WHITE INTO BLACK
Race and National Identity in Contemporary Brazil1
G. Reginald Daniel
The Issue
Brazil’s image as a racial democracy originates largely in the nation’s long history of pervasive racial and cultural blending and the validation of this process by differentiating its population into Whites (brancos), multiracial individuals (pardos), and Blacks (pretos). In addition, there has been a conspicuous absence of legalized barriers to racial equality in both the public and private spheres as well as a notable fluidity in racial markers. Consequently, it has been argued that class and culture determine one’s status in the social hierarchy. On the other hand, in the United States, race has been viewed as the primary factor determining social inequality. Furthermore, the social construction of racial categories and boundaries is premised on the rule of hypodescent (the one-drop rule) that designates as Black everyone of African descent. European Americans not only have used this device as part of the strategy for preserving their cultural and racial “purity,” but also as a means of maintaining their dominant status. The one-drop rule has thus served as the underpinning of both legal and informal barriers preventing Blacks from having contact with Whites as equals in most aspects of social life. This has encompassed public facilities, and other areas of the public and private spheres, particularly the area of miscegenation. At the turn of the twentieth century, these restrictions reached drastic proportions with the institutionalization of Jim Crow segregation.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Brazil’s reputation as a racial democracy was tarnished by the weight of massive data complied by social scientists. However, further discussion on the problem of racial inequality was prohibited during the two decades of military rule (1964–1985) by claims that no such problem existed. With the gradual return of civilian rule in the 1970s, the public and political debate on racial inequality was reopened in 1978 with the founding of the Unified Black Movement (O Movimento Negro Unificado). Activists were bolstered by a new generation of social scientists whose findings supported their claims that the divide between the privileged few and the less privileged masses coincides respectively with the racial divide between brancos and negros, and only secondarily between pardos and pretos. In addition, a multiracial identification brings with it the expectation, though not the automatic, achievement of increased social rewards, and a concomitant rejection of any association with being African Brazilian in order to escape the social stigma attached to Blackness. Consequently, one of the Black consciousness movement’s goals has been to achieve unity in the struggle against this racial inequality by getting Black and particularly multiracial individuals to assume an identity as African Brazilian.
In the spring of 1988, the Black consciousness movement sought to further its goals during the centennial of the abolition of slavery in Brazil by organizing mass public demonstrations against racial discrimination. By the 1990s, the debate in Brazil had also crystallized around changing procedures for collecting and reporting official data on race—particularly on the decennial census. The goal has been to replace the distinct color categories of preto and pardo with the single racial category of negro. The net result of these new trends has been to move Brazilian race relations toward a greater emphasis on the negro/branco (or Black/White) dichotomy, if not the strict enforcement of the one-drop rule of hypodescent. Also, the public and political debate has increasingly included discussions about the importance of race, quite apart from questions of class and cultural, in determining social stratification. Prior to the emergence of the Black consciousness movement in Brazil during the 1970s and 1980s, pervasive miscegenation and the “ mulatto escape hatch,” combined with the f a ct that Brazil has never known anything comparable to Jim Crow segregation, had helped to perpetuate the myth of rac ial democracy. This national schizophrenia and amnesia had, generally speaking, deflected attention a way from racism, and had impeded the political mobilization of individuals of Africa n descent, since inequality and, by extension, prejudice and discrimination were said to be base d primarily on culture and class. During the 1970s, the myth of racial democracy began to e r ode in Brazil. The Black Consciousness Movement in Brazil began challenging the ternary mode l of race relations. Part of its strategy was to get more multiracial individuals to identify themselves as Black rather than multiracial.
This chapter examines these phenomena within the historical context of Brazilian race relations and the formation of Brazilian national identity as they relate to several important questions. For example, what impact might these changes have on the social construction of “Whiteness” and “Blackness” in Brazil and Brazil’ national identity? Also, to what extent might the deconstruction of traditional racial categories and boundaries in Brazil undermine racist ideology and racial privilege? While the answers to these questions will enhance understanding of similar trends among other groups, they have significant implications for Black-White relations, and make a historical analysis of that dynamic particularly meaningful, by virtue of the history of African slavery and the unique legacy of attitudes and policies that have crystallized around individuals of African descent in the formation of Brazil’s national identity.
Since I've started learning a little bit about Brazil I've actually found it pretty interesting (and contradictory) country. I read somewhere (forgot what site), that Brazilian Whites average about 20% Black admixture and the average Black Brazilian averaged 48% non-Black admixture.
