If Tiger Woods lived in Brazil he would not have had to coin the word "Cablanasian" to describe the multiracial mixture of caucasian, black, and Asian that makes up his lineage nor face derision from those of us who thought he was trippin' (being silly, unreal). As my husband and I saw on a recent trip, in Brazil race-mixing is the rule, not the exception, with the majority of its 170 million people being visible incarnates of the slogan that officials like to tout: "We're a multiracial democracy. We're not white, or black, or Indian, we're all Brazilians."
Skeptical, but being swept along by the stunning beauty of the country and its people, I did begin to wonder if (contrary to learned opinion) Brazil had solved its race problem by just mixing everyone up. British scholar Paul Gilroy recently said that Brazil and South Africa - a country that I also visited recently and will invoke later - present "a new paradigm of race" that is more subtle and flexible than the U.S.'s old "one drop" (of black blood makes you black) rule that equates whiteness with mythical purity.
That question stayed with me in Rio de Janeiro as we experienced the intercultural blends of appetizing foods, danced to hypnotic music, observed - while walking on sandy beaches - the color and feature variations within families, and had the privilege of attending a Candomblé worship service that is far more racially diverse than what I am likely to see in any religious service in America. Candomblé is based upon the religion of the Yoruba people, brought over by West African slaves and thinly masked by Catholicism.
My wonder grew as I took a beginner's capoeria lesson (a dance of acrobatic defiance derived from the movements of revolting slaves that, along with samba, are expressions of Brazilian identity) from a young woman who, except for speaking Portuguese, is a dead ringer for my cousin in Miami.
In Salvador, over 50,000 rabid fans from different social origins squeezed into a soccer stadium and made us, who are used to clearly marked exits, really nervous by standing in sweaty closeness the whole game, cheering and blocking all escape routes. We wondered what, if anything - skin color, previous condition of ancestral servitude, admiration of soccer skills - linked us to these warm, colorful people?
So, eschewing popular tourist trappings such as funny-looking hats and dangling jewelry, we hoped our skin color would provide anonymity as we struck out on our own. No such luck. Street entrepreneurs pounced on us from all four directions. When we befuddledly asked a Brazilian who had traveled in the U.S., how could they pick us out as Americans without even hearing us talk, she laughed and said, "Oh, they know. It's your walk, your confident attitude, your shoes. They know."
Well, that was one of many revelations during a 10-day visit. The trip also confirmed a revelation from other international travel, including a trip to South Africa a month earlier, and to Cuba a couple of years ago: African Americans, despite an insistence upon proclaiming our African heritage, are seen in other parts of the black world as Americans first, soul sister or brother second. I was experiencing, up close, this "new paradigm" of race, and it had a lot to do with the familiar divide between the haves and those who are still waiting for theirs. South Africa shows that. In 10 years of democracy it boasts of several black billionaires - and millions more who are impoverished and restless.
Long before the visit, Brazil held a place in my imagination because of its history. This country with a larger land mass than the continental United States, was the last in the New World to abolish slavery in 1888, followed by the mass importation of Europeans to "whiten" the country. Despite the ideal climate and vast reserves of precious metals and minerals, descendants of slaves continue to reside at the bottom economic tier. In this "rich country full of poor people" the elite live a separate existence in gated communities, a few kilometers and worlds apart from the favellas - the teeming ghettos - spotlighted in the recent award-winning City of God.
One of the world's most unequal societies, with the largest number of people of African descent outside of Nigeria, Brazil has adopted black culture as its national identity. Yet its preoccupation with color categories as a substitute for race leaves dark-skinned people poor and excluded from power. Race is such an illusive concept in Brazil that a civil rights movement of the American kind that transformed our country and made it a beacon for dispossessed people everywhere is difficult to coalesce.
There are many reasons to visit Brazil including, I'm told, great golf, and I recommend it.
But if it is democracy that you're seeking, racial and otherwise, I would also recommend this: stay home and vote.
Audrey T. McCluskey teaches in the Department of African American and African Diaspora Studies, and directs the Black Film Center/Archive. Among her recent publications is the annotated catalog, Imaging Blackness, 1915-2000: Posters from the BFC/A Collection.
