The Study of Racialism

[The following post was split from Why do African Americans Deny Their Euro Ancestry? in the "History of the U.S. Color Line" forum. -- FWS]

fwsweets I think that your answer lies in the fear among African Americans of divisions within the socalled black community of the USA. These divisions are real and do exist. Historically blacks and people who would have been called mixed elsewhere in the Americas worked together in teh USA for social, political and economic empowerment. The mixed population suffered the same levels of disenfranchisement as did their darker brethren and so realized that working together would solve their issues.

Question that I have for you is whether the divisions that occur within Latin America along color lines within the Afrodescended community (to use a term that I see now being used) has helped these communities. Its very apparent to all of us English speaking blacks, African Americans and West Indians, that these populations have enjoyed much less socio-economic success than we have, and some might argue that they seem to suffer from lower self esteem. I was actually told this in Brazil and in Venezuela.

I am not going to offer an opinion, at least not yet as to whether the solidarity across color lines amongst African Americans (and to a lesser degree West Indians) has made us worse off than blacks in places like Brazil, Venezuela (preChavez), Colombia, Peru or Puerto Rico, Cuba and the DR. But the fact is that certain international development agencies (the IDB being one) have recognized that Afrodescendants ( a term that I believe has been coined to avoid debates about who is or is not "black") in most parts of Latin America seem worse off than blacks elsewhere in the Americas, even when different national living standards are taking into account.


Anecdotal accounts (I know you hate these) from many of us who visit Latin America, suggests that in order to make sure we get the respect accorded to people who are middle class we need to differentiate ourselves from the local blacks/mulatos who are stigmatized as being mainly poor, therefore suffering treatment that one would expect in one of the the most socially polarised parts of the world.

West Indies, majority is Afrodescent, so the comparison is not valid. In the US, there was progress, but at what cost? A Jim Crow period that created hate, paranoia and alienation. Persecution and lynching that has never occured after slavery to any degree even remotely close, etc. An antagonism across color lines that is disgusting. Naw, I prefer we find another solution to solving our problems.

Umm. Aren't you the guy who argued that White Americans would never accept West Indians because you personally liked loud music?

Just a question, if we addopt the American model, how many color lines we should have?

Should we divide Blacks from the rest, or Indians from the rest, or just whites from the rest? Should we leave Germans, Japaneses and Middle Easterners alone? Should we also consider Mulattoes, Mestizos and Zamboes in the equation?

Now, for no Latin American is a secret that color lines exist in Latin America, and that phenotypical differences are clear between countries (well, we notice them, at least ) and that Xenophoby with the country next door is common. Ask a Mexican about a Guatemalan or Central American, or ask a Dominican about Haitians, just to mention some samples. Racism between countries is a lot more widespread than inside those countries.

So, I wouldn't worry about instauring lines but about how to erase them?

Omar

You know we can get down and personal if you want. But if you dont know that West Indians like loud and bass heavy music you dont know us. If you dont please refrain from making comments like this.


BTW I live in a West Indian neighborhood. Do You?

No, we can't. This is my website. If you get personal you get suspended.

That was my point exactly. By offering an unsubstantiated personal opinion, rather than any actual statistics, you leave the readers uninformed of exactly how, when, and where you were elected spokesperson for the BWI community. If you want credibility around here, you might want to consider finding and presenting some actual statistics on musical preferences (in the appropriate forum, of course).

I bring it up in this thread only because you wrote that I hate it when people present personal anecdotes as if they were statistically significant in terms of a wider community. You are correct. I do. I am trying to explain why.

Please re-read the opening banner of The Rules. It says: "—This is the Rule That Trips Up Most New Members— Factually inaccurate statements are not tolerated. Moderators will challenge any statement of fact that appears to be simply made up. No exceptions. This site’s survival depends on the accuracy of the facts presented. Please remember this. Do not make factual claims in this web site that you cannot back up with credible sources. Never. Not once." By stating personal experiences as if you speak for hundreds of thousands of other people, you skirt close to the edge of this rule. Too close for my taste.

I assume that you dont believe that African American attitudes to race caused Jim Crow. Given that you dont think so maybe the fact that AfricanAmericans united across color lines has a lot to do with the fact that all colors were impacted by Jim Crow. If this was, and to some degree still is, the case, than wouldnt it be a smart choice for all of these folks to unite under one umbrella than to argue about who is blacker than whom as we see in Latin America.

You surely realize that a dirty little secret within the AfricanAmerican community is the color issue so there is an implicit recognition of differing degrees of interracial mixtures. Its just that in the USA they have found it beneficial to unite under one label that has been called at various times, colored, Negro, black and now African American. The question I ask you is given the realities of this country's history did they have a choice.

Now about the biracial issue. If one considers oneself to be biracial and one feels confident about this choice and feels sure that they do not exclude ANY aspect of their ethnicity then so what about what people think. Since when do other people define who we believe ourselves to be.

