, have political axes to grind, or (as in the case of Frances Windance Twine) can be swept up by their emotions. But their raw findings have been checked and replicated by skeptical others (that is how science works after all--a finding counts only if it can be replicated by someone who initially disbelieves it.) Falsification of raw data is very rare, so you can rely on other's findings while being skeptical of their conclusions.
Let me offer an example. George Reid Andrews, in “Racial Inequality in Brazil and the United States: A Statistical Comparison,” Journal of Social History 26, no. 2 (1992): 229-63. Shows conclusively that color designations in the Brazilian census reflect socio-economic status. Families that enjoy financial success are changed by the census-taker from "Black" to "Coloured" or from "Coloured" to "White" from one census to the next. Unfortunates who fall into poverty are downgraded from one census to the next from "White" to "Coloured" or from "Coloured" to "Black." He also shows that in the U.S., no matter how rich an African-American becomes, he is still Black. And no matter how poor a White person becomes, he is still White. From this he concludes that Brazil is more "racist" than the United States. In short, Andrews's data are easily confirmed but his conclusion, well, it depends on what he means by "racist" (a word that he scrupulously avoids defining).
Altertude wrote:
is that artifical line against genetic distribution in place today? You and your fellow scholars call it a U.S. endogamous color line because that is how it was rationalised. Does that make it the reality?
The "artifical line against genetic distribution" definitely exists today. African-American outmarriage currently runs about 4 percent, an order of magnitude lower than, say, Puerto Rican, Japanese-American, or Native American outmarriage. The U.S. endogamous color line is no longer enforced by law. But it continues to be enforced by U.S. social custom. It is called "endogamous" because it reflects marriage patterns (and the genetic conequence of those patterns). U.S. Black outmarriage statistics are easily replicated by even the most disbelieving skeptic. This is what makes them "the reality." That is what "reality" means--everyone gets the same measurement results, even previously nonbelievers.
Altertude wrote:
As the subject of my own consciousness can I express those opinions here?
No. Factual claims must be backed by sources. I have explained this before. If you want to discuss site policy again, lets us step over to the "Forum Management" forum.
I think a good counterpoint would be the article by Francis Wardle.
Quote:
Of Race and Racism in Brazil*
By Francis Wardle, Ph.D
F. Wardle In the proliferation of academic articles and books that have been published since the 2000 census -- the one that "allowed" multiracial people to select more than one racial/ethnic identity -- the existence of a government recognized mixed-race group of people in people in Brazil (pardos), and South America (coloureds), has often been used as an argument against the full recognition of multiracial and multiethnic people in this country. The argument goes something like this -- in both of these countries (its interesting that these two radically different cultures and societies are always lumped together) multiracial or 'brown' people end up as a buffer between whites and blacks, keeping blacks and whites as far apart as possible. Further, these mixed-race individuals have prevented blacks in Brazil and South Africa from achieving full equality (Daniel, 2003; Texeira, 2003). While this argument is popular among many academics, others believe the insistence on focusing on mixed-race people in those two countries is really a smokescreen to whitewash the historical and current reality of colorism within the US black population, and to bolster the only real argument for the one-drop rule -- politics of numbers.
At the same time these writings on the problem of the mixed-race people in Brazil and South Africa are being promulgated, a plethora of articles in the US and Brazil is examining racism within Brazil. Many of these articles claim that the Brazilian historical acceptance of people of mixed heritage has prevented blacks from demanding and getting equality in that country (Cristaldo, 2003). These articles point to our history of combining all people with any African background as the reason for the relative progress of Blacks in this country, as opposed to lack of progress in Brazil. They make the claim that the loyalty and unity of mixed-race people with blacks in the US produced the needed changes in this society -- the civil rights movement -- without ever discussing that the Jim Crow laws in the US, which relegated blacks to second-class citizenship, legally applied to anyone with any black heritage. Thus these articles argue that for Brazilians to move toward racial equality, they must define race and racism in what Cristaldo calls Yankee terms: all Brazilians with any Black heritage must see themselves as Black (2003). (It is interesting to note that Brazilian academics, like academics throughout the world, are extremely critical of the Yankeeization of their country, yet fully embrace this Yankee view of race and racism).
