Lets start with Article 5 of the Brazilian Constitution, one of the "stony" articles that can't be ammended:

In Portuguese:

Todos são iguais perante a lei, sem distinção de qualquer natureza, garantindo-se aos brasileiros e aos estrangeiros residentes no País a inviolabilidade do direito à vida, à liberdade, à igualdade, à segurança e à propriedade.


All are equal under the law, without distinction of any nature, guaranteeing to Brazilians and foreigners living in the country the sanctity of the right to life, liberty, equality, security and property.

Paragraph 04 of the very first article also states:

promover o bem de todos, sem preconceitos de origem, raça, sexo, cor, idade e quaisquer outras formas de discriminação.


To promote the general welfare, without any distinction of origin, race, gender, color, age and any other form of discrimination.

I don't think it gets any clearer than that. But all Supreme Court judges disagreed. They striked down a Motion of Direct Inconstitutionality that a political party was moving against racial quotas. Some of their declarations are plain lunacy:


Racial oppression from the years of slaveowning society [my note: slavery ended in 1888] left scars that reflect in the diferentiation of afro-descendants. The injustice of the system is absolutely intolerable. The constitution of a just and solidary society imposes to all collective the reparation of damages perpetrated by our ancestors [my note: whose ancestors is he talking about? Certainly not mine, who arrived after the end of slavery, nor that of the vast majority of Brazilians, who descend of dirt poor peasants], implying juridical obligations.

Portuguese original:
A opressão racial dos anos da sociedade escravocrata brasileira deixou cicatrizes que se refletem na diferenciação dos afro-descendentes. A injustiça do sistema é absolutamente intolerável - continuou. - A constituição de uma sociedade justa e solidária impõe a toda a coletividade a reparação danos pretéritos perpetrados por nossos antepassados, adimplindo obrigações jurídicas.

Can you guys believe in this lunacy? Over 70 public universities (that is, entirely tax-funded) have adopted racial quotas. In the most grotesque case, that of the University of Brasília, 20% of all vacancies are reserved for "black" students, regardless of their financial background. So rich black kids have been able to get admitted with less than half of the score of a poor white kid - in fact, it was one such case that motivated the action that made it to the SC. One of the Justices specifically mentioned the 20% quota as a valid action. This university is the one that has a "racial tribunal" to determine who is black enough to meet the requirment - in one notorious case, one identical twin was considered black and the other white.

I am used of being angry and ashamed of being Brazilian, but this crossed a line. I now officially hate that country and don't want to ever go back to living there. A country that never had racial seggregation, that never had anti-miscigenation laws, where the majority of the population is of mixed ethnicity - this country is imposing quotas for "afro-descendants" [aren't we all afro-descendants? Out mtDNA surely implies so]. This government - and the Justices who were overwhelmingly named by this government - are racializing Brazil, and are succeeding.

I wonder what is the way to fight back, now that the Supreme Court has said that non-black Brazilians owe a debt we never took. Should we [or rather they, because I won't live in that madhouse] refuse treatment from black doctors who came from universities with racial quotas? Refuse to hire black employees from such universities? After all, how are we to know they got their degree through merit and not by scoring less than half of everybody else? They want to racialize Brazil? I am sure they'll suceed, I am not so sure they'll like the results.

I dunno, it'd probably be pretty easy to argue that a university's internal administrative policies such as enrollment policies don't carry the force of state law, therefore the constitution doesn't apply. Otherwise you'd get into territory like arguing that recruitment based purely on test scores was discriminatory based on the nature of low achievers, etcetera. Or even that selective enrollment is inherently discriminatory, since it chooses some people and rejects others.

But yeah, rage on, sir, rage on! *lights candle*

Edit: I suppose the counter-argument is that getting state money implies a duty on the state to enforce non-discrimination, but I'm not sure that's a standard automatically implied by a funding arrangement. And again, there's still the argument that university selection policies are inherently discriminatory in the most literal sense.

But the Brazilian Constitution forbids racial discrimination even within private entities - that is, you can't (or couldn't) make race a criteria when choosing employees, students, etc. Racial discrimination is a serious crime in Brazil, for which there is mandatory jail time. For public, 100% tax funded universities to so blatantly break the law was obscene enough, now the clowns at the Supreme Court say it's OK.

I insist, they have validated a system that allows a quota based purely on racial classification, and that classification is determined by a racial tribunal - a tribunal which has determined that two identical twins belong to different races. Isn't the smell of nazi pseudo-science nauseating? It sure makes me want to throw up.

Quite frankly, a country that has racial tribunals officially sanctioned by the Supreme Court deserves to be nuked. That's my honest opinion.

Another fun story of the ongoing racialization of Brazil: during the Supreme Court vote, two indians who were protesting that the quota for indians is too small compared to the quota for blacks were forcibly removed.

That's what Brazil has been reduced to, each "race" fighting for a bigger quota. What a great idea.

I think you need to draw a distinction between the clumsy application of affirmative action and the principle of AA itself.

If there really is a "tribunal" determining ethnicity, that sounds like a pretty wack way of meeting the criteria of self-identification, community identification and ancestry. I'd also tend to argue that explicit quotas are crude and potentially stigmatising (and there's plenty of other ways you can do AA*). But it doesn't mean the principle of ensuring adequate access to higher education for members of disadvantaged groups is, a priori, a bad thing.

It's not even open-and-shut that it's discrimination, any more than having a purely "merit" (scare quotes intentional) based entry system is clearly or self-evidently non-discriminatory.

*For example: scholarships and student welfare payments, bonus marks to entry scores, soft quota sorts of systems, guaranteeing the top X% of every high school a place at a uni...

I do draw the line. As it stands, if the SC had authorized social quotas (which I also oppose) but not racial quotas I'd be happy enough with the compromise. But they have endorsed even the most disgusting practices. UnB actually has a racial tribunal, the tribunal was mentioned during the SC vote. I find that very notion disgusting. Other unis have softer, but still fundamentally wrong, racial systems (UERJ has a racial quota too, but the "blacks" must also be poor - in UnB even a black billionaire could get inside the quota).

"Race" is Brazil is damn near impossible to determine. I don't see what good can come out of trying to arbitrarily define it, and then give arbitrary bonuses (apparently in most unis the black bonus is bigger than the indian bonus, hence the protest I mentioned). It is all very nazi-esque indeed.

I don't even agree with racial quotas, but I think they are constitutional. All are equal before the law but there is the principle that if you treat two unequals equaly, you are only perpetrating the unequality and not being just. It is a principle of our law. So you should treat the unequal inversely so to achieve justice.

So the interpretation is, if there exists races as social realities with real consequences giving unequal opportunities to blacks and whites, a racial quota that benefites the blacks are legal.

Life must be hard being an upper class white guy in Brazil.

Brilliant argument contre. I'm really impressed :rolleyes:

Life must be hard being an upper class white guy in Brazil.

So, standing against racial distinctions is racist!

