Brazil’s own affirmative action
Francis Jacquerye (a new MMW guest contributor!)
The Economist published an article about two controversial bills that some Brazilian lawmakers would like to introduce in order to fight the alleged discrimination against black people in the largest South-American country.
Brazil is often described as a “multiracial democracy”. To begin with, 16th century Portuguese “explorers” started mixing with locals almost immediately. In the following 500 years, immigrants from around the world streamed to Brazil. Today, most Brazilians possess a combination of Amerindian, European and African ancestry with minorities of Asian and Middle-Eastern (2000 DNA study by the Federal University of Minas Gerais). Most Brazilians consider themselves as “mixed” and they actually determine race based on looks (phenotypes) rather than ancestry (genotypes). Brazil can boast as many as 139 terms commonly used to describe skin complexion from “snow-white” to “cinnamon” (according to a national survey).
However, some believe that the reality of the loose racial system is not as polished. Drawing upon statistics, it is tempting to conclude that the Brazilian society is indeed racist: dark-skinned Brazilians, who mostly come from the North-East, still make up to 63% of the poorest section of society (according to a recent UN study); and there is a stark difference in child mortality, life expectancy and illiteracy rate between light-skinned and dark-skinned Brazilians.
This is perhaps why the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics took a census in 2000 and classified the population as white, multiracial (mostly mixed black and white), black, Asian, Amerindian and unspecified. Now, some lawmakers want to introduce the Racial Quota Law and the Racial Equality Statute, which should both guarantee a quota of civil-service jobs and university vacancies to those of African or Amerindian ancestry and the physically handicapped. According to the article, the bills would be “making four decades of American job-preferment policies pale by comparison”
A few of the universities that started using quotas have had to create evaluation committees to spot possible “race frauds”. The opponents of the bills argue that a system of universal incentives would reach all poor Brazilians without distinction of skin complexion.
Lyonside wrote:
I’m always torn on Affirmative Action debates (and what that really means vs. what is intended, etc.).
Personally, I’d favor socioeconomic incentives - easier to prove (i.e. income records), no phenotype or genotype guessing.. Besides, it would SUCK to be part of the 37% of impoverished lighter-skin Brazilians who may share the same heritage as your darker-skinned neighbors, cousins, or parents, and miss out on a job or housing opportunity or health care.
Genetics is wacky, phenotypes are virtually unpredictable, and family history and lore is notoriously full of missing, deleted, or unknown characters.
Posted 24 Jul 2006 at 7:30 am ¶
Adrianna wrote:
I think it is a good idea there need to be some sort of balance in Brazilian society.
Posted 24 Jul 2006 at 11:41 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
But Adrianna, is skin color the way to do it?
What if it happens that one full sibling qualifies for a work-study or job training, and nother full sibling doesn’t? Both grow up in the same household, neighborhood, income level? Both have the same disadvantaged background?
Posted 24 Jul 2006 at 3:57 pm ¶
Vixy wrote:
If Brazil is so mixed that it is hard to tell who’s ‘what’, then I see no reason to require racial quotas. If people in my own immediate family (with no step siblings or intermarriages involved, mind you) were to be seperated as far as phenotypes go… I would be mixed along with two siblings, two of my siblings would be black, and two of them would be white. That is simply an insane (asinine?) way of looking at it.
However, facts are facts and here is some human nature for you: Most people tend to group themselves with those they look like. Most people hire others who are like themselves (to paraphrasingy quote a podcast). I would assume that requiring quotas is only going to add racism to the country in question.
If you look at history, who was in the higher paid positions? The paler explorers? Doesn’t it stand to reason that those in power generally stay in power due to automaticly keeping others who look most like themselves in power? Then agian, I am not from Brazil and have never been there so who are we to even make generalizations about another country?
Posted 25 Jul 2006 at 7:29 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Vixy: I agree that genetics and phenotype are sometimes remarkably nothing like a stereotyped ethnicity…
As for the “who are we to make generalizations,” this is BRAZIL talking about doing this for BRAZILIANS, so it’s worth discussion. Yes, a country is sovereign, but that doesn’t mean that outsiders can’t and don’t look at policies with a critical eye.
Posted 25 Jul 2006 at 7:53 am ¶
Francis wrote:
“Doesn’t it stand to reason that those in power generally stay in power due to automaticly keeping others who look most like themselves in power?”
Actually Vixy, I am wondering about that too: are dark-skinned Brazilians poor because they are discriminated or are they poor because they come from a poor background?
The second question is actually a very dangerous one because it could be used to sustain a racist view, like “Well they’re just poor because they’re not smart enough to make it up the social ladder”. It would be good to understand how flexible is Brazil in term of “social mobility”. What the possibilities are for someone to climb the social ladder through hard work and commitment.