Yet Brazil seem just as happy with a ODR as anybody, when its convenient!. For example, I notice that many articles use the term Afro-Brazilians for all Brazilians that claim African ancestry- Mulattos and Blacks. Yet if the White Brazilian average is around 20% how (or better yet WHY) aren't White Brazilians added into the Afro-Brazilian population count?
I also read news articles that always claim most of Brazil's poor are "Black". Since Brazil claims a 6% 'Black' population this is virtually impossible. MOST Brazilians of any so call race are not wealthy or middle class. I wonder what the Brazilian government considers the other 94% of the populations income bracket to be?
And my last contradiction before I stop:
The Brazil has the largest Black population outside of Nigeria.
http://www.answers.com/topic/afro-latin-american
Yet the United States has 13% compared to their 6%. That's more than double their's.
Since I've started learning a little bit about Brazil I've actually found it pretty interesting (and contradictory) country. I read somewhere (forgot what site), that Brazilian Whites average about 20% Black admixture and the average Black Brazilian averaged 48% non-Black admixture.
Yet Brazil seem just as happy with a ODR as anybody, when its convenient!. For example, I notice that many articles use the term Afro-Brazilians for all Brazilians that claim African ancestry- Mulattos and Blacks. Yet if the White Brazilian average is around 20% how (or better yet WHY) aren't White Brazilians added into the Afro-Brazilian population count?
I also read news articles that always claim most of Brazil's poor are "Black". Since Brazil claims a 6% 'Black' population this is virtually impossible. MOST Brazilians of any so call race are not wealthy or middle class. I wonder what the Brazilian government considers the other 94% of the populations income bracket to be?
And my last contradiction before I stop:
The Brazil has the largest Black population outside of Nigeria.
http://www.answers.com/topic/afro-latin-american
Yet the United States has 13% compared to their 6%. That's more than double their's.
What makes it contradictory is that MOST articles one reads in English about Brazil and race are written by Americans who filter Brazil's racial structure through an American lens. This makes understanding the issues of race and color and how they relate to class impossible to understand on Brazilian terms. This includes the paper I pasted in this topic.
For example, most of the wealthy are white in Brazil. Brazil, like most countries in this hemisphere, values Caucasian features. Consequently, it is assumed by observers that ALL white people in Brazil are wealthy, whiteness guarantees wealth and there are no poor people who are not black. Moreover, Brazil is a socially static place. If one is born poor, chances are they will stay that way. It matters not if they are black, brown, tan, off white, beige or dark brown. The reality is much more complicated than that.
Current Brazilian president, Lula Inacio Da silva, is a migrant from the desperately poor Northeast. He grew up in a slum in Sao Paolo and has very little formal education. Yet he looks like he stepped right out of Portugal somewhere. His neighbors ranged from people who looked like him to people who would look at home in Nigeria. His looking white did not guarantee him any special privileges while growing up.
Furthermore, there is no ODR in operation in Brazil. The concept of invisible blackness or one drop of black blood making you black does not exist there. Additionally, there is no black/white dichotomy in the country. The same can be said for most countries in Latin America. A person like former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso openly admitted he has African ancestry, yet he is still white.
The notion that Brazil is comfortable with the ODR when it is convenient is based on writings about Brazil written by people who are not from there. The idea that Brazil has the largest population of blacks outside of Africa being a classic case. It is based on the Anglo American assumption that black is equal to people of African descent.
Most Brazilians are of African descent, but that is not the necessary equivalent of being black. Indeed many of these people are highly ambiguous in appearance and may or may not admit to having African ancestry. They may also have significant Amerindian ancestry as well.
Posted: Tue 24 May 2005 06:41 Post subject: Brazil
While Brazil may not have the same black/white dichotomy as in the U.S., Brazil history of racism is just as insidious. Whereas in the U.S. we have black/black identified mixed-race people with significant status in the politics, academia, and business, you would be hard pressed to find similar successes in Brazil.
Moreover, much of Latin America, while largely mixed-race, still values white skin above all and black and Amerindian brown skin least. In particular, look at Colombia, Venezuela, or Mexico (Vincente Fox's recent gaffe). In Venezuela, the controversial president Hugo Chavez is hated by the elite not only because he is an iconoclast but also the fact that he is an Afro-Ameridian and not part of their European clique.
I think we kid ourselves into believing that Latin America doesn't have racism that can be as invidious as ours. Just look at most Spanish language television shows where the main cast are Europeans and the few brown or black faces are servants. Ick.