All are equal before the law but there is the principle that if you treat two unequals equaly, you are only perpetrating the unequality and not being just. It is a principle of our law. So you should treat the unequal inversely so to achieve justice.
So the interpretation is, if there exists races as social realities with real consequences giving unequal opportunities to blacks and whites, a racial quota that benefites the blacks are legal.

Where exactly is this principle written in the Constitution? It isn't.

And whites and blacks are not "unequals". And how can the concept of "race" exist even as a social construct in Brazil? Pray tell: to which race does your average Cearense belong? They are in average poor, they have historically been discriminated against in some places (São Paulo), but they're not really black. They're not really white either. Or indian. They're everything mixed to such point that they almost constitute a new ethnicity of their own. Am I to believe that the Cearenses with slightly darker skin deserve quotas but not the others? Some sertanejos have slightly fairer skins, some have slightly darker, are we to believe that this actually matters? That one groups deserves "compensation" but not the other? They're neighbors, they marry each other and live in the same shacks, but the ones born with slightly darker skin belong to a different race? Really?

It's pathetic, it's racializing a place where race does not exist, and it's unconstitutional.

Life must be hard being an upper class white guy in Brazil.

It's harder than being a fat american, I'll tell you that much.

But I don't see what hardship has to do with anything. Either racial discrimination is OK or it isn't. Either it's constitutional or it isn't. And it isn't, in both cases.

Either intellectual discrimination is OK and constitutional, or it isn't. One or the other.

So, standing against racial distinctions is racist!


That's what the opponents of AA keep telling us.

That's what the opponents of AA keep telling us.

It should be clear that what the Brazilian SC authorized is far more extreme than anything practiced in the US. In fact, racial quotas are illegal in the US.

What they just did was say that it's legal to reserve a given amount of vacancies for members of a specific "race", and that universities have the competency to determine to which race the candidates belong.

I don't think even you can agree with this monstrosity.

This is what you get out of "globalization": Brazil has just got stuck with one of the the most idiotic "cultural exports" the USA has produced...

It should be clear that what the Brazilian SC authorized is far more extreme than anything practiced in the US. In fact, racial quotas are illegal in the US.

What they just did was say that it's legal to reserve a given amount of vacancies for members of a specific "race", and that universities have the competency to determine to which race the candidates belong.

I don't think even you can agree with this monstrosity.

I don't know Brazilian constitutional law. Which is why I haven't commented on this further. I'm just making the point that opposition to AA has always been in support of blocking attempts to end racism.

This is what you get out of "globalization": Brazil has just got stuck with one of the the most idiotic "cultural exports" the USA has produced...
True, but isn't it funny that the people pressing for racial quotas have always been the ones who claimed to be against globalization, against "american imperialism" and "for the preservation of Brazilian culture"?

The morons who are importing American racial politics to Brazil are not the pro-American liberals, but rather the anti-american left from the Workers' Party and smaller parties further to the left (PSOL and PSTU, most notably). The right has tried to strike this down on the Supreme Court, but failed.

I don't know Brazilian constitutional law. Which is why I haven't commented on this further. I'm just making the point that opposition to AA has always been in support of blocking attempts to end racism.
You don't have to know whether its legal or not to think it's wrong.

I don't know Brazilian constitutional law. Which is why I haven't commented on this further. I'm just making the point that opposition to AA has always been in support of blocking attempts to end racism.

No, you fool. We must simply ignore racism. Then it will go away.

You don't have to know whether its legal or not to think it's wrong.


Whether that particular program was badly made I don't know without researching it. AA generally is in the best interest of everyone.

Whether that particular program was badly made I don't know without researching it. AA generally is in the best interest of everyone.

What do you think about racial quotas?

No, you fool. We must simply ignore racism. Then it will go away.

If you simply ignore race, racism will go away.

And it used to work like a charm in Brazil. Not saying there was no racism whatsoever, but there was far, far less racism than in racial-conscious USA. And Brazilian racism has always been of a less vicious nature (ie, bad jokes instead of lynchings).

@Luiz, what do you think of AA programs that are based on ethnicity, rather than physiological "race"? For Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland, for example.

What do you think about racial quotas?


The question is, will it have the eventual result of ending the pattern of racism? If it does, then the whole of the nation will be richer as a result.

Luiz, what do you think of AA programs that are based on ethnicity, rather than physiological race? For Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland, for example.

I am generally opposed. If there are barriers preventing Catholics from occupying positions in civil service or attending universities, it's much better to get rid of the barriers than creating back-door channels. Say, make the selection process for public employees or uni admission anonymous, as they are in Brazil (the person correcting the admission exams does not know the name of the candidate, and thus can't discriminate based on origin. He only sees a numerical code as ID).

The question is, will it have the eventual result of ending the pattern of racism? If it does, then the whole of the nation will be richer as a result.

The goal is not ending racism. How would it do that? If anything racism will get worse (it's already getting).

The goal is to create a "black elite". They imported the American notion that the "black community" needs qualified leadership and representation in the upper echelons of society in order to improve their lot. But the thing is, there's no such thing as "black community" in Brazil. The idea is wrong-headed in the US, in Brazil it's plain lunacy. As I wrote in my reply to Argawen, blacks are not at all a defined group. There is no "black - white" dichotomy in Brazil. Brothers from the same parents can have different classifications depending on how they look. Race in Brazil has always been very tenuously defined and based on looks, not ancestry. I went to school with two brothers, who had the same parents, and one looked white and the other dark brown. They give different answers to the "race" question in the Census, despite having exactly the same ancestry! How can it be that society owes one compensation (as one of the Justices said) but not the other?

If you simply ignore race, racism will go away.

And it used to work like a charm in Brazil. Not saying there was no racism whatsoever, but there was far, far less racism than in racial-conscious USA. And Brazilian racism has always been of a less vicious nature (ie, bad jokes instead of lynchings).

Can you cite this?

In the USA, we tried ignoring the question of race for about a century following the Civil War, not as a matter of national policy per se, but it was not considered an issue of consequence. The results were less than ideal.

As as been pointed out numerous times in the past, Brazil is one of the most racist countries in South America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Brazil

A research article published in 2011, indicated that 63.7% of the Brazilians believes that race interferes in the quality of life of the citizens. For the majority of the 15,000 interviewed, the difference between the white people's life and the nonwhite's is evident in the work (71%). In questions related to the police justice (68.3%) and the social relations (65%).[citation needed]

Results conducted in 2008, did not surprise the people in a country where, although being barely half of the Brazilian population, the black people had no more than 8% of the 513 chosen representatives in the last election year. The salary of a white man in Brazil is, on average, 46% over the one of a black man. This difference can be explained by the difference of education.[1]

Race indicators

Indicators White Brazilian Black Brazilian
Illiteracy[3] 5.9% 13.3%
University degree[4] 15.0% 4.7%
Life expectancy[5] 73.13 67.03
Unemployment[6] 5.7% 7.1%
GDP per capita[7] R$ 22,699 R$ 15,068
Homicide deaths[8] 29% 65.5%


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Exalunopreto.jpg/220px-Exalunopreto.jpg

Drawing in a wall of Fluminense Federal University, with the inscription "former black student".