While I am far from an expert on Brazilian race relationships -- having visited several times since 1996, interviewed a variety of regular folks, college professors, and experts on the country's genetic makeup, and read what I can on the topic (even finding people to translate contemporary articles from the Portuguese), I do possess something most US scholars on race and racism do not possess -- the ability to look at this issue from outside of the narrow parameters of the US experience. One of the most fascinating aspects of the study of race and racism in other countries by US scholars is their dogmatic insistence on viewing this issue from the US perspective. This is particularly fascinating because these scholars are post-modernists -- academics who view important human phenomena from positions other than U.S and European viewpoints -- historical, theoretical and political perspectives. These people are supposed to reject this First World way of thinking, yet they insist on a view of race and racism in Brazil from a narrow US/British point of view (Cristaldo, 2003).
History of Brazil
Brazil, of course, was 'discovered" by Cabral in 1500, and claimed by the Portuguese. While parts of Brazil were ruled at different times by the Dutch, French and Spanish, its history is significantly tied to Portugal. And to the Catholic Church. This, obviously, differs from our history of English Colonial power, Northern European immigrants, and the protestant religion. However, like the US, Brazil had a large slave population, and later encouraged significant number of immigrants from Italy, Japan, and the Middle East. "When Brazil was discovered in 1500 it was inhabited by 2.4 million Amerindians. Since then 4 million African slaves and 6 million Europeans immigrated to the country (Carvalho-Silva et al, 2000). "Portuguese and Italian immigrants arrived in almost equal numbers -- comprising about 70% of the total, followed by immigrants from Spain, Germany, Syria, Lebanon and Japan" (Carvalho-Silva et al, 2000). Between 1822 and 1889, Brazil was an empire. Slaves were officially freed in 1888.
According to Dr Pena, the Portuguese have "a strange relationship with color" (personal communication, 2003). Portugal, of course, is a Southern European country close to Africa, with cultural and genetic ties to the Moors and others from North Africa. Many in Northern Europe considered the Spanish, Portuguese and Italians to be darker -- and less pure -- than them. Further, the original settlers of Brazil officially encouraged relationships between Portuguese and -- first with the Indians, then blacks (Carvalho-Silver et al, 2000). And, while there were specific rules and laws established to maintain segregation, these laws were continually broken, much like the fact people today, in a country that is over 90% Catholic, divorce Brazil is accepted. This is what Brazilians call 'dar um jeito' -- to find a solution or way out of a specific situation.
For example, one of the chief tourist attractions in the small, colonial mining town of Diamantina, in the state of Minas Gerais, is the house of Chica da Silva. She was the black mistress of a wealthy Portuguese diamond miner sent by the Portuguese to keep order in the rich diamond district -- including moral order. He was so taken by her that he built her a large house, and a church -- with a steeple at the back so that she could walk into the church without violating a law against that blacks walking under a church steeple -- a classic case of 'jeito'. He also built for his mistress a boat and a large lake on which to sail it, because she wanted a boat but Diamantina is inland (M.L. Meira, 2003, personal communication).
As a result of this acceptance of interracial mating, many Brazilians see themselves as multiracial (from 40-60 %, depending on who you talk to). Brazilians form one of the most heterogeneous populations in the world, and, according to Parra et al, (2003), Brazilians constitute a trihybrid population with European, African and Amerindian roots. Further, today's white Brazilians have much more nonwhite genetic makeup than even Portuguese whites living in Europe, and Brazilian blacks and Amerindians have more non-black and non-Indian genes than blacks in Africa and original Amerindian tribes (Parra et al 2003).
Race in Brasil
The history of slavery in Brazil is considerably different from the history of slavery in the US. While it was equally cruel and inhuman, blacks in Brazil were allowed to purchase their freedom -- and many did. Freed blacks would collect money to free other slaves. In the town of Ouro Preto (Black Gold), an extremely wealthy town in the late 1800s, successful gold miners and merchants showed off their wealth by building expensive baroque churches to 'thank God for their good fortune'. One of the most impressive examples of these churches was built by a black brotherhood. Further, the most famous architect and artist not only of Ouro Preto, but of the entire Brazilian baroque was Antonio Francisco Lisboa (Aleijadinho), a product of a Portuguese builder and black slave. Clearly, one difference between the US and Brazil regarding slavery and mating of whites and slaves is that in Brazil this was open and even 'accepted'; in the US we still talk about Sally Hemings in whispers! Finally, Brazil passed a law requiring children of slaves -- including mixed-race children -- to be freed: the opposite of our one-drop rule.