If Tiger Woods lived in Brazil he would not have had to coin the word "Cablanasian" to describe the multiracial mixture of caucasian, black, and Asian that makes up his lineage nor face derision from those of us who thought he was trippin' (being silly, unreal). As my husband and I saw on a recent trip, in Brazil race-mixing is the rule, not the exception, with the majority of its 170 million people being visible incarnates of the slogan that officials like to tout: "We're a multiracial democracy. We're not white, or black, or Indian, we're all Brazilians."
Skeptical, but being swept along by the stunning beauty of the country and its people, I did begin to wonder if (contrary to learned opinion) Brazil had solved its race problem by just mixing everyone up. British scholar Paul Gilroy recently said that Brazil and South Africa - a country that I also visited recently and will invoke later - present "a new paradigm of race" that is more subtle and flexible than the U.S.'s old "one drop" (of black blood makes you black) rule that equates whiteness with mythical purity.
That question stayed with me in Rio de Janeiro as we experienced the intercultural blends of appetizing foods, danced to hypnotic music, observed - while walking on sandy beaches - the color and feature variations within families, and had the privilege of attending a Candomblé worship service that is far more racially diverse than what I am likely to see in any religious service in America. Candomblé is based upon the religion of the Yoruba people, brought over by West African slaves and thinly masked by Catholicism.
My wonder grew as I took a beginner's capoeria lesson (a dance of acrobatic defiance derived from the movements of revolting slaves that, along with samba, are expressions of Brazilian identity) from a young woman who, except for speaking Portuguese, is a dead ringer for my cousin in Miami.
In Salvador, over 50,000 rabid fans from different social origins squeezed into a soccer stadium and made us, who are used to clearly marked exits, really nervous by standing in sweaty closeness the whole game, cheering and blocking all escape routes. We wondered what, if anything - skin color, previous condition of ancestral servitude, admiration of soccer skills - linked us to these warm, colorful people?
So, eschewing popular tourist trappings such as funny-looking hats and dangling jewelry, we hoped our skin color would provide anonymity as we struck out on our own. No such luck. Street entrepreneurs pounced on us from all four directions. When we befuddledly asked a Brazilian who had traveled in the U.S., how could they pick us out as Americans without even hearing us talk, she laughed and said, "Oh, they know. It's your walk, your confident attitude, your shoes. They know."
Well, that was one of many revelations during a 10-day visit. The trip also confirmed a revelation from other international travel, including a trip to South Africa a month earlier, and to Cuba a couple of years ago: African Americans, despite an insistence upon proclaiming our African heritage, are seen in other parts of the black world as Americans first, soul sister or brother second. I was experiencing, up close, this "new paradigm" of race, and it had a lot to do with the familiar divide between the haves and those who are still waiting for theirs. South Africa shows that. In 10 years of democracy it boasts of several black billionaires - and millions more who are impoverished and restless.
Long before the visit, Brazil held a place in my imagination because of its history. This country with a larger land mass than the continental United States, was the last in the New World to abolish slavery in 1888, followed by the mass importation of Europeans to "whiten" the country. Despite the ideal climate and vast reserves of precious metals and minerals, descendants of slaves continue to reside at the bottom economic tier. In this "rich country full of poor people" the elite live a separate existence in gated communities, a few kilometers and worlds apart from the favellas - the teeming ghettos - spotlighted in the recent award-winning City of God.
One of the world's most unequal societies, with the largest number of people of African descent outside of Nigeria, Brazil has adopted black culture as its national identity. Yet its preoccupation with color categories as a substitute for race leaves dark-skinned people poor and excluded from power. Race is such an illusive concept in Brazil that a civil rights movement of the American kind that transformed our country and made it a beacon for dispossessed people everywhere is difficult to coalesce.
There are many reasons to visit Brazil including, I'm told, great golf, and I recommend it.
But if it is democracy that you're seeking, racial and otherwise, I would also recommend this: stay home and vote.
Audrey T. McCluskey teaches in the Department of African American and African Diaspora Studies, and directs the Black Film Center/Archive. Among her recent publications is the annotated catalog, Imaging Blackness, 1915-2000: Posters from the BFC/A Collection.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 23 Jul 2006 01:49 Post subject: Re: A new paradigm of race
soserious wrote:
...