Bloomberg: Brazilian Secret 93 Million Don't Want to Talk About Is Racism (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aIezjRWRd5Tk)

June 27 (Bloomberg) -- Walking to and from work was humiliating, Jose Mario da Silva Ferreira says.

For 26 years, Ferreira worked in the financial heart of Sao Paulo, South America's biggest city. And every day on Avenida Paulista, women tightened the grip on their handbags as he passed.

It wasn't his behavior, it wasn't his gray hair and it certainly wasn't his pinstriped suits. It was the color of his skin. Ferreira, 43, is black. The women reacted as though he were a purse snatcher, he says.

``You were born in Brazil; your origins are in Brazil,'' says Ferreira, who stepped down in December as economic planning manager at Cia. Brasileira de Distribuicao Grupo Pao de Acucar, Brazil's largest food retailer. He's now helping develop fundraising techniques as a volunteer for a Sao Paulo-based nonprofit group that supports health services.

``It's something you can never get used to,'' he says.

So pervasive is the perception that Brazil is a paragon of racial harmony and equality that it makes the discussion of discrimination all but impossible, says Carlos Santana, a Workers' Party legislator who represents Rio de Janeiro and heads the National Congress's Parliamentary Group to Promote Racial Equality.

``In Brazil, we can talk about anything but race,'' Santana says. ``The myth of racial democracy created a taboo.''

Some people outside of government use harsher terms.

``We have the strongest apartheid ever because people deny racism exists,'' says Humberto Adami, head of the nonprofit Institute for Racial and Environmental Laws in Rio de Janeiro. ``It's very hard to combat what is taken as nonexistent.''

Statistics paint a picture of a nation tainted by the legacy of unequal opportunities. One hundred twenty years after becoming the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery, Brazil remains divided by color. People of African descent are ``a large, impoverished and discriminated-against population,'' the Brazilian embassy in Washington said in a press release posted on its Web site in April.

That's a bunch of bollocks, Form.

For starters, it treats mixed race individuals as "blacks". The socio-economic indicators of "brown" Brazilians (who are the biggest group) are actually worse than those of "black" brazilians (a minority). If it was all about race this would be impossible to explain. To "fix" this obvious flaw in their reasoning, what advocates of racial quotas have done is to classify everyone in just two groups: white and black. But this makes no sense in Brazil! There is no "black-white" dichotomy in Brazil. It's a sleazy trick.

Luiz, that interpretation of the equality clause is the same that permits, for example, progressive taxation. or other forms of inverse discrimination. It has been the jurisprudence in Brazil at least since Rui Barbosa.
On other point, I agree with you that miscegenation here is too high for us to speak simple in whites and blacks, but you are not really saying that there are no racial prejudicies in Brazil, are you?

Luiz, that interpretation of the equality clause is the same that permits, for example, progressive taxation. or other forms of inverse discrimination. It has been the jurisprudence in Brazil at least since Rui Barbosa.
On other point, I agree with you that miscegenation here is too high for us to speak simple in whites and blacks, but you are not really saying that there are no racial prejudicies in Brazil, are you?

Not all forms of discrimination are banned by the Constitution. Discrimination on the grounds of race or color is banned, explicitly. Progressive taxation is explicitly allowed by the Constitution, as is giving some privileges to physically disabled people, like special parking spaces. The point being they actually have lower capabilities than the "normal" population. Blacks don't.

BTW, can't you see that once we accept that it's impossible to talk of "whites and blacks" in Brazil the racial quota system becomes a complete travesty?

As for racial discrimination, of course it exists. But nobody was ever denied or in any way harmed in their efforts to get accepted at an university or get a public job because of their "race" in Brazil. Therefore, the quotas are completely uncalled for.

This kind of stuff just makes me mad. This is racism, simple as that. This kind of stuff does not make any sense in a country that is racially as mixed as Brazil. (On the other hand I dont know if it would make sense in any country) You think you gonna end racism by making racist legislation? These kind of things can only make things worse. Nothing good can come out this.

They should just make programs to help poor people of all races. If blacks are poorer than others they would benefit from it more.

They should just make programs to help poor people of all races. If blacks are poorer than others they would benefit from it more.

Exactly! The racialists who support racial quotas always point to statistics "proving" that blacks are poorer (and sometimes they use quite sloppy statistics, like mixing "browns" and "blacks"). Well, if that's the case, isn't it obvious that any policy aimed at helping poor people (say improving the quality of our atrocious basic public schools) would help a disproportional amount of blacks? So why introduce race in the equation? They are creating a huge problem without any benefit!

Why do you keep trying to make a distinction between "blacks" and "browns" in this and another recent discussion?

For starters, it treats mixed race individuals as "blacks". The socio-economic indicators of "brown" Brazilians (who are the biggest group) are actually worse than those of "black" brazilians (a minority).

Exactly! The racialists who support racial quotas always point to statistics "proving" that blacks are poorer (and sometimes they use quite sloppy statistics, like mixing "browns" and "blacks").Are you claiming that one of the groups is discriminated against while the other isn't? Why does your own government fail to make such a distinction?

People of African descent are ``a large, impoverished and discriminated-against population,'' the Brazilian embassy in Washington said in a press release posted on its Web site in April.Are they "racialists" as well?

The Economist: Affirming a divide (http://www.economist.com/node/21543494)

Black Brazilians are much worse off than they should be. But what is the best way to remedy that?

Neither separate nor equal

In the 2010 census some 51% of Brazilians defined themselves as black or brown. On average, the income of whites is slightly more than double that of black or brown Brazilians, according to IPEA, a government-linked think-tank. It finds that blacks are relatively disadvantaged in their level of education and in their access to health and other services. For example, more than half the people in Rio de Janeiro’s favelas (slums) are black. The comparable figure in the city’s richer districts is just 7%.

Brazilians have long argued that blacks are poor only because they are at the bottom of the social pyramid—in other words, that society is stratified by class, not race. But a growing number disagree. These “clamorous” differences can only be explained by racism, according to Mário Theodoro of the federal government’s secretariat for racial equality. In a passionate and sometimes angry debate, black Brazilian activists insist that slavery’s legacy of injustice and inequality can only be reversed by affirmative-action policies, of the kind found in the United States.

But for the proponents of affirmative action, the veiled quality of Brazilian racism explains why racial stratification has been ignored for so long. “In Brazil you have an invisible enemy. Nobody’s racist. But when your daughter goes out with a black, things change,” says Ivanir dos Santos, a black activist in Rio de Janeiro. If black and white youths with equal qualifications apply to be a shop assistant in a Rio mall, the white will get the job, he adds.