Brazilian scholars who study Brazil's ethnic and racial populations today divide the population into these broad groups: European -- including Portuguese and Spanish (they believe Hispanic is a US made-up category), British, Italian and Germans; African; Amerindian; Asian (primarily Japanese), and mixed-race, or pardos. As many who have a peripheral understanding of race in Brazil know, the mixed-race group is divided into a variety of subcategories, -- or tipos -- including loura, blanca, morena, mulata and preta (Fish, 2002). Officially now the government lumps these altogether under one category. Again, US detractors point to these various racial labels as a throwback to our history where people were labeled mulatto, octoroon, quadroon, etc., and see this as a slippery slope for racial subdivisions in this country (Texeira, 2003).
One of my most interesting observations is that in Brazil almost every group I observed -- early childhood programs, school groups, choirs and instrumental groups, Lions Clubs, kids sitting in shopping centers and eating or just socializing, and dance groups, were all made up of people who ranges in color from what the Brazilians consider black to what they consider white, with every color of brown in between. I never saw students, youth groups, or adults voluntarily segregate themselves by color; I never heard any discussion from the young people I was around that certain things are a "black thing", "Asian thing", "white thing", etc. -- largely because most of these youths did not fit any of these single-race categories. The re-segregation of schools in the US into single-race student groups, popularly supported by many academic experts (Tatum, 1997), just does not seem to exist in Brazil.
Classism
While racial divisions in Brazil are not clearly defined, class lines are. There are the very wealthy, the middle class, and the very poor. And in Brazil the very poor make up a large percentage of the population. You see them on the streets trying to sell food and trinkets when you stop at a traffic light; they descend on you when you park your car, offering 'protection' for a price (and, if you don't pay, your car will not be protect); and, you see them along the highways in miserable shacks trying to sell all sorts of things to drivers speeding by.
Clearly this class structure overlaps into race; but it is categorically untrue to say all the wealthy are white, and all the poor, nonwhite. It is also inaccurate to look at Brazilian society as if it were a society with the same potential for upward mobility as exists in our society, and then to blame poverty of people of color on racism. In Brazil it is extremely difficult for anyone to advance social levels, regardless of race. This is due to a complex set of societal factors, but anchored in the educational system that only works for families with money. Children must attend private secondary schools to be able to pass the vestibular entrance exam to get into the free universities; if they fail they can go to private universities that cost money to attend. In both cases the poor are shut out.
Conclusion
We in the US have a history of racism, including legal segregation, legal support of the one-drop rule, laws against interracial marriage that were not declared unconstitutional until 1967, and the Eugenics Movement of the early 20th century that sterilized people to prevent the contamination of our pure white race. Racial conflicts in Brazil were never this intense or absolute (Cristaldo, 2003), largely because "love has killed in Brazil the possibility of a supreme biological expression. Hatred has created in America the glory of human eugenism". (Lobato, 1926, as quoted in Cristaldo, 2003)
In Brazil race and class interact to create a highly stratified society where most people of color are poor, and most middle class and wealthy are "white" according to Brazilian standards (which are much different from ours). However, to view this situation through the US lens of racial categories and racial purity is not only intellectual dishonesty, but smacks of US and British colonialism -- imposing our view of the world onto others. Further, to argue that Brazil's historical acceptance -- and even encouragement -- of people of mixed-race heritage has prevented blacks in that country from achieving equality -- and thus providing a warning against the support of multiracial identity in the US and Britain -- is simply political rhetoric and dishonesty. Brazil has many problems; the main one being poverty and the violence that poverty produces. It is one thing to argue that blacks in the US have not achieved the American dream; it is quite another to argue that blacks in Brazil are poor because of deep-seated racism, when most people, of every race, in Brazil are poor.
References
Carvalho-Silva, D. R., Santos, F. R., Rocha, J. & Pena, S. D. J. (2000). The phylogeography of Brazilian Y-chromosome lineages. American Journal of Human Genetics, 68.
