Talk:Race and ethnicity in Brazil/Archive 2

Segregation template
Can anyone explain to me what this template is doing in this article? I'm Brazilian, and as far as I'm aware, though there is some racial prejudice, there is no segregation. There are no "things for black people" or "things for white people". I want to make it clear that I may have missed the point, so I'd like an explanation, or else the removal based on my argument. Thanks in advance. And please send me an e-mail (vitorcassol AT gmail DOT com) when answering, because I rarely check my Wikipedia account.

Vítor Cassol 06:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. It has nothing to do with the article. Opinoso 17:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

86%
86% of Brazilians have at least 10% of their genes coming from Africans.

what? this is the only line in the statistics that has no source. it's kinda difficult. there are lots of white brazilians wich arrived from europe from not enough time to have mixed so much.

in fact, those statistics are very crude, since some genetic studys was made just in 200 'white brazilians', and 200 is not 200 million. And also should be noticed that the notion of race changes from region to region. many people considered white in São Paulo are considered non-white in Rio Grande do Sul, for exemple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

This statistic DOES have source. Opinoso 01:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
I think the pictures in this article are problematic.

They center on the three ethnical groups that historically set the roots of the current Brazilian population. In this sense, they are correct. However, I think an article titled “race in Brazil” which carries emphasis on IBGE’s data should have pictures of the three main current groups, which are white, brown (pardo) and black (although blacks are a minority at roughly 6% if we consider the official data).

The second problem is that these are pictures of unknown people. How are we supposed to know they are really from Brazil? If they are actually known people, I apologize for this remark, but I kindly request someone identifies them.

I have two alternative proposals:

a)	We remove the pictures altogether; b)	We replace them for pictures of white, brown (pardo) and black people of well known Brazilian celebrities.

I personally favor proposal “a”, because it avoids trouble.

Sparks1979 15:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Title
I think the title "Race in Brazil" should be replaced with "Ethnical groups in Brazil". The prevailing modern scientific approach favors the expression “ethnical group” whilst disregarding “race” as a scientific method of demographical analysis. Therefore, I suggest we change the title to “Ethnical groups in Brazil”.

Sparks1979 15:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like people aren’t participating in this talk page, so I will just go ahead and make the changes.

Sparks1979 12:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, we should return the article. It is important to have an article that not only discusses the ethnic groups in Brazil, but also how race is constructed in Brazil. This is because the construction of race in brazil is often used as an example of the fluidity of racial categories. Muntuwandi 21:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why these aren't "ethnic groups"
Here is how the Wikipedia article on Ethnic groups defines its subject:


 * An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed. This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness. 

Now, it is quite clear that, for instance, "White Brazilians" do not "identify with each other through a common heritage that is real or assumed". Not this could be said, either, of "pardos", "Black Brazilians", or "Yellow Brazilians". There is no "shared heritage" based upon "putative common ancestry", "kinship", or "physical appearance" that can constitute these "racial" categories into ethnic groups. On the contrary, a "shared heritage" based on "language" and "shared territory", as well as some more subtle things that could be lumped together as a "common culture" base the identification of most Brazilians as a single ethnic group, to which they are "conscious of belonging". This is a quite different thing from "race".

So I am reinstating the article, with a text that tries to reflect, as much as possible, contemporary knowledge on the issue of "race" in Brazil. Ninguém (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * They should be ethnic groups. Race is NOT a social construct.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

AThousandYoung (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The influx of five million immigrants
According to Opinoso, the article cannot state that the 1872 Census, which was conducted before the arrival of the bulk of immigration, didn't reflect the influx of five million immigrants. I maintain it must. Any other takes on this issue? Ninguém (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Social class, race, and other problems.
The following text was inserted in the section about "Miscegenation":


 * Social class influences the racial classifications in Brazil. Some authors say that in Brazil, "money whitens" . Brazilians from the wealthier classes with darker phenotypes tend to classify themselves and be classified by others in lighter categories. Other facts also influence the classifications, such as dressing and social status. Given this ambiguity and fluidity, there are people who claim that the few racial categories offered by the IBGE are not enough. When Brazilians are free to choose a category for their own race, from 135 to 500 different race-color terms are brought. The most common is "Moreno", a category that refers to a wide spectrum of phenotypes . "Moreno" means both a color and the absence of color. It means "brown", "dark-skinned", "dark-haired", "tawny", "suntanned". 