For black activists, the next target is the labour market. “As a black man, when I go for a job I start from a disadvantage,” says Mr Theodoro. He notes that the United States, which is only 12% black, has a black president and numerous black politicians and millionaires. In Brazil, in contrast, “we have nobody”. That is not quite true: apart from footballers and singers, Brazil has a black supreme-court justice (appointed by Lula) and senior military and police officers. But they are exceptional. Only one of the 38 members of Ms Rousseff’s cabinet is black (though ten are women). Stand outside the adjacent headquarters of Petrobras, the state oil company, and the National Development Bank in Rio at lunchtime, and “all the managers are white and the cleaners are black,” says Frei David.

The hardest task is to change attitudes. Many Brazilians simply assume blacks belong at the bottom of the pile. Supporters of affirmative action are right to say that the country turned its back on the problem. But American-style policies might not be the way to combat Brazil’s specific forms of racism. A combination of stronger legal action against discrimination and quotas for social class in higher education to compensate for weak public schools may work better.

But the thing is, there's no such thing as "black community" in Brazil. The idea is wrong-headed in the US, in Brazil it's plain lunacy. As I wrote in my reply to Argawen, blacks are not at all a defined group. There is no "black - white" dichotomy in Brazil. Brothers from the same parents can have different classifications depending on how they look. Race in Brazil has always been very tenuously defined and based on looks, not ancestry.

Indeed. There are different communities, but they're not built on something as crude as skin color. Though, with policies like this, that kind of racism will be created.
One has to wonder it that's not the goal, seeing as the self-proclaimed "anti-racists" are the ones raising this. They are the only ones who will benefit from racism.

As as been pointed out numerous times in the past, Brazil is one of the most racist countries in South America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Brazil

Pointed out by whom? Oh, right...

... Institute for Racial and Environmental Laws...
... federal government’s secretariat for racial equality...
... black activists...

Interesting how all these are people whose jobs and influence depend on having racism around!

And quoting The Economist? Really? That stinking piece of british pseudo-elitist garbage, a collection of anonymous opinion pieces written by snobby Oxford graduates for the consolation of self-righteous bankers and politicians?

I've always said that affirmative action is discrimination/segregation in reverse.

This is not going to be the most substantive post in the world, but I do want to say a few things.

Yes, the quotas are messed up, but I am surprised that the OP now "hates" his country. there are blatantly unconstitutional laws all over the place here, and I don't hate the country.... all it does is make me more engaged in politics in order to try and fix things.


As far as racism in Brazil, I would take anything a foreign NGO says about racism in a Latin country with a grain of salt. They can't possibly understand how Latinos actually feel about race.... it is very different from Europe or North America, however - that said, there is a tremendous amount of denial of racism in latin america.... it is part of the very identity of what it means to be Latino.

Why do you keep trying to make a distinction between "blacks" and "browns" in this and another recent discussion?

Eh, because such distinction is critical when talking about Brazil? Because "brown" (pardo) is an official racial classification employed by the Brazilian Government, and the people who self-classify as brown do not consider themselves to be black? Because millions of "brown" Brazilians don't have a single drop of black blood, descending from Portuguese settlers and indian women?

The only reason browns and blacks are mixed in those statistics is to create the impression that there is a "white/black" divide in Brazil. There isn't. And if there were, it would be a "white/brown" divide, because blacks are a small minority. As I've said countless times, "race" is a very tenous and fluid concept in Brazil (and Latin America as a whole), with many shades and no clear border. Before IBGE standardised racial classifications, Brazilians would self-classify in over 1,000 different categories. This goes to show how ridiculous the dichotomy is.


Are you claiming that one of the groups is discriminated against while the other isn't? Why does your own government fail to make such a distinction?

Yes, I am claiming that it's completely wrong to claim the racial experience of blacks and browns (and browns among themselves) is similar. It isn't, at all.


Are they "racialists" as well?

The Economist: Affirming a divide (http://www.economist.com/node/21543494)
Yes they are, but even they recognise racial quotas are a terrible idea.


Indeed. There are different communities, but they're not built on something as crude as skin color. Though, with policies like this, that kind of racism will be created.
One has to wonder it that's not the goal, seeing as the self-proclaimed "anti-racists" are the ones raising this. They are the only ones who will benefit from racism.
Precisely!

I can witness first hand that since the introduction of racial quotas, racial discussion and animosity has increased tenfold in Brazil. It's an obvious result when a poor "white" kid who scored twice as much as a rich "black" kid does not get accepted at a public Uni but the "black" kid does. And their races being determined by a tribunal! How the hell is that not going to cause huge problems?

Your last point was spot-on as well. The "black activists" who are pushing for the introduction of racist legislation want racism to increase. They would love for some misguided white students to beat up black students accepted through quotas. They wany conflict, they want tension, because it will only increase their power, which is already tremendous. At UnB [seriously, someone nuke UnB] professors who spoke out against the quota system were booed out of class, threatened and "exposed" as racists. And the direction of the university did nothing in fear of suffering similar retaliation by the "black movement". It's a surreal situation that no Brazilian could even dream of 15 years ago.



Pointed out by whom? Oh, right...

... Institute for Racial and Environmental Laws...
... federal government’s secretariat for racial equality...
... black activists...

Interesting how all these are people whose jobs and influence depend on having racism around!

:trophy2:

Why are black Brazilians, on the whole, poorer?

Define Black Brazilians please.

Why do you keep trying to make a distinction between "blacks" and "browns" in this and another recent discussion?

Because there is a huge difference. If you look this from US perspective, you get it totally wrong. I think you are presuming that things are similar in Brazil and in US, when they are totally different. Brazil has not historically had this clear dual divide between "black" and "white". In Brazil its much more complex. There also has not been recent racist legislation so there is very little basis for any kind of "race" based legislation.

This just brings Brazil to the level of idiocracy we see in US. I thought Brazilians were better than this, but it seems they are going for a totally wrong direction. There would be so much better ways to deal these kind of problems. Just help all the poor people no matter what they look like. This kind of legislation is totally idiotic in a country, where most people are racially mixed.

Can you cite this?

In the USA, we tried ignoring the question of race for about a century following the Civil War, not as a matter of national policy per se, but it was not considered an issue of consequence. The results were less than ideal.

You get it totally wrong. You forget that "blacks" didnt have same rights as "whites" in US. There was legislation that prevented "blacks" from getting education or voting for example. There were no Jim Crow laws in Brazil.

Why are black Brazilians, on the whole, poorer?

They aren't. Brown Brazilians are poorer.

Edit: But to give the kind of answer you were hoping for: it's obvious that historical factors matter. Who are black Brazilians? Descendants from slaves. Where were most slaves located? In poor, backwards states such as Bahia (Brazil's blackest state). States that did not develop an industrial economy. The most advanced Brazilian states - São Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul, Paraná and Santa Catarina, where industrialization took hold, historically had virtually no black population, because they never had a slave-based economy (today SP has many blacks because of internal migration). As sociologist Demétro Magnoli demonstrated in his excellent Uma Gota de Sangue (One Drop of Blood), once you control for state of residency there is virtually no income difference between Brazilian racial groups. A white man from São Paulo or Rio Grande do Sul is on average much richer than a white guy from Bahia or Maranhão, states with a very small white population and a gigantic poverty problem.