Audrey T. McCluskey teaches in the Department of African American and African Diaspora Studies, and directs the Black Film Center/Archive. Among her recent publications is the annotated catalog, Imaging Blackness, 1915-2000: Posters from the BFC/A Collection.
good read [/quote]
What else do you expect of a "Professor of African American Studies" other than panfletary propaganda
Ask Brazilians, not "professors of AA studies". Is better for your menthal health.
Posted: Sun 23 Jul 2006 01:58 Post subject: Re: A new paradigm of race
zsana wrote:
Visit to Brazil prompts the question: Can mixing everyone up solve the race problem?
Definitely not. This is like Winwinkels arguement.
Teaching tolerance, will "solve the race problem". Race-mixing does nothing; a whole population could mix evenly through, and the same racist ideologies could remain.
Posted: Sun 23 Jul 2006 02:07 Post subject: Re: A new paradigm of race
Phil345 wrote:
Race-mixing does nothing; a whole population could mix evenly through, and the same racist ideologies could remain.
It depends upon what you mean by "racist." If you are using the site-standard definition (see The Rules paragraph B.3), then your statement is clearly in error because everyone would have the same ancestry. If you are using a made-up definition of your own, you should please explain it now.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 23 Jul 2006 02:20 Post subject: Re: A new paradigm of race
Phil345 wrote:
..Race-mixing does nothing; a whole population could mix evenly through, and the same racist ideologies could remain.
One thing those theoricals don't realize is the following.
Once people get enough mixed the families themselves become multiracials. And when you reach that point, racism can't follow anymore.
You can't discriminate your parents, your cousins, uncles or childrens because they don't look like you.
The problem is that race mixing TAKES TIME. Countries like Brazil have NOT COMPLETED the racial fusion as yet. Because they have only 4 generations since massive intermarriage started!
If you want to know the result of intermarriage, perhaps is better to study it in an older, mestizo population of Latin America. For instance, countries like mine (Chile) had had 5 centuries (or more than 20 generations) of intermarriages between European and Indians in our case. In that scenario the population become stable, and people look like they were of a single race. With more variability than the usual but uniform.
And once in that situation, racism stops.
Brazil will reach that point perhaps in one century. The U.S. is only now starting intermarryage so it will take long of time for the effects to be seen. Actually centuries.
Posted: Sun 23 Jul 2006 06:45 Post subject: Re: A new paradigm of race
oevega wrote:
Phil345 wrote:
..Race-mixing does nothing; a whole population could mix evenly through, and the same racist ideologies could remain.
One thing those theoricals don't realize is the following.
Once people get enough mixed the families themselves become multiracials. And when you reach that point, racism can't follow anymore.
You can't discriminate your parents, your cousins, uncles or childrens because they don't look like you.
The problem is that race mixing [b]TAKES TIME. Countries like Brazil have NOT COMPLETED the racial fusion as yet. Because they have only 4 generations since massive intermarriage started![/b]
If you want to know the result of intermarriage, perhaps is better to study it in an older, mestizo population of Latin America. For instance, countries like mine (Chile) had had 5 centuries (or more than 20 generations) of intermarriages between European and Indians in our case. In that scenario the population become stable, and people look like they were of a single race. With more variability than the usual but uniform.
And once in that situation, racism stops.
Brazil will reach that point perhaps in one century. The U.S. is only now starting intermarryage so it will take long of time for the effects to be seen. Actually centuries.
Omar
hahah well many of the people of african decent do not have 2 centuries... They need equality now
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 {Posts: 235 } Location: Atlanta
Posted: Sun 23 Jul 2006 13:30 Post subject: Re: A new paradigm of race
Phil345 wrote:
zsana wrote:
Visit to Brazil prompts the question: Can mixing everyone up solve the race problem?
Definitely not. This is like Winwinkels arguement.
Teaching tolerance, will "solve the race problem". Race-mixing does nothing; a whole population could mix evenly through, and the same racist ideologies could remain.
Do people remember that statement that George Bush Sr. made about his part Latino grandchildren? I think he called them "brownies" or something similar.
Point being: If a doting grandpa still feels the need to single out his part Latino grandchildren from his "white" grandchildren, we have not solved the problem. Intermarriage makes acceptance more likely, but one does not follow from the other, as in a causative relationship.
As long as people treat people differently based on their "racial" looks, and attribute negative qualities based on "race," and bar "racial" groups from social institutions (or make allowances for those who are "acceptable" for economic reasons), we have not solved the problem. Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt. There are countless examples, likely in each of our families, of this.