The South of Brazil has had an ongoing arrival of European immigrants. The biggest cities are located in the South and that’s also where most of the economic activity takes place. So perhaps there are more light-skinned Brazilians who have been given opportunities.
In some places of Europe -not everywhere though- Africans have a hard time getting a job matching their university degree. Is it the case in Brazil? What if dark-skinned Brazilians can’t even afford university to begin with? In that case, the incentive would make sense, but it would also be faire to specifically give opportunities to the poor, regardless of skin color.
One of my Brazilian friends confirmed the info about the names they have for each complexion. She feels there is a much stronger discrimination in Brazil, not on skin color, but on the kind of clothes you wear, which is often taken as an indicator of your social or economical status.
Posted 25 Jul 2006 at 12:08 pm ¶
brad wrote:
Lyonside:
Your missing the point, Brazil is a colorist society. If you have brown or black skin you ARE discriminated against. The statistics are clear and so is the literature about racism/colorism in Brazil. Yes, there are poor light skinned people, however, they have greater opportunity for social mobility.
Brazil has very few dark skinned graduates of university or in professional occupations. I recommend that folks take a look at some of Brazil’s contemporary cinema that does expose the hypocrisy and racism of Brazilian society. Moreover, a simple Google search reveals a horrendous amount of data on racism in Brazil: http://www.google.com/search?q=racism+in+brazil
Affirmative Action has proven to be a good solution for many countries to achieve equality. In Singapore, Malaysia, India and other countries, Affirmative Action has been the difference between inequality and violence used to solve legacies of ethnic discrimination.
I don’t disagree that some form of Affirmative Action based on poverty isn’t also a good thing; however, when color is used as a primary means of discrimination, it should also be used as a criterion for righting wrongs.
As it stands, there is now a pronounced Affirmative Action for white males at colleges! Because of reductions in sexism, white women have made such a significant gain in placement in higher education that their numbers are dwarfing those of white males. There are now more women in medical school than men.
This article discusses some of these issues.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050923/edit23.art.htm
Posted 25 Jul 2006 at 4:08 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:
Brad:
No, I’m NOT missing the point, and I know that many if not all Central and South American countries are colorist, even if they pay lip service to equality. Hell, my Puerto Rican MIL had horrible relations with her inlaws because she was considered “too dark” for her husband’s side of the family.
The only thing I’m questioning is a brown paper bag test for determining who gets aid and who does not. Is skin color/hair texture/facial features a reason for inequality? Of course, especially when considering generational and institutional racism. It’s BOTH of Francis’s arguments - skin color may have gotten people to the bottom of the layer because of outright racism… then the lack of education, economic oportunity, and appropriate models, the prevalence of poverty, the lack of services help KEEP most people there. It’s not one or the other.
My point is that skin color alone will not help EVERYONE in poverty, and that it substitutes one form of skin color preference for another. My other issue remains that skin color genetics is extremely complex and unpredictable when you are looking at heterogeneous populations. You WILL have full siblings in which 1 sibling qualifies for some benefit, and another does not. HOW is that fair?
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 8:59 am ¶
AP wrote:
The responder above “brad” makes an excellent point: when color was used to stratify society, it only stands to reason that it should be used to fix past wrongs. Many people are afraid to confront the uglier aspects of human history. Here in the U.S., right wingers complain about ‘affirmative action’ but always fail to acknowledge hundreds of years of horrible discrimination. America was built off of free slave labor. At one point the South produced 7/8’s of the world’s marketable cotton. Much of the ill-gotten fortune amassed during slavery has trickled down through the generations of powerful families (penalty-free). It is ludicrous to believe that stating that all are equal actually means that in fact all are equal. This is a myth. Any fool can see color based social disparities extant in the U.S., Brazil, and many other countries. Right wingers always want to move the goal-posts. . . it never changes.
Posted 29 Jul 2006 at 7:35 am ¶
Ann wrote:
For a better understanding of Brazil’s “colorism” and a comparison on slavery, sexual coercion, discrimination, racism and social and economic brutality in contrast to US slavery, read:
“Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States” by Carl N. Degler, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1971.
Posted 30 Jul 2006 at 4:13 pm ¶
Ann wrote:
Also a good book on affirmative action:
“When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold Story of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America”, by Ira Katznelson, W.W. Norton & Company, 2005.
It tells of the racist cruelty in whites, especially of the American South, in barring black people from the benefits of New Deal programs instituted during the FDR administration, i.e., FHA home improvement loans; Social Security, GI Bill and many other programs created to helpall Americans financially and socially.
This book is proof that AA did not start with black people in 1965.
Affirmative action then, was definately white.
And as for it being black now, well, it still isn’t.
Posted 30 Jul 2006 at 5:48 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Anonymous was me (hence the “I” usage) - I was traveling and using a hotel computer, and forgot to add my name. Apologies for any confusion.
Posted 30 Jul 2006 at 10:00 pm ¶