Does this make sense? Isn't it clear that race is correlated with some inequalities, but is not at all a driving force?

Both groups can be different degrees of poorer.

Why are they?

See edit above, copied and expanded below:

But to give the kind of answer you were hoping for: it's obvious that historical factors matter. Who are black Brazilians? Descendants from slaves. Where were most slaves located? In poor, backwards states such as Bahia (Brazil's blackest state). States that did not develop an industrial economy. The most advanced Brazilian states - São Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul, Paraná and Santa Catarina, where industrialization took hold, historically had virtually no black population, because they never had a slave-based economy (today SP has many blacks because of internal migration). As sociologist Demétro Magnoli demonstrated in his excellent Uma Gota de Sangue (One Drop of Blood), once you control for state of residency there is virtually no income difference between Brazilian racial groups. A white man from São Paulo or Rio Grande do Sul is on average much richer than a white guy from Bahia or Maranhão, states with a very small white population and a gigantic poverty problem. The whitest states, the ones in the South, are precisely the ones with the best socio-economic indicators. Why? Because their economy was never about exporting a monoculture cultivated by hordes of slaves. Those states were populated by Italians and Germans who arrived in the 19th and 20th Century, bringing with them more modern agricultural techniques and - most importantly - industrial know-how. It's no surprise the overwhelming majority of Brazilian industrial conglomerates originated in the SP-South axis.

Does this make sense? Isn't it clear that race is correlated with some inequalities, but is not at all a driving force?

Hmm. So within, say, Sao Paulo or Bahia, is then your contention that there is no difference in incomes between different racial groups (or in other measures of disadvantage such as health and education indicators)? (I have no background on this, so am just asking)

Yes, pretty much. There's also the extreme wealth concentration effect: the richest 1% of Brazilians (virtually all white) has a higher income than the poorest 40% (the difference in total wealth is even more drastic). This distorts things a bit even within the states.

But regional inequality is by far the largest factor. 75% of all white Brazilians live in the Center-South (rich region), while 53% of all black and brown Brazilians live in the North-Northeast (poor region). The blacks from the Center-South have a higher average income than the whites from the North-Northeast. 45% of all whites living in the North-Northeast are poor, while only 28% of all blacks living in the Center-South are poor. Those stats, while publically available, will never make way to the NGOs Forma quoted, and much less to the Ministry of Racial Equality (yes, we have that).

Your last point was spot-on as well. The "black activists" who are pushing for the introduction of racist legislation want racism to increase. They would love for some misguided white students to beat up black students accepted through quotas. They wany conflict, they want tension, because it will only increase their power, which is already tremendous. At UnB [seriously, someone nuke UnB] professors who spoke out against the quota system were booed out of class, threatened and "exposed" as racists. And the direction of the university did nothing in fear of suffering similar retaliation by the "black movement". It's a surreal situation that no Brazilian could even dream of 15 years ago.

I'm not surprised, I saw some people trying to pull the same trick in Portugal some 15-10 years ago. Though it never got as far as "positive discrimination laws", it just landed them some cozy jobs in "observatories of racism" as such, producing crap statistics. The "racism" problem here with different treatment of "blacks" was in fact different treatment of recent african immigrants. Which fortunately abated in the due course of time, though obviously they are still "underrepresented" in politics, among the wealthy, etc - as one should expect of any immigrant contingent brought in essentially as "cheap labor" and coming from less developed countries. Social mobility takes time. And Portugal is, unfortunately, now a rather rigid country in social mobility.

Social mobility in Brazil, among those internal migrants crossing state borders looking for a better life, will also take time - I don't know how much, but it always does, everywhere. The explanation you posted makes sense.

That's a bunch of bollocks, Form.

For starters, it treats mixed race individuals as "blacks". The socio-economic indicators of "brown" Brazilians (who are the biggest group) are actually worse than those of "black" brazilians (a minority). If it was all about race this would be impossible to explain. To "fix" this obvious flaw in their reasoning, what advocates of racial quotas have done is to classify everyone in just two groups: white and black. But this makes no sense in Brazil! There is no "black-white" dichotomy in Brazil. It's a sleazy trick.

Eh, because such distinction is critical when talking about Brazil? Because "brown" (pardo) is an official racial classification employed by the Brazilian Government, and the people who self-classify as brown do not consider themselves to be black? Because millions of "brown" Brazilians don't have a single drop of black blood, descending from Portuguese settlers and indian women?I'd like to see some actual data that "browns" are more discriminated against, and hence poorer, than "blacks". How the government of Brazil supposedly cannot tell the difference between people of "African descent" and those whites who intermarried with Indians only.

Because there is a huge difference. If you look this from US perspective, you get it totally wrong. I think you are presuming that things are similar in Brazil and in US, when they are totally different. Brazil has not historically had this clear dual divide between "black" and "white". In Brazil its much more complex. There also has not been recent racist legislation so there is very little basis for any kind of "race" based legislation.
The Economist article I posted earlier points out the same facts. That is is indeed a different matter than is being approached by many in similar ways. But the articles also make quite clear there is actually a "clear dual divide" among blacks and whites. That blacks continue to be the victims of apartheid and racial discrimination. That these measures are an attempt to address those factors.

Miami Herald: A great divide (http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/afrolatin/part3/index.html)

Brazil's public self-image of a 'racial democracy' is being challenged as black Brazilians struggle to overturn centuries of racism


RIO DE JANEIRO -- Aleixo Joaquim da Silva was working in this city's famed seaside Copacabana neighborhood, far from the slum where he lives, when he was reminded that racism is alive and well.

While refurbishing the service elevator of a high-rise apartment building, da Silva had to ride the elevator reserved for residents to fetch supplies. A white woman entered and, taken aback, ordered him out.

" 'I'm not riding with a black!' she told me. 'The place of blacks is in the service elevator!'" da Silva recalled.

Although black Brazilians have long endured such insults, many are deciding that they have had enough. The 50-year-old reported the woman to state authorities and had her convicted for breaking laws prohibiting discrimination.

It was a small victory for da Silva, but he's part of a growing movement in this country of 190 million people -- it has the world's second-largest black population, behind Nigeria's -- to turn back centuries of pervasive and largely unchallenged racism.

From university classrooms to television airwaves, black Brazilians are fighting for what they say is long-denied space in a society that has kept them on the margins.

They are pushing for two affirmative-action bills in Brazil's Congress that would open up college enrollment and government payrolls to more Brazilians of African descent. Already, many state universities have implemented their own affirmative-action programs.

And Brazilians are finally discussing race after decades of telling themselves and the rest of the world that the country was free from racism, said Sen. Paulo Paim, author of one of the pending affirmative-action bills.