What I do believe is that love and true acceptance of people for who they are and what they look like will help, and the displacement of European standards of beauty will really get the ball rolling.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 24 Jul 2006 20:01 Post subject: brownies
sagascend wrote:
Do people remember that statement that George Bush Sr. made about his part Latino grandchildren? I think he called them "brownies" or something similar.
Point being: If a doting grandpa still feels the need to single out his part Latino grandchildren from his "white" grandchildren, we have not solved the problem. Intermarriage makes acceptance more likely, but one does not follow from the other, as in a causative relationship.
As long as people treat people differently based on their "racial" looks, and attribute negative qualities based on "race," and bar "racial" groups from social institutions (or make allowances for those who are "acceptable" for economic reasons), we have not solved the problem. Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt. There are countless examples, likely in each of our families, of this.
What I do believe is that love and true acceptance of people for who they are and what they look like will help, and the displacement of European standards of beauty will really get the ball rolling.
There is not problem for latinos to be called "brown". In fact, there are even songs that speak about our "cooper" skin. I believe is OK.
After all, we also laugh because light skinned people don't tan but burn. And because Black people don't use tatoos (in theory). And we called a red skin light person when has suffered sun burn: a crab
So, if people like to joke, we accept it but have to be willing to accept our jokes, too.
So Bush has to stand his grandchildren call them "gringo granpa pale as pasta".
After all he won't be the only "gringo" granddad that has "brown" Hispanic kids. No problem with gringos if they follow our rules and are brave enough to drink tequilas and eat real hot chilis.
If a doting grandpa still feels the need to single out his part Latino grandchildren from his "white" grandchildren, we have not solved the problem. Intermarriage makes acceptance more likely, but one does not follow from the other, as in a causative relationship.
It may depend upon what you see as "the problem." Between 1890 and 1940 some 5,000 to 20,000 U.S. citizens were tortured to death in public human sacrifices in order to keep the Black "race" in their place. It is hard to imagine a "doting grandfather" ever doing this to his own grandchildren, whatever their complexion. No such phenomenon ever happened anywhere else in this hemisphere. Indeed, the very thought sickens and disgusts those Latin Americans with whom I have discussed it (even those who notice varying skin tones among their children). Perhaps it depends upon what you see as being "the problem."
No one suggests that intermarriage can solve all problems. But there are problems that intermarriage does in fact solve, directly, immediately, and in a causative relationship. Most anthropologists agree that intermarriage is the ultimate expression of mutual acceptance between societies.
Quote:
The importance of [intermarriage] cannot be overstated. The family is the primary social unit in society, and as families mix, so do other institutions. In other words, intermarriage is the ultimate form of ethnic assimilation. -- Leonard Dinnerstein and David M. Reimers, Ethnic Americans: A History of Immigration, 4th ed. (New York, 1999), 179.
Quote:
Recent studies have pointed to the role of intimate equal-status contact between members of majority and minority groups in reducing prejudice. Structural separation, by definition, denotes a situation in which primary group contacts between members of various ethnic groups are held to a minimum, even though secondary contacts on the job, on the civic scene, and in other areas of impersonal contact may abound. In view of the tendency of human beings to categorize in their psychic perceptions and reactions and to form in-groups and, frequently, out-groups on the basis of familiar experiences and contacts, it may plausibly be argued that just as intimate primary group relations tend to reduce prejudice, a lack of such contacts tends to produce hostile ethnic attitudes. -- Milton M. Gordon, Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins (New York, 1964), 235-36.
If a doting grandpa still feels the need to single out his part Latino grandchildren from his "white" grandchildren, we have not solved the problem. Intermarriage makes acceptance more likely, but one does not follow from the other, as in a causative relationship.
It may depend upon what you see as "the problem." Between 1890 and 1940 some 5,000 to 20,000 U.S. citizens were tortured to death in public human sacrifices in order to keep the Black "race" in their place. It is hard to imagine a "doting grandfather" ever doing this to his own grandchildren, whatever their complexion. No such phenomenon ever happened anywhere else in this hemisphere. Indeed, the very thought sickens and disgusts those Latin Americans with whom I have discussed it (even those who notice varying skin tones among their children). Perhaps it depends upon what you see as being "the problem."