Posted: Tue 24 May 2005 14:01 Post subject: Re: Brazil
triguy wrote:
Whereas in the U.S. we have black/black identified mixed-race people with significant status in the politics, academia, and business, you would be hard pressed to find similar successes in Brazil.
This above statement is accurate in a trivial sense.
From my experience, there are very few Brazilians who self-identify as "Black" in the ethno-political sense used in the United States, and there are virtually no Brazilians who self-identify as "White" in the U.S. racial-purity sense. The overwhelming majority of Brazilians consider themselves simply as Brazilians (of whatever political party and ethnicity) and are happy to claim both European and African ancestry. That there are few Brazilians in power who self-identify as "Black" is accurate in the same sense as, "There are few Brazilians in power who hold Wisconsin drivers' licenses."
The rest of the post is accurate in a deeper sense.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 09 Jun 2005 01:48 Post subject: Americans don't get it
Americans will never understand that is possible to live in a society where the person is more important than the color of skin.
United States is a country so deep into racisms it can't imagine other ways of seeing things.
That's why the Americans will never EVER understand Latin America and our way of treat the so called "racial issues".
Posted: Thu 09 Jun 2005 13:56 Post subject: Re: Americans don't get it
oevega wrote:
Americans will never understand that is possible to live in a society where the person is more important than the color of skin.
United States is a country so deep into racisms it can't imagine other ways of seeing things.
That's why the Americans will never EVER understand Latin America and our way of treat the so called "racial issues".
Regards,
Omar Vega
Be that as it may, and that was the gist of my earlier comments, this is often used by many Latin Americans to dismiss ANY discussion of racism in their own societies, whether it comes from within or without.
Just like we Americans have myths (we have no social classes), Latinos have their myths (racism and colorism don't exist in our societies).
What I would like to see is an honest discussion of these issues which takes into account the historical and cultural realties of Latin America. It does us no good to Americanize the discussion and project U.S. conceptions of race onto Latin American societies. This is what is usually done when people from the U.S. examine racial issues in the region. But it also does us no good to simply dismiss the issues of race, racism and colorism in Latin America simply because they are often filtered through an Anglo-American lens.
What should be examined is the extent to which these issues converge with class and impact on the life chances of people in these societies. What we don't need is either denial that these issues exist (there is no racism here, this is not the U.S.), or the Americanization of the issue, with the attendant obsession with lack of representation at elite levels of society (there are no black CEOs of Brazilian companies this is due exclusively to racism, or all black people in Colombia are poor, so all poor people are black and there are no poor non-blacks).
Understanding the racial situation in Latin requires a level of nuance that most Americans simply don’t have; this lack of nuance also informs much of our discussions of poverty issues in the U.S. too. Here we equate blackness with poverty and whiteness with wealth; anyone with any visible (or invisible) blackness is seen as impoverished and anyone who is white is assumed to live a life of luxury. Consequently, the condition of the black poor is often used to procure benefits for the black middle and upper classes.
In some quarters, increasing the number of black board of directors, CEOs and executives, for example, is seen as combating black poverty.
On the other hand, the life style of wealthy and powerful whites is seen as representative of white people. And the fact that many, if not most, American blacks are middle and working class but not poor is seen as bizarre to many whites and blacks in this country.
Naturally, Americans simply transfer this way of looking at things to Latin America. For example, the fact that Brazilian President Lula Inacio Da Silva grew up as a poor migrant from the impoverished northeast of the country (despite looking like members of the Brazilian elite) and his identity revolves around this reality seems odd to many Americans.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 09 Jun 2005 19:12 Post subject: Re: Americans don't get it
G-Man wrote:
Naturally, Americans simply transfer this way of looking at things to Latin America. For example, the fact that Brazilian President Lula Inacio Da Silva grew up as a poor migrant from the impoverished northeast of the country (despite looking like members of the Brazilian elite) and his identity revolves around this reality seems odd to many Americans.
I really think Americans need more background to discuss racial issues in Latin America. They need to start for something so simple like to study the history, way of thinking, and the diversity of the region. Knowledge of local language and visiting some countries may help as well.
Without that knowledge the rest of the arguments are in the vaccum. It is like discussing how many angels fit in a pin.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 10 Jun 2005 03:18 Post subject: SOME DIFFERENCES IN HISTORY AND ATTITUDE
fwsweet wrote:
Best would be to live there for a year or two.
Frank,
I agree.