"The Brazilian elite says this is not a racist country, but if you look at whatever social indicator, you'll see exclusion is endemic," he said. "We want to open up to more Brazilians the legitimate spaces they deserve."

Starting in the 16th century, Portuguese slave traders sent about 5.5 million Africans to Brazil, with more than 3.3 million surviving the journey, according to historians. Brazil abolished slavery in 1888, the last country in the Americas to do so.

That African legacy is clear in census numbers. About half of Brazilians identified themselves in a 2005 survey as black or pardo, meaning a mix of races but predominantly white and black. Another half identified themselves as white, and less than 1 percent were Asian or indigenous.

"I have never seen any evidence that suggests anything other than there's widespread racism in Brazil," said UCLA sociology professor Edward Telles, who studies race in Brazil. "Racial and social inequality are strongly linked."

Jailson de Souza e Silva, who runs a Rio de Janeiro anti-violence advocacy group, said the split is stark in his city's violence-torn slums, where blacks make up the majority of residents. Two-thirds of the country's homicide victims in 2004 were black.

"The objective here is not to preserve life, and hundreds of black men are dying every year," de Souza e Silva said. "Meanwhile, in the rich, white parts of the city, every single death is big news. Our lives clearly don't have equal value."

As the article points out, most "Pardos" are not predominately Amerindian and European:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardo

Genomic ancestry of non-related individuals in Rio de Janeiro"[6]

Colour Number of individuals Amerindian African European
White 107 6.7% 6.9% 86.4%
Pardo 119 8.3% 23.6% 68.1%
Black 109 7.3% 50.9% 41.8%The percentage of people who are Amerindian in this Brazilian study of inhabitants of Rio de Janeiro are almost evenly split among the "whites" the "Pardos", and the "blacks". Those who consider themselves to be "black" are predominately African, and those who consider themselves to be "Pardo" are far more African than they are Amerindian.

Another study showed the "Pardos" to be over 80% European:

According to another autosomal DNA study conducted on a school in the poor periphery of Rio de Janeiro the "pardos" there were found to be on average over 80% European, and the "whites" (who thought of themselves as "very mixed") were found out to carry very little Amerindian and/or African admixtures. "The results of the tests of genomic ancestry are quite different from the self made estimates of European ancestry", say the researchers. In general, the test results showed that European ancestry is far more important than the students thought it would be. The "pardos" for example thought of themselves as 1/3 European, 1/3 African and 1/3 Amerindian before the tests, and yet their ancestry was determined to be at over 80% European.[10][11]

I'd like to see some actual data that "browns" are more discriminated against, and hence poorer, than "blacks". How the government of Brazil supposedly cannot tell the difference between people of "African descent" and those whites who intermarried with Indians only.

No one said they are "more discriminated against". What has been said is that they, as a (arbitrarily constructed) group, are individually poorer on average that other "color groups" you may build. (I won't pretend to know whether or not that is true)

The Economist article I posted earlier points out the same facts. That is is indeed a different matter than is being approached by many in similar ways. But the articles also make quite clear there is actually a "clear dual divide" among blacks and whites. That blacks continue to be the victims of apartheid and racial discrimination. That these measures are an attempt to address those factors.

The percentage of people who are Amerindian in this Brazilian study of inhabitants of Rio de Janeiro are almost evenly split among the "whites" the "Pardos", and the "blacks". Those who consider themselves to be "black" are predominately African, and those who consider themselves to be "Pardo" are far more African than they are Amerindian.

Another study showed the "Pardos" to be over 80% European:

Shooting yourself in the foot much?

Who is being discriminated against, again? The "true blacks", or those "80% european blacks", or what? I mean, this is supposed to be a dual divide as per The Economist's oh-so-wise opinion makers...

Once again, according to the Brazilian government, and apparently the vast majority of objective experts in such matters, it is those who are descended from Africans, many of whom were originally slaves.

Is it really that surprising given that such discrimination still occurs in many countries where an informal caste system based on the relative color of your skin has been in place for centuries? Why should the country which was the last to abandon slavery in South America be any different?

Al Jazeera:

AASusCA0XVA

BBC:

QUdCIfPEJdE

...Brazil was built on the back of the largest forced migration in history. North America is well known for it's slave-owning past. But this South American country received 10 times as many, 4 million Africans. Why did Brazil become the largest slave-owning country? Why does it rank among the cruelest regimes of the past few centuries? Why is it a story that some still prefer not to tell?

Joao Jose Reis, Historian, University of Bahia:

Slavery is an inconvenient history for the Brazilian elite. There is no doubt about that. And they don't want this issue to be discussed.

I still dont understand why some poor person with lighter skin should be treated worse than rich dark skinned person. Give more money to regions where most blacks or poor live.

The bottom line is that there are no "white race" or "black race" in Brazil in any meaningfull way. Most people are heavily mixed and this solely makes any race based legislation totally idiotic. It creates situations where one brother can be considered white and other brother can be considered black.

I'm still quite frankly flabbergasted that proponents of AA still argue in favor of racially-based programs rather than economically-based ones.

The former seems like such a simplistic and medieval thought process.

I'd like to see some actual data that "browns" are more discriminated against, and hence poorer, than "blacks". How the government of Brazil supposedly cannot tell the difference between people of "African descent" and those whites who intermarried with Indians only.

Uh, nobody said anything about "browns" being more discriminated against than blacks. What I claimed, and took from the publically-available 2004 PNAD (http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/trabalhoerendimento/pnad2004/default.shtm) (a household research carried out by the government), is that "browns" are actually poorer than blacks (or at least were in 2004). The data is the following:

Average income of employed people over 10 years of age, by color:
-Yellow: 7.4 times the minimum wage;
-White: 3.8 times the minimum wage;
-Black: 2.1 times the minimum wage;
-Brown (Pardo): 2.0 times the minimum wage.

It's also noteworthy that Brazilians of Asian origin are much wealthier than white Brazilians (which goes to show that those differences come from geographic and historical factors, not racism. Asians are overwhelmingly located in São Paulo and Paraná, two of the very most advanced Brazilian states).

As for the government "not being able to tell the difference", the thing is the census is based on self-classification. People who choose "pardo" are saying that they don't think of themselves as white, black, yellow or indian. Originally, "pardo" meant someone of mixed white, black and indian heritage. Today it can mean anything not quite white, black or indian. It varies a lot by region, as I'll expand below.


The Economist article I posted earlier points out the same facts. That is is indeed a different matter than is being approached by many in similar ways. But the articles also make quite clear there is actually a "clear dual divide" among blacks and whites. That blacks continue to be the victims of apartheid and racial discrimination. That these measures are an attempt to address those factors.

There is absolutely no clear divide between blacks and whites in Brazil, anyone who says otherwise is clueless. A quick glance at the stats I posted should dispell this laughable myth, like the fact that blacks from the Center-South are in average richer than whites from the North-Northeast.

As for apartheid: :lol:

About 80% of the Brazilian population has non-white ancestors.