First of all, this text obviously does not relate to "miscegenation". It deals with a very different subject, that of the relation between "racial" classifications and social classes. So it cannot be inserted here; if it has any merit, it must go elsewhere. The most reasonable place to insert it is in the section "controversy", as it directly deals with the difficulties and subtleties of "racial" identity in Brazil.

Now to the content.


 * Some authors say that in Brazil, "money whitens"

is taken from the source given, an article by Claudia Travassos and David R. Williams. Unhappily, these "some authors" aren't mentioned by name in the source; a reference is given, to an article by Edward Telles, "Does it matter who answers the race question? Racial classification and income inequality in Brazil", which I was not able to find online.

This kind of sentence, which I believe are called "weasel sentences", is problematic. Whose authority is supporting the statement? Travassos and Williams'? Telles'? "Some" (and unknown) authors who would have been cited by Telles?

The idea that "money whitens" is widespread in Brazil, anyway. The problem is, what does this mean? We have seen, in the controversy unleashed by Ronaldo Fenômeno's auto-declaration as White, that thies cannot be exactly true: Ronaldo is rich, he is a light-skinned mulatto, and yet a whole avalanche of racist diatribes fell upon his head. So, being (insanely) rich doesn't make a light mulatto a White - not, at least, if s/he dares to declare him or herself White. So, to say the very least, this phenomenon is much more complex than what is denoted by a simple sentence as "money whitens".


 * Other facts also influence the classifications, such as dressing and social status.

Of course, as dressing is a direct significant of wealth and social status. But, also of course, dresses can only interfere with hetero-identification: evidently a Black man dressed in an Armani suit is more likely to be identified as a member of the elites than a Black man in jeans and T-shirt; and we do know that being a member of the elites conveys the idea that the individual is White. This, however, cannot change the self-perception of the individual in the Armani suit, who knows who he really is - be it a rich man who is proud of his Black appearance, ancestry, race, etc., a rich man who preferes not to think in terms of race at all, or - much less likely - a poor man dressing a suit incompatible with his social condition. In all, I don't see too much problems with this, in and of itself.


 * Given this ambiguity and fluidity, there are people who claim that the few racial categories offered by the IBGE are not enough.

This is OK; the only problem is that the adequacy or inadequacy of the IBGE categories should be discussed in more depth. For instance, who are those people who "claim" they are insufficient? Supporters of quotas? Opposers of quotas? Supporters of "racial democracy" or of the idea that there is no racism in Brazil? People who earnestly believe race is unimportant? Outright White supremacists? Activists of the Black Movement? NGOs? What moves people to make such "claim"?

Whatever the idea, there is always going to be "people claiming" that it is the solution for all problems, and conversely, that it is an evil attempt to perpetuate or implement oppression and exploitation - what makes the difference is exactly who claims what.


 * When Brazilians are free to choose a category for their own race, from 135 to 500 different race-color terms are brought.

Two noteworthy problems with this: first, "free to chose" is loaded language; the source, in fact, only mentions "open-ended questions". When "free to chose", most people would probably chose not answering this kind of question; the presence of the interviewer, asking things that are probably not of his business, is already an intrusion in the liberty of the subject. So "free to chose" should not be mentioned; per source, it should be - and per source - "in answering open-ended questions".

Second, this is a half truth. It is true that open-ended questions in surveys about this subject elicit enormous amounts of different answers (500 is a figure that I never heard of before, but the 1976 PNAD registered 136 different categories). What is also true, and is omitted in the text, is that most of these hundreds of categories are chosen by very small groups of people, that most of them are "variations upon a theme" (branca, branca melada, loira, clara, morena-clara, rosada, alva), precisions of a common sence category (branca queimada, morena-jambo, etc.), or attempts into making the description more endearing (branquinha, chocolate, negrinha, escurinho, bronzeada). All in all, between six and ten categories make up the virtual totality of responses to open-ended questions in these surveys; and with the notable exception of "moreno" and its variants, most if not all of them are either IBGE categories ("branca", "preta", "parda", "amarela"), or intuitively translatable into one of those ("negra", "mulata", "clara"). And this, of course, is already discussed in the text, so the sentence above is a repetition.