I have the idea that Americans would understand better the difference in "racial attitude" in the Latin Americas if they take in consideration the following facts:
(1) When we say white, in Latin America, we means European, and nothing else. There are lots of Europeans that are dark hair, brown skin, or that are curly, and that came from Southern Europe, but not only in the South. It is well known that in regions of the Eastern Asia, and even in Germany, there are large population of brown skin Europeans.
(2) North America was colonized by the British, but the core of the White population was Germanic people. That's why there were so many blond blue eyed people in the European population of the United States.
(3) Latin American was colonized by Southern Europeans. Most of these Europeans have light brown skin, with brown or black hair, and dark eyes. They are also characterized for being short and very hairy. This "race", which has been called Mediterranean, is a mixture of several peoples. In the Iberian peninsulae, the main ethnicities were Native Iberians, Celts, Gauls, Germans, on the light side. The presence of Greeks and Romans was also important, but also there were semits like Phoenicians, Jews an Arabs,and people from the Magreb (the famous Moors) and lately Gypsies. So the Iberians have lived in a "Multiracial" society since the dawn of history.
(4) The Iberians are Catholics, and that's very important for the "race" issue. Unlike the Protestants that have churches for every race, there is just one Catholic church for all. Notwithstanding all its problems and the injustice of inquisition -very well know indeed-, the bright side of the Catholics is that they wanted to make Christians of the people their conquer, including the slaves. Once you were Christian, people were not Moor anymore, which means they were recognized as human beings. The brotherhood of Catholics was equivalent to be all the sons of the same God, or all humans. Catholics believe Blacks, Whites and Red are all creatures of God and nobody can criticize his creation. That is, we are all equals "under the eyes of God". Even today more than 80% Latin Americans are Catholics and they really believe in the equality of mankind.
(5) There is the strong belief that nobody is guilty of its external aspect. That the only thing that matters is the spirit. I believe that comes from religion as well.
I believe those are just some of the reasons why Latin Americans have been. throught history, a lot more "racially" tolerant than the ex-colonies of the British, French and other peoples.
Much of the misunderstanding is due to imprecise word usage. Given their word usage, the Anglo-American claim that Latin Americans are more racist is sincere and accurate. Likewise for the Latin-American claim that the U.S. is the most virulently "racist" society on earth.
Despite over a century of teaching by biologists, geneticists, and physical anthropologists, the vast majority of the U.S. public sincerely believes that our species comes in three or four "races." Americans rich and poor, educated and ignorant, and of every shade and ethnicity, believe this to the very marrow of their being (it can be subconsciously shown even in those who deny it) and nothing that you or I can say will change this. As a result of this belief, the vast majority of American parents teach their children from infancy that intermarriage is "a bad thing."
But few adults use the words "a bad thing." They articulate their discomfort as whatever is the current phrase for "a bad thing." A hundred and fifty years ago, when educated Americans wanted to reject an idea, they said it was "divisive." A century ago, the polite term was "against progress." Fifty years ago, whatever Americans wanted to reject was labeled "communist." Today, the buzzword for "a bad thing" is "racist."
In this context, what distinguishes Latin America from the United States is the latter's maintenance of a forcibly endogamous color line for over three centuries. The result has been the world-unique preservation of two genetically distinct U.S. populations (called White and Black). To Americans, of course, this is "normal" and Latins are horribly mixed. And so, needing to express their rejection of such mixing, Americans call the absence of a Latin-American color line the ultimate act of "racism." It is the current buzzword for "a bad thing."
Anglo-American scholars often insist that Latin Americans were, or are, just as “racist” as North Americans. As David Brion Davis wrote, comparing Latin America with the United States, “It is an open question whether a society that sees every addition of white blood as a step towards purification is more or less, prejudiced than a society that sees any appreciable trace of Negro blood as a mark of degradation.” And V. Martínez-Alier pointed out that Spanish colonial leadership was often “racist” in rhetoric, vilifying colonists of African appearance. But nothing herein suggests that Hispanics were less “racist” than Americans. Davis may be correct that elite colonial Iberians tried to bequeath to their New World posterity a rigidly stratified society with negligible upward mobility. If so, compared to North America, they succeeded. Martínez-Alier may also be correct that they strove to tie these hermetic social layers to degree of African ancestry. If so, compared to North America, they failed. Despite near-impenetrable class divisions that are still in place, and although dark Hispanics tend to be poorer on average than fair ones, no endogamous color line ever formed in Latin America. ... [This upsets Americans, even scholars.] Andrews shows that unimpeded out-marriage caused the African-looking population of Buenos Aries to fall steadily from 15,000 in 1838, to 8,000 in 1887, to nil today. It vanished by genetic absorption and dispersal, as did the African-looking populations of sixteenth-century Spain or of Mexico. Andrews concludes that this shows that Buenos Aires was intensely “racist.” Frederick P. Bowser wrote that Latin American intermarriage “was not conducive to racial solidarity among those of African descent.” P. Wade wrote that colonial Hispanic intermarriage was deliberately calculated to destroy the Black “race.” J.R. Washington, Jr. wrote that colonial Hispanic intermarriage ruled out “cultural acceptance of blackness as a firm and rich experience,” and that it was “unconsciously bent on genocide.” R.L. Jackson wrote that colonial Hispanic intermarriage was deliberate genocide, “a process that, while loosely defined as ethnic and cultural fusion, is often understood to mean the physical, spiritual, and cultural rape of black people.” He also wrote that colonial Hispanic intermarriage was “tantamount to white lynching.”