OK we can see many African Americans all across the color spectrum involved in jobs at all levels. Commentators on CNN, PBS and other media commented on politics, the equity markets, and science and technology. Blacks are properly represented on TV and cable (despite what some think). Can we see this in Latin America? Or is your claim to fame limited to the fact that there is more mixing.


There maybe some of us who feel that one's desire to intermarry is one's personal choice (and surely no longer a problem in the USA, even between blacks and whites) whereas true progress somes when access to opportunity is available to all without regard to race, color or ethnicity. While the USA has certainly not solved this problem can we say that Latin America, has, or is even further ahead than the USA, or even the UK? If so please let the OAS know that AfroLatinos do not need special help. They certainly do not extend such additional help to blacks in the nonHispanic Caribbean or in the USA, many of whom are also mired in poevrty. So clearly it isnt poverty that has resulted in these actions by the OAS (and teh IDB has also acknowledged this problem).

[An off-topic thread about The Rules has been split off to Who must provide evidence, the claimant or the challenger? in the "Site Management" forum.]

Caribj:



Are you saying that black/mixed-race "unity" (never uncontested) was a "choice" or "forced"? How can it be both?

I see just as much colorism in the African American community. But no exterior force separating them all and then lynching them, experimenting on them, etc. So no I do not see it as an improvement.


No they didn't. And that is the point, in Latin America we do and each group identifies by their own experience. Not some fantastical color line. Only Brazil is trying to install it down there that I know of.



And your point? That is precisely why an endogamous color line would not apply in Latin America. And not just biracial, triracial, quatriracial, multiethnic, etc.



Yes we do. We also see a civil rights movement that was sparked by the abuses that occured during Jim Crow. To such a degree that even White America was sickened by its own history when confronted about it. You just don't have that history in Latin America. You have rich classiest people who are biassed in their media and cater to the wealthy. The channels are privately owned so no one can force a quota on them. So you have to create conscience reform, no doubt, but trying to create a binary antagonistic system there will not work. THe rich will still be rich and discriminate no matter what you claim you call yourself.


Nice try. AfroLatinos by and large need special help because the majority are in the lowest classes. Just like Native Americans and illiterate European descendants who descend from poor migrants. Yes stereotypes abound and laws are being made to address such discrimination. But calling those that aren't being discriminated Black to ty to get moral support from them isn't going to work in Latin America. They will just look at you crazy. Classism is the biggest problem in Latin America. Along with impoverished nations with lack of economic boosts such that entrepreneurship and social mobility across class lines can occur. Regardless of what race is claimed.

How exactly would a Latin American society adopt an endogamous color line?

In a region with almost no social mobility (unlike the U.S.) how would the adoption of such a thing help the least fortunate in these societies?

Also, doesn't it necessarily follow that the absence of an endogamous color line combined with classism, extreme inequality and national culture lead to other forms of cooperation among people of different appearance in these countries? Wouldn't the existence and popularity of left-leaning parties (as ineffective as they may be at addressing problems) be one form of class-based, cross-color cooperation?

Maybe the problem is they don't have complicated enough stereotypes....


They need stuff like...

ghetto negro

ghetto hot chocolate

ghetto laute

ghetto curley head

working class negro

working class high yella



rich and white

poor white trash

Almost white Mestizo Middle Class...

They have stereotypes, just not ones we are familiar with.

The media is privately owned in the USA. Is it not. So why the notion that private ownership in Latin America can be an excuses for excluding people of color to the degree that seems to occur. Where are the Oprahs in Latin America. I can watch CNBC and see a black commentator talking about what happened on Wall Street. I can even watch The Apprentice with Donald Trump and each episode we see one or two highly qualified blacks and others of color. These people arent there because of a quota. They are there because African Americans struggled together for better ecoonomic opportunity, and at least a part of this community now benefits.

The question that I ask you is if Latin America is LESS racist than the USA is today in 2007 then why do we see a large and very visible upper middle class here and not in Brazil, Colombia and elsewhere. Note that the black/mixed with black populations in these nations are LARGER than in the USA so one would expect people of color to be MORE visible in the media in those countries.


Classism is a big problem in LA. Why however do we see this bunching up of teh draker segments of the population, i.e Africans, Indigenous and those with significant mixtures of either or both, over whelmingly bunched at the bottom. Clearly embedded within this classism there must be significant racism.

I think that you or some one else in another thread made mention of the fact that in Latin America foreign blacks (usually meaning blacks from the USA, or the nonHispanic Caribbean) are better treated than the local blacks. This has been my experience. I was told by a Dominican (mixed but not with any SubSaharan African phenotype) that in the DR I would be an "honorary gringo". On visits to Venezuela (preChavez)and Brazil I was told by people (when they approached me speaking English) that because of the classism in both countries, and the perception that local blacks are poor that there is no way I could be local given that I was window shopping with confidence in expensive shopping districts.