 * The most common is "Moreno", a category that refers to a wide spectrum of phenotypes

First problem is that it is not true; the most common category is "branca" - White - because Whites not being subjected to discrimination, they - mostly - don't feel the need to resort to euphemisms. But yes, "moreno" - depending on whom uses it - refers to a wide spectrum of phenotypes, from Luísa Brunet to Taís Araújo. Which is also the reason it is a sociologically useless category: as it encompasses Whites, Blacks, Indians, "pardos", and perhaps even Yellows, it is unable to capture the social and cultural differences between people of differend "races".


 * "Moreno" means both a color and the absence of color.

This is in the given source. But instead of clearing the subject, it obfuscates it. What does it mean, as a colour? (as I hope it has already been understood, it can mean different colours, so it is not true that it means "a" colour.) What does it mean, as "absence of colour"? As far as I understand, there is no such thing as a person with "no colour". Perhaps the authors' intention was to say that it means, or implies, a refusal of classification or a statement of the irrelevance of all colours. But as it is, it certainly doesn't help people to understand "racial" classifications in Brazil.


 * It means "brown", "dark-skinned", "dark-haired", "tawny", "suntanned". 

This is another half-truth. "Brown" is a word with a complex semantic field; it can be used in sentences like:


 * Chocolate is brown.
 * Hitler's brown Shirts lost power in 1934.
 * Joe's mother is Brown.

"Moreno", on the other hand, is a word with a different, and even more complex, semantic field. You cannot say


 * *Chocolate é moreno. (the correct form is "Chocolate é marrom.)

or


 * *Os camisas-morenas de Hitler perderam poder em 1934. (the correct form is "camisas-pardas")

On the other hand you can say


 * A mãe do Zé é morena.

But it could convey different meanings compared to "Joe's mother is Brown"; the English sentence means a non-White woman; the Portuguese sentence would mean a White brunette woman (in Portugal) or, in Brazil, either a White brunette or a tanned woman, or a "parda" or Black woman that, for some reason (usually fear of hurting her feelings) the speaker doesn't want to call "negra" or "parda". Ninguém (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The racial informations and meaning of the word "moreno" are all sourced. You like them or not. Opinoso (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand it correctly, you agree that its place is not in the section about "Miscegenation"? Ninguém (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article use the term "miscegenation", which, as the article on the word itself makes clear, is "a loaded and potentially offensive word"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And how should we call it? Or should we pretend that it doesn't exist? Ninguém (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Miscegenation" is a term that suggests that there is something bad about it - which is an inherently non-neutral position. You could call it "inter-racial procreation" or something similar, which does not have quite the same negative connotations.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never heard this term in a way that suggests any thing wrong or bad with it - it is a fact of life. "Inter-racial procreation" could as easily have "bad" or "wrong" connotations, and, if it hasn't, it is a matter of time and use until it gets some... (probably starting with someone complaining that "inter-racial" assumes the biological existence of "races".)
 * On the other hand, the literature uses the term "miscigenation", not "inter-racial procreation" (or any other that I know), so the term would probably be labeled "original research". Or is it a term used in academic discussion about the topic? Ninguém (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the article on miscegenation describes the word as "loaded and potentially offensive", and in the English language words starting "mis-" are almost always seen as being negative (although I realise that, in this case, the etymology of the word is different). Whatever the intent, it is frequently perceived as a word with negative connotations - as though the writer thinks that it is a "bad thing".  I don't have any particular interest in the topic, but I am simply pointing out that the word, in English, is often read as having negative connotations.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Brazilians think that miscigenation is an excellent thing; should I argue that believing that it could be seen as negative is prejudiced against Brazilians?

Seriously, if there is an academically accepted alternative, I have no problems is discussing a change; but if there isn't, then miscegenation should stay, because it is the word generally used by sociologists, anthropologists, historians, etc., when discussing the matter. Ninguém (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)