As the article points out, most "Pardos" are not predominately Amerindian and European:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardo

The percentage of people who are Amerindian in this Brazilian study of inhabitants of Rio de Janeiro are almost evenly split among the "whites" the "Pardos", and the "blacks". Those who consider themselves to be "black" are predominately African, and those who consider themselves to be "Pardo" are far more African than they are Amerindian.

Another study showed the "Pardos" to be over 80% European:
It varies a lot by region. You chose Rio de Janeiro, the greatest slaving port in the history of mankind. Of course most pardos here have more black genes than indian. But that's not at all the case in other places. Look at Belém, in the Northern Region (from the same article you quoted):
Genomic ancestry of individuals in Belém Sérgio Pena et al 2011 .[12]
colour amerindian african european
white 14.1% 7.7% 78.2%
pardo 20.9% 10.6% 68.6%
black 20.1% 27.5% 52.4%
total 19.4% 10.9% 69.7%

As you can see the amerindina contribution on pardo individuals is twice as important as the african contribution.

They aren't. Brown Brazilians are poorer.

Edit: But to give the kind of answer you were hoping for: it's obvious that historical factors matter. Who are black Brazilians? Descendants from slaves. Where were most slaves located? In poor, backwards states such as Bahia (Brazil's blackest state). States that did not develop an industrial economy. The most advanced Brazilian states - São Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul, Paraná and Santa Catarina, where industrialization took hold, historically had virtually no black population, because they never had a slave-based economy (today SP has many blacks because of internal migration). As sociologist Demétro Magnoli demonstrated in his excellent Uma Gota de Sangue (One Drop of Blood), once you control for state of residency there is virtually no income difference between Brazilian racial groups. A white man from São Paulo or Rio Grande do Sul is on average much richer than a white guy from Bahia or Maranhão, states with a very small white population and a gigantic poverty problem.

Does this make sense? Isn't it clear that race is correlated with some inequalities, but is not at all a driving force?As expected, Brazil is similar to Venezuela and likely all of South America in this aspect.

I feel bad for Luiz having to go to such great lengths to explain all this. :lol: I assume Pardo is Portuguese equivalent of "Moreno".

Well, to be perfectly honest, historically slavery did led to some forms of racism in Brasil: in the 17th century it was possible for black soldiers to ascent to the low nobility (not to mention the existence of black soldiers itself); no longer so after the beginning of the 18th century, as the slavery system grew. Being black was associated with having ancestors who had been slaves, and that was something the snobbish nobility wold not tolerate among their peers...

Blacks, indians, and "pardos" did, however, continue to have social mobility outside the nobility; not only did slaves got freed frequently, there was a large population of such free citizens who were themselves rich enough to be slave owners. I don't know how it was in colonial spanish america, but I', guessing it was pretty much the same: race (insofar as it indicated ancestry) really mattered for the nobility.

I won't pretend to know more recent brazilian history well, but I do believe that this remained essentially unaltered until the end of slavery. I do know that after the end of slavery the plantation owners who had been used slaved then went on to recruit europeans as workers for a replacement: not explicitly for "making Brazil white" (I think that was kind of a post-hoc reasoning) but because with the slave trade interrupted that became the cheapest way to get workers. And then proceeded to exploit them as much as possible: slavery was abolished, but the systems of economic domination exploitation, regardless of skin color. Outright ownership of the workers was replaced with the "plantation shop" system where the immigrants brought in would be eternally kept in debt and "chained" to their master that way.
So, it seems to me that even in 9th century Brazil the system had not been about skin color in the first place, but about greed and satisfying it as easily as possible. That's why the areas with the most poorer people happen to be those where this system had prevailed for so long, and thus where the descendants of slaves, mixed with those other immigrants, are concentrated. This greed, of course, must have been a common feature also in North America's slavery system.

Having shared these speculations above, I wonder if the civil war, its legacy of resentment, was not the main cause for a mix between the poor black and whites in the US's south not happening after the abolition of slavery? If the civil war's legacy wasn't the actual cause of enduring racism there?

There is absolutely no clear divide between blacks and whites in Brazil, anyone who says otherwise is clueless.

I'm sorry but I have read your posts here and I cannot believe that we live in the same country.

There is an enormous amount of racism in Brazil. The non-white population suffer from racism and discrimination. They do not receive a good education and so cannot compete for the university places and therefore cannot compete for the good jobs. Of course this is about class too, poor white people have the same disadvantages, but race is mixed with class. What I mean is that people have a lot of predujice against the poor here and most poor people happen to be non-white.

Ask yourself this, what colour is your doctor and your lawyer? And what colour is your gardener and your maid? If you work in a company, your boss will be white and the cleaner non-white. If you are at university, your professor will be white and the security guard will be non-white. etc. etc.

I use myself as an example. I am white, but live in a 'comunidade', my wife is black and is from a middle class family. The treatment we receive is so different. If we go into a nice shop in say, Copacabana, I will get good treatment, nothing is too much trouble for the staff. If my wife goes into the same shop, she will be followed by the security and made to feel uncomfortable. The difference is that I am white and my wife is black and wears her hair 'natural'. If the discrimination were class based, I would be the one who suffered the discrimination.

Or let's say that I need to visit an office for my work, I will have no problems getting in, I will not be stopped at the gate and asked what I am doing here. Yet if my black neighbour goes to the same building he would get stopped, made to wait for a long time, many phonecalls and checks before he is allowed to enter. Likewise if my neighbour and I compete for the same job, I will be preferred because of the colour of my skin.

People who say there is no racism here need to open their eyes.

By the way, I actually agree with you that racial quotas are not the way to solve the issues that the non-white population have in education. The real solution is make the public eduction good, so children can compete on merit, but we all know that is not going to happen.

I'm sorry but I have read your posts here and I cannot believe that we live in the same country.
I take that as a compliment.


There is an enormous amount of racism in Brazil.

No, there isn't. There is a small amount. It exists, but is not part of ordinary life and is much milder than in most places. Have you ever been abroad?


The non-white population suffer from racism and discrimination.

Actually, "yellow" Brazilians, who are of course non-white, make twice as much as white Brazilians on average and are also much better educated.


They do not receive a good education and so cannot compete for the university places and therefore cannot compete for the good jobs. Of course this is about class too, poor white people have the same disadvantages, but race is mixed with class. What I mean is that people have a lot of predujice against the poor here and most poor people happen to be non-white.

Poor people in general receive a poor education, regardless of race. Race is correlated, but is not a cause. If you go to a public school in the South most students will be white and they'll still be receiving a bad education.

Nobody denies poor people have it bad in Brazil, what everyones with a brain denies is that race-based solutions are the way to go.


Ask yourself this, what colour is your doctor and your lawyer?

I have many doctors. Most are whites, one is black and one is asian.
My lawyer is from Manaus and has a very indian look.


And what colour is your gardener and your maid?

