Seven points about the Brazilian census might be misunderstood by reading only the English language version of the press release linked to above.
1. In English, the press release says: "In Piaui, 61% of the population in the municipality of Riacho Frio declared being Black." (Note especially the capitalization of the last word.) In the original Portuguese, the same sentence says: "No Piauí, 61% da população do município de Riacho Frio se declara de cor preta." (Note especially that it says "de cor preta" -- of black skin-tone -- and that the last word is NOT capitalized.) The original Portuguese press release refers to skin-tone. Only the English version of the same press release refers to "race."
2. The fourth column in the tabulations of the English version, claims to show the number of "Mulatto" individuals. But the original Portuguese version refers to "parda," which the census instructions explicitly define as "mixed" in any combination of Asian, Euro, African, or Native American. The instructions also explicitly define as "parda" all Native Americans not living on reservations nor in Indian villages. Hence, the so-called "Mulatto" column in the English version is misleading. In the original, the column simply means "mixed" plus off-reservation Indians.
3. In the English version, the first tabulation in the press release says that the White population of Brazil grew by 2.14 percent. The very same tabulation in the original Portuguese version says that the White population of Brazil grew by 2.12 percent. Apparently, Whites became more populous for English readers only.
4. There was no "race" question in the Brazilian censuses of 1960, 1970, or 1980. (The links take you to copies of the actual forms; see also 1991 and 2000.) There was a question about skin-tone in 1960 and 1980. There was not even that in 1970.
5. The census-taker's instructions for 1960, 1980, and 1991 have the census-taker assign skin-tone (or "race" in 1991) involuntarily, despite the subject's own desires. (The links take you to copies of the actual census-taker's instructions; see also 1970 and 2000.) Hence, those censuses show ascribed identity and cannot be taken to indicate "self-identity."
6. The Brazilian census of 2000 was the first where subjects were asked to self-identify their "skin-tone or race." The original Portuguese version of the press-release about the 2000 census suggests that any demographic changes may be due to the difference between self-identity (in 2000) and ascribed skin-tone (prior to 2000).
7. All the Brazilian census instructions on record explicitly state that "Indian" is only to be used by people actually living on reservations or in Indian villages. If you do not live in an Indian reservation or Indian village, then you cannot be counted as demographically Indian. Instead, you are "parda," like it or not (a word erroneously translated in the English press release as "Mulatto").
Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 12 Mar 2007 17:22; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 12 Mar 2007 15:18 Post subject:
Good point!
33% of Brazilians have amerindian ancestry, according to certain works we saw before. I bet most of them fit in the cathegory of "pardos". Besides, any "dark" European, like Andalucians, Greeks, Sicilians, or other Mediterraneans like Arabs or Turks, could fit in that cathegory as well, that makes the 44% of the population.
It is really strange as they are count as a part of the "Black" power by the American press.
Seven points about the Brazilian census might be misunderstood by reading only the English language version of the press release linked to above.
1. In English, the press release says: "In Piaui, 61% of the population in the municipality of Riacho Frio declared being Black." (Note especially the capitalization of the last word.) In the original Portuguese, the same sentence says: "No Piauí, 61% da população do município de Riacho Frio se declara de cor preta." (Note especially that it says "de cor preta" -- of black skin-tone -- and that the last word is NOT capitalized.) The original Portuguese press release refers to skin-tone. Only the English version of the same press release refers to "race."
2. The fourth column in the tabulations of the English version, claims to show the number of "Mulatto" individuals. But the original Portuguese version refers to "parda," which the census instructions explicitly define as "mixed" in any combination of Asian, Euro, African, or Native American. The instructions also explicitly define as "parda" all Native Americans not living on reservations nor in Indian villages. Hence, the so-called "Mulatto" column in the English version is grossly misleading. In the original, the column simply means "mixed" plus off-reservation Indians.
3. In the English version, the first tabulation in the press release says that the White population of Brazil grew by 2.14 percent. The very same tabulation in the original Portuguese version says that the White population of Brazil grew by 2.12 percent. Apparently, Whites became more populous for English readers only.
4. There was no "race" question in the Brazilian censuses of 1960, 1970, or 1980. (The links take you to copies of the actual forms; see also 1991 and 2000.) There was a question about skin-tone in 1960 and 1980. There was not even that in 1970.
5. The census-taker's instructions for 1960, 1980, and 1991 have the census-taker assign skin-tone (or "race" in 1991) involuntarily, despite the subject's own desires. (The links take you to copies of the actual census-taker's instructions; see also 1970 and 2000.) Hence, those censuses show ascribed identity and cannot be taken to indicate "self-identity."
6. The Brazilian census of 2000 was the first where subjects were asked to self-identify their "skin-tone or race." The original Portuguese version of the press-release about the 2000 census suggests that any demographic changes may be due to the difference between self-identity (in 2000) and ascribed skin-tone (prior to 2000).
7. All the Brazilian census instructions on record explicitly state that "Indian" is only to be used by people actually living on reservations or in Indian villages. If you do not live in an Indian reservation or Indian village, then you cannot be counted as demographically Indian. Instead, you are "parda," like it or not (a word erroneously translated in the English press release as "Mulatto").
Posted: Mon 12 Mar 2007 17:29 Post subject: Re: Brazil Won't Know Democracy Before 44% in Power Are Black
Sounds like my people.
fwsweet wrote:
7. All the Brazilian census instructions on record explicitly state that "Indian" is only to be used by people actually living on reservations or in Indian villages. If you do not live in an Indian reservation or Indian village, then you cannot be counted as demographically Indian. Instead, you are "parda," like it or not (a word erroneously translated in the English press release as "Mulatto").
Posted: Mon 12 Mar 2007 19:41 Post subject: Re: Brazil Won't Know Democracy Before 44% in Power Are Black
Jay wrote:
I'll take your word for it(I don't speak Portuguese).
It is not that hard to figure out.
In item 1, "cor" is Portuguese for "color." The best translation for for "race" would be "raca" (although it is impossible perfectly to translate the U.S. notion of "race" since no other culture shares the basic concept of invisible Blackness).
In item 2, "pardo" is one of the Portuguese words for "brown." "Mulatto" would have been "mulato" in Portuguese.
In item 3, the change from 2.14 to 2.12 requires no grasp of Portuguese. Arabic numerals are common over most of the planet.
In item 4, as in item 1, you can see that the actual forms for 1960, 1970, and 1980 do not even contain the word "raca" (race) while the forms for 1991 and 2000 do contain the word. Furthermore, you can see that all the forms except 1970 contain the word "cor" (color).
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