Cristaldo, J. (2003, May). Afrobrazilianists: Such arrogance! Brazil Nation
. Daniel, R. (2003). Multiracial identity in global perspective: The United States, Brazil and South Africa. In L. I Winters, and H. L DeBose, (Eds.), New faces in a changing America (pp.247-286). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Fish, J. (Ed.).(2002). Race and intelligence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.
Parra, F. C., Amando, R. C., Lambertucci, J. R., Roca, J., Antunes, C. M., and Pena, S. D. J. (2003). Color and genomic ancestry in Brazilians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 100(1), 177-182.
Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? New York, NY: Basic Books.
Texeira, M. T. (2003). The new multiculturalism: An affirmation of or an end to race as we know it? In L. I. Winteres, and H. L. DeBose, H. L. (Eds.), New faces in a changing America (pp. 21-2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*The correct spelling for Brazil is Brasil (note the capitol is Brasilia), after pau brasil (brazil wood) that was used by the Portuguese to create a red die.
The research for this article was funded by Partners of the Americas.
Francis Wardle, Ph.D. is executive director of the Center for the Study of Biracial Children in Denver, and author of the book, "Tomorrow's Children: Meeting the Needs of Multiracial and Multiethnic Children at Home, in Early Childhood Programs, and at School" -- available from the center.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sat 20 May 2006 10:41 Post subject: Ugly 'truths'
fwsweet wrote:
Regarding France Winddance Twine's article:
First, this author has been an excellent scholar in the past. She co-authored (with her then advisor Jonathan W. Warren) one of the most respected and influential articles yet written about the stretchy blanket of acceptance as "White" that embraces each new immigrant ethnicity once they learn the rules of U.S. society. The article is Jonathan W. Warren and France Winddance Twine, “White Americans, the New Minority?,” Journal of Black Studies 28, no. 2 (1997): 200-218. I urge anyone interested in this author's research to please read this article.
It seems the problem of my "factual claims" on this board has been I have not supported my remarks with scholarly support. If this article is respected and peer-reviewed then now I can call on this paper, as I find no major disparity between it and all I have posted with regard to the U.S racial situation.
fwsweet wrote:
Second, the present article is nothing more than a rant by an ugly American visitor who is disgusted by native customs.
What do you mean ugly...and could you highlight her points of disgust?
fwsweet wrote:
Worse yet--in the light of professional integrity versus moral cowardice--the scholar waits until safely back in a U.S. office before ranting in writing. By morally judging her hosts, she has wrecked her credibility. I sincerely hope that this article was a momentary aberration from an otherwise promising scholar.
I wonder whether this "rant", as you say, is work carried out minus the 'guiding hand' of Warren. Though I note that the book Racing Research, Researching Race: Methodological Dilemmas in Critical Race Studies is edited by both Twine and Warren.
How should the researcher in the field act with professional intergrity if they experience a moral misgivings about the data they are receiving?
Could you highlight the moral judgements, too, please.
I know France's ex pretty well and I've met many fo the Brazilians whom she dealt with. I think her main problem was that she didn't speak Portugese. Like many Black Americans, she assumed skin color would be enough to give her an "in" with Black Brazilians, but that's not the case.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Thu 22 Jun 2006 20:14 Post subject:
Salsassin wrote:
Macunaima wrote:
I know France's ex pretty well and I've met many fo the Brazilians whom she dealt with. I think her main problem was that she didn't speak Portugese. Like many Black Americans, she assumed skin color would be enough to give her an "in" with Black Brazilians, but that's not the case.
Strange thing is, he also says she uses Brazilan authorities who only write in Portuguese. Is it possible to learn to read a language but not speak it?
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 {Posts: 235 } Location: Atlanta
Posted: Thu 22 Jun 2006 21:46 Post subject:
Altertude wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Macunaima wrote:
I know France's ex pretty well and I've met many fo the Brazilians whom she dealt with. I think her main problem was that she didn't speak Portugese. Like many Black Americans, she assumed skin color would be enough to give her an "in" with Black Brazilians, but that's not the case.
Strange thing is, he also says she uses Brazilan authorities who only write in Portuguese. Is it possible to learn to read a language but not speak it?