No one suggests that intermarriage can solve all problems. But there are problems that intermarriage does in fact solve, directly, immediately, and in a causative relationship. Most anthropologists agree that intermarriage is the ultimate expression of mutual acceptance between societies.
Quote:
The importance of [intermarriage] cannot be overstated. The family is the primary social unit in society, and as families mix, so do other institutions. In other words, intermarriage is the ultimate form of ethnic assimilation. -- Leonard Dinnerstein and David M. Reimers, Ethnic Americans: A History of Immigration, 4th ed. (New York, 1999), 179.
Quote:
Recent studies have pointed to the role of intimate equal-status contact between members of majority and minority groups in reducing prejudice. Structural separation, by definition, denotes a situation in which primary group contacts between members of various ethnic groups are held to a minimum, even though secondary contacts on the job, on the civic scene, and in other areas of impersonal contact may abound. In view of the tendency of human beings to categorize in their psychic perceptions and reactions and to form in-groups and, frequently, out-groups on the basis of familiar experiences and contacts, it may plausibly be argued that just as intimate primary group relations tend to reduce prejudice, a lack of such contacts tends to produce hostile ethnic attitudes. -- Milton M. Gordon, Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins (New York, 1964), 235-36.
The problem, IMO, is when difference is not just difference, but grounds for unequal treatment.
To me one of the quotes you posted says it all - that "intimate equal-status contact between members of majority and minority groups in reducing prejudice." The equal status part is getting glossed over.
You could conceivably achieve the same effects with close friendships and tight-knit interracial communities, and the outgrowth of THIS contact would likely result in marriages between in/out group members that are less controversial. It's the elevation of personal regard, empathy and caring for a person outside of your in-group that leads to acceptance, not intermarriage itself. To me, intermarriage is a symptom, but not the cure. Or, intermarriage is the result but not the reason.
An Iroquois princess marrying an English lord is quite different from an Indian slave marrying an English lord UNLESS the lord regards the former slave as his equal, and the former slave regards herself as her husband's equal.
People bring their personal, cultural and social baggage into a marriage. It doesn't magically disappear or stop affecting their relationship because they chose to marry. There are many variables to consider: Gender roles, family structures, class, etc.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 24 Jul 2006 20:50 Post subject: Mixed
sagascend wrote:
...An Iroquois princess marrying an English lord is quite different from an Indian slave marrying an English lord UNLESS the lord regards the former slave as his equal, and the former slave regards herself as her husband's equal.
Well, what really matter is not the quality of marriage of the past. What matters is that new generations are mixed. Mixed people is the bridge between ethnicities. And if they become the majority, then they will define the rules.
Actually, the pocahontas case happened several times in Latin America, but that was 1 case in 1000. Most of the times women were treated... about the same way European women were treated at those times too.
That does not matter when centuries past. What remain is the fusion of people.
Posted: Mon 24 Jul 2006 21:33 Post subject: Re: Mixed
oevega wrote:
sagascend wrote:
...An Iroquois princess marrying an English lord is quite different from an Indian slave marrying an English lord UNLESS the lord regards the former slave as his equal, and the former slave regards herself as her husband's equal.
Well, what really matter is not the quality of marriage of the past. What matters is that new generations are mixed. Mixed people is the bridge between ethnicities. And if they become the majority, then they will define the rules.
Actually, the pocahontas case happened several times in Latin America, but that was 1 case in 1000. Most of the times women were treated... about the same way European women were treated at those times too.
That does not matter when centuries past. What remain is the fusion of people.
Omar
Of course it matters! That's like saying it doesn't matter that women were treated as second-class citizens in the past if they can vote and have professional jobs now. As women, overall in U.S., continue to earn a fraction of what men in comparable professions make, and are severely underrepresented in public office, how exactly is ignoring the past going to help explain the present?
Related to this, the quality of interracial contact absolutely matters, and that is a fact supported by the studies citied by Frank. It mattered when Pocohontas married whats-his-name, and it matters now.
Class inequality remains, racial inequality persists. Inequality is a legacy, the gift that keeps on giving until a society strikes it down and laws/policies affect structural change. When parity exists on any level its important to know why.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 24 Jul 2006 22:13 Post subject: Re: Mixed
sagascend wrote:
...
Of course it matters! That's like saying it doesn't matter that women were treated as second-class citizens in the past if they can vote and have professional jobs now. As women, overall in U.S., continue to earn a fraction of what men in comparable professions make, and are severely underrepresented in public office, how exactly is ignoring the past going to help explain the present?