The question is how, despite the intense racsim of the USA, has a reasonably large % of the black population found itself in the midst of the middle class over the last 40 years, and now has clout to demand its representation in the media and yet in LA where we hear that there is this great unity and minimal racism we have yet to see this. Do you know that the Afrodescended populations of Surinam, Guyana, Trinidad and Belize are about the same % of the population as in Brazil and less than in Cuba and the DR? Do you know that the British black population has more visibility in the UK media and in public discourse (just over 1% of the population) than they do in most parts of Latin America. Why is that?

I will say this. The fact that the old light skinned black families were forced because of Jim Crow to fight together with their less educated darker brethren is a major factor explaining the differences between the USA and LA. It was the fact that highly educated people like Thurgood Marshall and Adam Clayton Powell were involved in the struggle for civil rights that made a big difference. Now in LA where they would not have been considered black their tremendous talents would have been lost in the struggle for civil, economic ans social rights for blacks and other people of color. So the darker populations who for historic reasons had less access to education throughout the Americas (even in the nonHispanic Caribbean) until after WWII benefitted from the advantages that the mulatto populations had, because the latter were forced to join the struggle. In LA they havent. That explains a lot I suspect but would be interested in your reaction.

Is this really true. It seems to me that over the last 20 yeasr there has been rapid growth of a new middle class in many of these countries. Its juts that teh darker folks have joined this.

Caribj uses “racism” or “racist” three times in the above message. It is not clear what he means by the term, nor even if he intends the same meaning in each case. The two usages relating to Latin America, for example, seem nonsensical if we apply the site-standard definition (which distinguishes “racism” from “colorism” and “ethnocentrism” in that the former is rhetorically justified by presumed ancestry and independent of appearance). It seems unlikely that caribj has discovered a Latin American instance of belief in someone’s inferiority, or mistreatment, based upon ancestry but independent of phenotype or wealth. But if he means belief in someone’s inferiority, or mistreatment, based upon African phenotype (thus not applying to Euro-looking people of biracial ancestry), then it makes no sense in the usage applied to LA (either Los Angeles or Louisiana), where the ODR is alive and well.

I assume that the message’s ambiguity and vagueness was unintentional. Accordingly, I ask caribj please to clarify exactly what he meant by each of his three uses of the term in the above message. I urge him to read The Rules paragraph B.4, and paragraphs B.4.e through B.4.h. before answering.

The U.S. is a mass middle class society. A country like Brazil, Colombia or Venezuela is not. Their societies are less economically vibrant than ours with massive social inequality and large numbers of illiterate and semi-literate people. This goes a long way in explaining the condition of most people in these societies rather than simple racism, though racism exists there.

With respect to your statement about the rapid growth of the middle class in these countries, what should be substantiated are the rate of growth of this new middle class in these countries and how many people are being incorporated into this class from the lower rungs.

Finally, the question that needs to be answered before we conclude that the adoption of an endogamous color line would be a good thing in these societies is how different socioeconomically is the life of a black person in Cali, Columbia compared to any other low-income, non-black person in that country. I'd gather not all that different.

fwsweet wrote:


I'm pretty sure that caribj's using LA as an acronym for Latin America. That's what I got from that message. Just my opinion, though.

Hmm. I had not thought of that. In that case, the message is consistent if we interpret all three uses as, "Belief in someone’s inferiority, or mistreatment, based upon appearance (African phenotype) but independent of ancestry or wealth. For example, when African-looking Cubans are passed over for jobs given to European-looking Cubans, even though the perpetrators know that all Cubans including themselves have known African ancestry."

That is the definition that site-standard usage calls "colorism," but "racism" is perfectly acceptable also if it is clear that what caribj meant was prejudice based upon looks (rather than upon invisible ancestry).

Some are, some are not. Look up corporations. The middle class is much more mobile here.


And why did that occur? Because of higher social mobility. Even during the worst of Jim Crow you had movements that created places like Black Wall street. Class mobility.



Class mobility. And that is changing in Brazil.
http://www.tvdagente.com.br/home/



Not necessarily. Just residue of racism. If you have a race and they hog tie you, and you are the last one in the race. Then they declare that the top four will always be on top. And the bottom four will be at the bottom. Even if you are no longer hog tied, you are still in that group that can not climb socially.



Class mobility. Again, unless you can show that when there was no color line in the USA Blacks did not have this class mobility, then your example is flawed. Go look up gens de coloeur. Or read "Our kind of people".



I'm sure it definitely played a role. But I don't believe one population should experience forced segregation just to help another. And again, because of lack of social mobility, this model would not work in Latin America. It just would not make any logical sense to segregate those that belong to the same class.