White ppl: stop saying everything is gonna be OK

Post Reply New Topic

The message doesn't come from the words alone.

Addressing a comment to "white people" is racist. Even worse when that comment is a directive.
It doesn't make me want to listen to that person's message at all.
It makes me want to say, "Shut up. Everything is gonna be OK. Free speech, etc."

ROLE MODEL??! ! god help us if that is that case! if HE is a role model, then so is "chainsaw" al dunlap. IOW a roll model for how NOT to be!

yes, that's all essentially accurate. and in brazil i think "mixed-race" would be about a third of the population (and in genetic terms would probably be most of the population, because odds are that the native population was largely assimilated, and it happened long ago, and there's also millions of people who look just plain "white" but have a visibly "black" parent or grandparent anyway). but obama himself is a very interesting example when it comes to what i'm talking about, which is not so much about how race or ethnicity is defined, but how it's perceived, and what importance it's given

here in brazil, if someone with his background were to be a presidential candidate, the fact that his father was from a poor country (which would probably help lower classes see themselves reflected on him), the fact that he had a middle-class upbringing with extensive and international education (which would very much appeal to the middle class), and the fact that he comes across as an extremely sociable character (which would appeal a lot to pretty much the entire population), would all probably be a much bigger deal than the fact that he's dark-skinned. not quite like the black japanese guy in japan (because "black" definitely is a culturally-defined categorization of human being here), but still, probably closer to that than to the american traditional perception that "black is black, end of story"

bringing up the subject of race (that he would be "the first black president of the country") would probably backfire doubly. because, despite his skin color, he simply doesn't share the same origins as local black people at all (let alone white and mixed-race poor people), which i'm sure his opponents would be very quick to point out, and then the poor would be like "yeah... what gives? stop pretending that you represent us!". and, while black ethnicity is associated with poverty (both culturally and statistically, especially because unmistakably-black people tend to be the ones who never got to integrate into broader society over the generations, even though exceptions aren't rare), the main reason why he would appeal to the middle class would be because they would see him as "one of us", not because they'd be feeling particularly "hopeful" or particularly sympathetic toward other segments of the population

saying things like "poor people are like this" or "rich people are like this" is very much commonplace here, but saying things like "black people are like this" or "white people are like this" is taboo, and likely to get you immediately denounced. it's like lighting a cigarette in the middle of a hospital waiting room. it wasn't always like this, but by now (my generation) this culture is firmly established. sure, if it's a taboo, it means it's not all good. and of course, classism isn't pretty either. but despite all that, in terms of minimizing social tension, i think it's a step up from plain ethnic divides. because if you're born poor and the economy improves, you might no longer be poor later in life. and even if the stigma of your origins might haunt you, it won't haunt your children, as long as they have access to good education. but if you're born a certain ethnicity, it's just part of who you are, and it will be the same for your children. it's pretty depressing (and/or enraging) if your ethnicity comes with more negative implications than all the other ones around you

now... how did old-fashined racism here evolve into today's classism? was it because of something that brazilian society shares with american society? or was it because of something inherent to brazil which simply has no parallel in the u.s.? there definitely are race-related cultural features that have always been a big deal in american culture or american history in one way or another and were simply never a thing in brazil, but are there no major parallels in the social process from racism to classism? i have no idea. it's something i'm very curious to understand. because, as far as i know, it's something that happened organically. but did it really? i don't know. it's something people don't talk about, or, when they do, it's just nonsensical rhetoric

I'll have a go at this one. Brazil and the US share a few things i) enslaving black west Africans ii) treating them as chattel and brutalizing and traumatizing them in the most evil manner possible and iii) placing them at the bottom of the social class system due to their racial origin

However Brazil has one difference. There were no miscegenation laws so created a much larger proportion of their population who were mixed race. In comparison the US miscegenation was restricted to the rape of female slaves which created much more easily distinguishable white Vs black populations.

was the formalization (and the direct socioeconomic consequences) of those segregation laws the major difference though? or was it something else behind those laws (or maybe something that those laws created over time) which never actually dissipated despite the attainment of legal equality decades ago? that's the detail that i can't tell from my limited knowledge on the subject

what's curious to me is that it's not limited to "black" and "white". there's also "latinos", "asians", "muslims" and so on, and the segregation-prone mindset (not just from the outside but also from the inside of those communities) seems to be very similar. i don't know how people from those demographics view themselves inside the u.s., but outside the u.s. those categories typically don't mean anything (except for "muslim", which actually tends to polarize populations in many places, though not here. even then, the worst cultural, political and military tensions and conflicts involving muslims seem to be the ones between different muslim sects and ethnicities, not "muslim versus someone else")

for example: brazil in particular is a fairly isolated country, even in south america, let alone in "latin america". except for one long-running surrealistic mexican comedy tv show that was very popular here when i was little, we're virtually unaware of the existence of mexico and don't have any cultural or historical connection with them. but in the u.s. i guess both brazilians and mexicans count as "latinos" regardless of race or class of origin (essentially constituting a new generalized race, more or less like "black" became a single race in the americas after slavery, when in africa "dark-skinned" is anything but "one single ethnicity")

This whole area is far more complicated than what a couple of of posts will do justice.

Latinos in North America have internalised the prevailing race base class system and have also internalised prevailing norms on race and beauty.

Wow!

A lot of issues here. But its a fascinating subject.

Brazil and the US were both not only profoundly effected by the African slave trade, but both countries were also essentially built by slaves.

But the legacy of slavery is quite different in the two countries.