What happens if those events happened 500 years ago? And your people is the result of those events?
Quote:
Related to this, the quality of interracial contact absolutely matters, and that is a fact supported by the studies citied by Frank. It mattered when Pocohontas married whats-his-name, and it matters now.
For interracial contact must exist different races. Countries that does not have racial barriers usually don't consider people to belong to different races, but just variations in phenotype. Like whites consider blonds and brunettes, for instance.
Quote:
Class inequality remains, racial inequality persists.
That's not solved by intermarriage at all. In the Spanish Empire the intermarriage between Natives and Europeans was done by keeping social classes intact. I mean, the Indian royalty married with the captains, and the foot soldier with the poor Indian. So intermarriage happened but inequality was kept in place.
Quote:
Inequality is a legacy, the gift that keeps on giving until a society strikes it down and laws/policies affect structural change. When parity exists on any level its important to know why.
Not all the problems are solved with intermarriage, only aliviate those related with discrimination on phenotypes.
Posted: Mon 24 Jul 2006 22:33 Post subject: Re: Mixed
oevega wrote:
sagascend wrote:
...
Of course it matters! That's like saying it doesn't matter that women were treated as second-class citizens in the past if they can vote and have professional jobs now. As women, overall in U.S., continue to earn a fraction of what men in comparable professions make, and are severely underrepresented in public office, how exactly is ignoring the past going to help explain the present?
What happens if those events happened 500 years ago? And your people is the result of those events?
What happens is that people still talk about it as if it matters because it does. History doesn't happen in a vacuum, it influences the way people think and act today. I don't think Latin Americans are divorced from their history and believe that the past no longer matters. I think most believe that intermarriage is a long-occuring aspect of the culture that continues today.
Quote:
Related to this, the quality of interracial contact absolutely matters, and that is a fact supported by the studies citied by Frank. It mattered when Pocohontas married whats-his-name, and it matters now.
For interracial contact must exist different races. Countries that does not have racial barriers usually don't consider people to belong to different races, but just variations in phenotype. Like whites consider blonds and brunettes, for instance.
Different races don't have to exist, they have to be constructed within the culture. What you call a variation in phenotype between the English and the Irish, they called racial differences once upon a time. A Roman brunette most certainly considered Germanic and Celtic people different races by virtue of their non-Mediterranean phenotypes and cultures.
Quote:
Class inequality remains, racial inequality persists.
That's not solved by intermarriage at all. In the Spanish Empire the intermarriage between Natives and Europeans was done by keeping social classes intact. I mean, the Indian royalty married with the captains, and the foot soldier with the poor Indian. So intermarriage happened but inequality was kept in place.
You misunderstand me because that is my point. Variables like class and type of contact (i.e., peaceful, warlike) matter and do more to undermine equality than they do to create it when interracial contact occurs.
Quote:
Inequality is a legacy, the gift that keeps on giving until a society strikes it down and laws/policies affect structural change. When parity exists on any level its important to know why.
Not all the problems are solved with intermarriage, only aliviate those related with discrimination on phenotypes.
I don't even think it does that. The perpetuation of colorism in families is a clear example.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 25 Jul 2006 00:55 Post subject: Re: Mixed
sagascend wrote:
...
What happens is that people still talk about it as if it matters because it does. History doesn't happen in a vacuum, it influences the way people think and act today. I don't think Latin Americans are divorced from their history and believe that the past no longer matters. I think most believe that intermarriage is a long-occuring aspect of the culture that continues today.
What happens if the kids at home and at school learn they are a great people because they are the hybrid result of TWO superb peoples?
What happens if they learn to appreciate BOTH backgrounds?
What happens if they don't know which of today's people belong to one or the other former group?
Quote:
Different races don't have to exist, they have to be constructed within the culture. What you call a variation in phenotype between the English and the Irish, they called racial differences once upon a time. A Roman brunette most certainly considered Germanic and Celtic people different races by virtue of their non-Mediterranean phenotypes and cultures.
That's achieved by mixing. When people see the continuoum race does not matter anymore.
Quote:
You misunderstand me because that is my point. Variables like class and type of contact (i.e., peaceful, warlike) matter and do more to undermine equality than they do to create it when interracial contact occurs.