In a word: Yes. It is possible to read a language if you speak and read a closely related language (as, say, Portuguese if you're a Spanish speaker), but that does not convey the ability to speak it or understand it when spoken. Portuguese and Spanish pronunciation, to stick to the case in question, are quite different.
I know France's ex pretty well and I've met many fo the Brazilians whom she dealt with. I think her main problem was that she didn't speak Portugese. Like many Black Americans, she assumed skin color would be enough to give her an "in" with Black Brazilians, but that's not the case.
Strange thing is, he also says she uses Brazilan authorities who only write in Portuguese. Is it possible to learn to read a language but not speak it?
You can learn enough to understand the written word without having a clue when it comes to dialects, nuances and accents. Shoot, I speak portuguese and spanish, and there are certain dialects of Brazil that throw me off.
I know France's ex pretty well and I've met many fo the Brazilians whom she dealt with. I think her main problem was that she didn't speak Portugese. Like many Black Americans, she assumed skin color would be enough to give her an "in" with Black Brazilians, but that's not the case.
Is it possible to learn to read a language but not speak it?
Not only possible, it is very common indeed. I can read Le Figaro and French technical papers with no problem, but I could not possibly hang out in a French sports bar, nor give a paper in French.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1057 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Fri 23 Jun 2006 13:19 Post subject:
Frank wrote:
Not only possible, it is very common indeed. I can read Le Figaro and French technical papers with no problem, but I could not possibly hang out in a French sports bar, nor give a paper in French.
Yes, indeed. I subscribe to French magazines on classic cars, and can read them well enough to understand the content. But I don't speak French very well at all, nor can I write anything substantial in French. Interestingly, I read and write standard High German quite well, but when it comes to speaking, I am far more proficient in the Austrian and Bavarian dialects than this "Hochdeutsch." I can speak the Hochdeutsch when pressed, but don't feel nearly as comfortable as when speaking Austrian.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Fri 23 Jun 2006 13:51 Post subject:
Fledgist wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Macunaima wrote:
I know France's ex pretty well and I've met many fo the Brazilians whom she dealt with. I think her main problem was that she didn't speak Portugese. Like many Black Americans, she assumed skin color would be enough to give her an "in" with Black Brazilians, but that's not the case.
Strange thing is, he also says she uses Brazilan authorities who only write in Portuguese. Is it possible to learn to read a language but not speak it?
In a word: Yes. It is possible to read a language if you speak and read a closely related language (as, say, Portuguese if you're a Spanish speaker), but that does not convey the ability to speak it or understand it when spoken. Portuguese and Spanish pronunciation, to stick to the case in question, are quite different.
Salsassin wrote:
You can learn enough to understand the written word without having a clue when it comes to dialects, nuances and accents. Shoot, I speak portuguese and spanish, and there are certain dialects of Brazil that throw me off.
Yeah, I can see how that can happen if you are already fluent in one, but does France Winddance Twine speak Spanish (or another Latin based language)? Just to correct Macunaima slightly, if you read the beginning of her report above it was “graduate student colleagues and scholars who specialized in Brazilian Studies”, who gave her the impression that phenotype was sufficient as an entré.
Portuguese and Spanish have lots of different words and spellings too from what I observe, but I (como un persona quien habla y entiende un poco de espanol) have no problem hearing the close similarity between “Mas que nada” and “mais que nada” or “agua para beber” and “agua de beber” in ideal conditions. Obviously, a couple of song titles are not going to help you do academic research in a foreign country, but surely if you can read texts on the complex social and racial designations or descriptions of Brazilians, I can’t understand why a researcher couldn’t master basics in Portuguese equivalent to: mi espanol no es muy bueno, puede habla mas despacio por favor, no entiendo lo que dice, habla usted Espanol o Inglés, que piensa de la situación sociál y raciál en Brasil?
fwsweet wrote:
Not only possible, it is very common indeed. I can read Le Figaro and French technical papers with no problem, but I could not possibly hang out in a French sports bar, nor give a paper in French.
Yes, loud backgroud noise is less than ideal for conducting important conversation in a language you do not speak. Maybe its just me, but if I can read something in Spanish and think it/remember it, I can say it, however haltingly. In essence, I guess what we are talking about the difference between standard language (often written) and the variations of more colloquial spoken language (dialects, nuances and accents).
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.