When you think of the founding of Latin America you think of Cortez and his Conquistadors conquering the Aztecs. When you think of Anglo America being founded you think of the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock. In the former an all male army came in and subdued a large native population, and then married into that population creating the mixed race population that Mexico is today. In the later whole families came in from England- had one thanksgiving dinner with the natives, but then pretty much pushed the small native population aside and created the 80 percent White population country that America was (and that Trump supporters want to return to) in the mid Twentieth Century. We are still like 70 percent European White.

Also America's founding fathers were part of the Englightenment, and had this new notion that "all men are created equal". The up side of that idea is that its anti class- and promotes democracy. The downside is that half of the founding fathers who signed onto this then new idea that "all men are created equal" owned Afican slaves. So to justify slavery Anglo Americans had to create the notion that some humans are sub humans. In Latin America they never had the modern notion that "all men are created equal" so they didnt need to invent the modern type of racism as an antidote to that to justify inequality. They just accepted inequality as a fact of life like the ancient slave owning societies of antiguity did,. So latin americans lacked both democratic ideals and lacked the evil type of racism that we americans would develop along side that to justify inequality.

And latin Americans were also too racially mixed as people to form a race based caste system quite like that of the US. In Brazil (as I understand it) they have a kind of racism but they have the saying that "money bleaches". An enterprising Brazilian who rises in income and in social class also ( some how magically - and seemingly inexplicably to North Americans) ALSO changes in his "race" , and gets progressively lighter skinned in the eyes of society. Lol! And this is kinda universal to Latin America.

In contrast- in the American jim crow south- if four generations ago you had 15 White ancestors, and one black ancestor you were defined BY LAW as being entirely "Black". Not only is it "once Black always Black", but its beyond that to being "one drop of Black blood, and you're entirely Black".

Everything will be fine, special snowflakes be damned.

horsepuckey we're in it now, no sense in being Pollyanna about it.

it is!


i can't say how historically valid my perception is (especially because i just can't be unbiased on this), but when i read "brazil was essentially built by slaves", a voice in my head says "that's not quite true". my subjective perception is that "the empire and the old republic were essentially built by slaves, but the new republic wasn't". and i guess this is probably a big part of what makes rio and são paulo so separate and distinct despite the geographical closeness. because rio never had a large influx of immigrants from europe who never had contact with slavery

while rio's emerging far-right seems to be focused on either maintaining or bringing back anachronistic values (and i have the impression that racism tends to be a much bigger deal there), it looks like the emerging far-right in são paulo seems to be based on a separatist sentiment instead (with northeastern migrants being seen as "the enemy" when a scapegoat is needed)


it was pretty different in brazil though. we think of the original colonists as "exploiters" rather than "conquerors", because there were no civilizations in brazil, only semi-nomadic villagers. the locals had no concept of large-scale warfare, and could barely even be enslaved (not for lack of trying), because they had no concept of "working for someone", even under threat. so this half of the continent was simply sliced and "given" to this or that guy for them to exploit the land and resources as they pleased (later giving birth to states, as each coastal slice either failed or expanded and went through different economic and migratory cycles)


that's very interesting. that alone already explains a lot


off the top of my head, i can't think of what would be the portuguese saying, so i'm not sure if it really exists. but yeah, that does describe it pretty well


lol yep. that's pretty much how it works. like with this guy, who was highly acclaimed even in his own time (when racism was most certainly open and blatant). we don't even learn anything about his race in school, we just learn that "he's our greatest writer". and if/when we do eventually learn about it, it's like "huh, really? i didn't know that", and that's it. two of his grandparents had been slaves, but he was an intellectual with a eurocentric mindset, and he looked white enough anyway. therefore, he was white


it boggles my mind how someone could even keep track of that. it just "doesn't compute"

but back to the original topic itself (or my perspective on it at least), what i wonder is what was the key difference that led race to be so fluid in brazil but so rigid in the u.s., despite the long and equally/similarly brutal period of mass slavery that both countries went through. was it the absence of organized resistance by natives in brazil (which facilitated early miscegenation and established it as the norm in terms of numbers)? was it the fact that early settlers in north america already had families? was it both? something else entirely? or was there simply no key difference and it really just has to be figured out from scratch?


...and, finally, i wonder how those differences and similarities (and the development of all those perceptions) apply or would apply to today's reality in both countries. because, no, it's not all just "gonna be alright". it's pretty obvious that the clock has moved backwards in terms of social tension (and that means an increase in crime and violence, which is probably the main reason why so many brazilians emigrated after the economy collapsed in the 80s), and in my opinion trump's election is both cause and effect. it doesn't matter if the seemingly widespread fear / tension / mistrust is justified or not, because it's there. and it can't be "shushed away" like that. any such shushing only validates and reinforces the tension and mistrust

thank you for putting into words what I couldn't, that I feel people are shushing me and mine over our quite legitimate fears, and being dismissed as "buttercups" and "snowflakes."

Well that's the thing, it's either hoaxes or something being blown out of proportion.

One person sprays graffiti on one wall and somehow that becomes a national phenomenon.

A practically unknown senator proposes a bill to make illegal crimes a crime, and that becomes all the liberals are going to be put in prison.

So far I've been impartial when it comes to political parties. But the message I'm getting from the left since after the election, is not a good one at all. To me they are becoming less and less of what I'd want to join up with.

I see even John Stewart (who has been ferociously labelled a liberal) has asked his twitter followers not to label all Trump supporters as racist. This may be true. There are plenty of republicans who simply want to punish liberals for giving in too much to minority interest groups. So you can add prejudiced, selfish and class conscious to the list of "wonderful" attributes that Donald Trump's supporters subscribe to...

there are so many people for whom "playing on the winning" team is the only important thing to them, everybody else be damned.

In four years time the trailer trash that voted Trump will still be living in trailer parks but they can tell their grandkids they were being "patriots"