Well, I show you an example of the way class is kept and intermarriage happens. Look in the States today, the poor Black intermarry with the poor White, and the rich White with the rich Black. That's easy to see.
Quote:
I don't even think it does that. The perpetuation of colorism in families is a clear example.
To exist colorism the class gradient has to be related to class color. That happens in Haiti and in the Caribbean but, at least in Southern South America that's not the case. Perhaps because in here intermarriage is older and mainly between Whites and Indians, I guess.
Posted: Tue 25 Jul 2006 01:14 Post subject: Re: Mixed
oevega wrote:
sagascend wrote:
...
What happens is that people still talk about it as if it matters because it does. History doesn't happen in a vacuum, it influences the way people think and act today. I don't think Latin Americans are divorced from their history and believe that the past no longer matters. I think most believe that intermarriage is a long-occuring aspect of the culture that continues today.
What happens if the kids at home and at school learn they are a great people because they are the hybrid result of TWO superb peoples?
What happens if they learn to appreciate BOTH backgrounds?
What happens if they don't know which of today's people belong to one or the other former group?
If the kids grow up in a healthy environment and actually do learn to appreciate both cultures on their own merits, and if they can't distinguish one phenotype from the other, then I'd say that's progress. But appreciation for a culture, whether it's been assimilated or remains distinct, is the result of acceptance and mutual respect. Not too much mixing occured or occurs in that context. It is desirable but exceptional.
Quote:
Different races don't have to exist, they have to be constructed within the culture. What you call a variation in phenotype between the English and the Irish, they called racial differences once upon a time. A Roman brunette most certainly considered Germanic and Celtic people different races by virtue of their non-Mediterranean phenotypes and cultures.
That's achieved by mixing. When people see the continuoum race does not matter anymore.
Doesn't matter to whom? It certainly matters to a lot of people regardless of mixing. The majority of humans are mixed and mixed prior to Columbus, but you wouldn't think so from the way people talk about race.
Quote:
You misunderstand me because that is my point. Variables like class and type of contact (i.e., peaceful, warlike) matter and do more to undermine equality than they do to create it when interracial contact occurs.
Well, I show you an example of the way class is kept and intermarriage happens. Look in the States today, the poor Black intermarry with the poor White, and the rich White with the rich Black. That's easy to see.
Er - that is exactly what the Pocohantas example was about. Again, see my posts above. I am not arguing that class disappears with intermarriage.
Quote:
I don't even think it does that. The perpetuation of colorism in families is a clear example.
To exist colorism the class gradient has to be related to class color. That happens in Haiti and in the Caribbean but, at least in Southern South America that's not the case. Perhaps because in here intermarriage is older and mainly between Whites and Indians, I guess.
I find it hard to believe that there is no colorism in Southern Latin America. In fact I don't believe it. Colorism doesn't need an African population to exist.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 25 Jul 2006 03:41 Post subject: Re: Mixed
sagascend wrote:
If the kids grow up in a healthy environment and actually do learn to appreciate both cultures on their own merits, and if they can't distinguish one phenotype from the other, then I'd say that's progress. But appreciation for a culture, whether it's been assimilated or remains distinct, is the result of acceptance and mutual respect. Not too much mixing occured or occurs in that context. It is desirable but exceptional.
Yes, you can appreciate Chinese culture and don't mix with them. But until you got a Chinese in ralative, you won't conside them part of your family.
Quote:
That's achieved by mixing. When people see the continuoum race does not matter anymore.
Right!
Quote:
You misunderstand me because that is my point. Variables like class and type of contact (i.e., peaceful, warlike) matter and do more to undermine equality than they do to create it when interracial contact occurs.
Well, social inequalities have other roots, but are as real as racism. The topic here is racism, I believe.
Quote:
I find it hard to believe that there is no colorism in Southern Latin America. In fact I don't believe it. Colorism doesn't need an African population to exist.
In here there is not really colorism. What exist is classism. There are rich people that is brown and poors that are white. And that does not matter much. What matters is "class". Imagine England and its social differences between peoples that for outsiders look the same. That's what happened in southern South America. But don't believe for an instant that the poor here are treated better because they are of the same "race".
Richs in here believe poverty is genetic. You got a gen of poverty and bad manners somewhere in your DNA. And race has nothing to do with that.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