In the eyes of many if not most Americans, the very fact that Latin Americans intermarried for centuries and are now thoroughly mixed is "genocide" and "lynching." In short, it is the ultimate "racism."
In the eyes of most Latin Americans, the above sentence is madness. It is the U.S. belief in "races," and in the necessity of preserving them, that is "racism."
There is no common ground for communication. Each side sincerely, honestly, uses the word "racist" to label the other's beliefs.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 11 Jun 2005 02:15 Post subject: Americans need an electroshock to get rid of idioc ideas
fwsweet wrote:
As a result of this belief, the vast majority of American parents teach their children from infancy that intermarriage is "a bad thing."
But few adults use the words "a bad thing." They articulate their discomfort as whatever is the current phrase for "a bad thing." A hundred and fifty years ago, when educated Americans wanted to reject an idea, they said it was "divisive." A century ago, the polite term was "against progress." Fifty years ago, whatever Americans wanted to reject was labeled "communist." Today, the buzzword for "a bad thing" is "racist."
In this context, what distinguishes Latin America from the United States is the latter's maintenance of a forcibly endogamous color line for over three centuries. The result has been the world-unique preservation of two genetically distinct U.S. populations (called White and Black). To Americans, of course, this is "normal" and Latins are horribly mixed. And so, needing to express their rejection of such mixing, Americans call the absence of a Latin-American color line the ultimate act of "racism." It is the current buzzword for "a bad thing."
In the eyes of many if not most Americans, the very fact that Latin Americans intermarried for centuries and are now thoroughly mixed is "genocide" and "lynching." In short, it is the ultimate "racism."
In the eyes of most Latin Americans, the above sentence is madness. It is the U.S. belief in "races," and in the necessity of preserving them, that is "racism."
There is no common ground for communication. Each side sincerely, honestly, uses the word "racist" to label the other's beliefs.
Hi Frank,
I know that both agree very well in this issue. I am not a polite person, though. I enjoy to say things loud and clear. I just would like to remark that if Americans really have those ideas, they need a massive electroshock to get back to normal life!! Jesus Christ!!
Almost everything is absurd:
(1) Intermarriage is a GOOD thing. Most of hereditary diseases come from poor genetic lines. The purest people, the ones that have live for generations in small comunities and only marrying between themselves finish with very weird characteristic, like having huge ears or a tendency to blindness etc.
Hibrid vigor is attested both in agriculture and in People. Most of the most dynamic people in the world were hybrids, like the Greeks, for example.
And also, some of the pretiest women in the world are hybrid. I can't stop thinking in Brazilians Mullatas as some of the pretiest ones.
(2) Latin Americans mix not because an ideological position but because of love. That's all. Nobody has the power to stop a Latino (Man or Woman) from loving who he/she chooses. Love is a personal decision and society has nothing to do with it.
(3) Genocide is killing people, like the large scale murder the whites commited against Native Americans, the real owners of the land.
In Latin America Europeans and Indians form a new society.
Intermarriage was widespread, and culture was shared. And both peoples founded a new race: us.
Native culture was not destroyed, and many things from the Native society crossed the cultural barrier into the Spanish culture. Several languages are alive and well, and the religious ceremonies of pre-contact Americas still survive under the apparience of Catholic festivities. But there are also lots of groups that keep their native culture intact.
In Latin America we consider the AngloSaxon society commited in the United States and Canada the largest genocide in history. The one that served as inspiration to the Nazis for getting rid of the "inferior races".
Americans should start to confront history by looking themselves at the mirror.
(4) Americans should start to analyze why they see the world in a manner so different at the way mankind see it in the rest of the planet.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