I always lived in apartments so no gardeners. As for maids, I've had white ones, black ones and above all mixed race ones. The babysitter who raised me was pale white. It's a myth propagated by PT types that "black is the color of poverty". Most white Brazilians are poor and have crappy jobs too, you know.


If you work in a company, your boss will be white and the cleaner non-white. If you are at university, your professor will be white and the security guard will be non-white. etc. etc.

Nonsense. I had black professors. Most were obviously mixed-race. My boss is white, but so is the cleaner. There are black managers in my company.


I use myself as an example. I am white, but live in a 'comunidade', my wife is black and is from a middle class family. The treatment we receive is so different. If we go into a nice shop in say, Copacabana, I will get good treatment, nothing is too much trouble for the staff. If my wife goes into the same shop, she will be followed by the security and made to feel uncomfortable. The difference is that I am white and my wife is black and wears her hair 'natural'. If the discrimination were class based, I would be the one who suffered the discrimination.

That's hard to believe. I work in an industrial company so sometimes I dress in "industry outfits". I have on a couple occasions gone directly from on site work to nice shopping districts and noticed sales people would ignore me, and I am quite white. I never noticed any properly dressed black person being treated differently in a shop. It's all about perceived financial status, not skin color.


Or let's say that I need to visit an office for my work, I will have no problems getting in, I will not be stopped at the gate and asked what I am doing here. Yet if my black neighbour goes to the same building he would get stopped, made to wait for a long time, many phonecalls and checks before he is allowed to enter. Likewise if my neighbour and I compete for the same job, I will be preferred because of the colour of my skin.

That's bollocks. I am stopped all the time by security. I have blonde friends who can't get behing wheels without being stopped by guards, because they fit the "surfer-pothead" stereotype. True, some black people will be subjcet to more harassment from security, if they fit certain stereotypes like "pagodeiro", "funkeiro", etc. A well dressed black person is not likely to face any hard time in Brazil.


People who say there is no racism here need to open their eyes.
There is, it's just not an overwhelming part of everyday life.

People who say there is no racism here need to open their eyes.Indeed. Some have been claiming it doesn't exist in Brazil for decades, just as they continue to do in the US and most any other country where it is still pervasive.

By the way, I actually agree with you that racial quotas are not the way to solve the issues that the non-white population have in education. The real solution is make the public eduction good, so children can compete on merit, but we all know that is not going to happen.That is also quite likely true, and I would tend to agree myself that racial quotas are not the best way to do so. But there is great reluctance from many to effectively change things while giving lip service to equal educational opportunities to minorities.

Forced desegregation of the public schools was a very painful period in the South for decades, but it was really the only way to make even modest gains from the days of forced segregation to de facto segregation. But now, de facto segregation is again creating a double standard in educational opportunities for many. While the Fair Housing Act and other measures have had some positive effect, much of the US is still segregated racially to a great degree, and the public schools in the minority neighborhoods are typically substandard compared to the ones elsewhere.

My objection here is not whether or not-US style affirmative action programs from the 70s can help alleviate the disparities and racism in Brazil. It is the notion that racism is not still a major problem that must be addressed, instead of continuing to be ignored by many. First you must admit there is a widespread problem, as the Brazilian government and virtually all experts in racism continue to publicly do. Then you can find the best ways of finally eliminating it.

In the 2010 census some 51% of Brazilians defined themselves as black or brown. On average, the income of whites is slightly more than double that of black or brown Brazilians, according to IPEA, a government-linked think-tank. It finds that blacks are relatively disadvantaged in their level of education and in their access to health and other services. For example, more than half the people in Rio de Janeiro’s favelas (slums) are black. The comparable figure in the city’s richer districts is just 7%.



That sounds about right. It's also interesting that there is a divide in the favelas too. For example I live near to the coast and my community is fairly mixed. However if you visit a favela in the city centre or Tijuca, the population is darker, if you go to the zona norte, say the Complexo de Alemão, it is not common to see a white face.

In the 1970s the government made an effort to move some of the black population out of the richer areas, using 'slum clearances' (the people were ordered to leave and then 'mysterious' fires would break out). These people were pushed northwards and westwards.

White slum dwellers were pushed out just as black slum dwellers. Race played no role in the clearances. Slum dwellers in general face discrimantion, because nobody likes living next to a favela.

Btw, a very large part of the favelas' population came from states like Ceará and Paraíba, meaning they aren't black, but rather of undefined racial background. They certainly don't think of themselves as black.

Edit: if you don't mind indulging my curiosity, I take it you live in one of the recently "pacified" communities. Are you guys paying IPTU nowadays? What about electricity bills?

No, there isn't. There is a small amount. It exists, but is not part of ordinary life and is much milder than in most places. Have you ever been abroad?

Yes I lived in the UK for some time. I think that there was racism there, but less than in Brazil. I also found that people were prepared to talk about it and not deny its existence or hide behind platidudes.

Actually, "yellow" Brazilians, who are of course non-white, make twice as much as white Brazilians on average and are also much better educated.

'Yellow' Brazilians are a very small minority and concentrated in certain, richer, areas. I don't think it is helpful to respond to complaints that non-whites are worse off in Brazil by pointing to a group that is less than 1% of the population.

Poor people in general receive a poor education, regardless of race. Race is correlated, but is not a cause. If you go to a public school in the South most students will be white and they'll still be receiving a bad education.

Nobody denies poor people have it bad in Brazil, what everyones with a brain denies is that race-based solutions are the way to go.

Which is exactly what I said. People are predujiced against the poor, but there is a racial element as well. The two are linked. So that when a security guard, for example, sees a black woman with curly hair, he thinks 'favelada - maybe she will steal something or cause some problem, I will follow her...'

That's hard to believe. I work in an industrial company so sometimes I dress in "industry outfits". I have on a couple occasions gone directly from on site work to nice shopping districts and noticed sales people would ignore me, and I am quite white. I never noticed any properly dressed black person being treated differently in a shop. It's all about perceived financial status, not skin color.

Well my wife has experienced it, and not just once either. I saw it myself when I was with her once. We had gone into different shops and when I went to find her I noticed the guard following her, he wasn't even discrete. We had a big argument, I don't like to do this in public, but it's hard to remain calm when you see things like this. Maybe you find it hard to believe because you don't have to experience these kind of problems.

It's a myth propagated by PT types that "black is the color of poverty". Most white Brazilians are poor and have crappy jobs too, you know.

I'm not a PT voter, too rightwing for me! :p

As I said before, it's a class problem, but class and race are linked. It's impossible to talk about one without the other.

I think we can swap personal experiences, but of course everyone's experience is different, so maybe this is not helpful. Or we can look at the statistics, like earnings, poverty rates, university entrance, murder rates. By any metric, white Brazilians have it much better than the rest (excepting yellow ones).

And if you look at this thread you'll see I provided statistics showing that race is not a driving factor, but rather geography and history. Lets recap:

-Blacks from the Center-South are wealthier than whites from the North-Northeast;
-Blacks are not the poorest color group and whites are not the richest group.

How do the above facts fit into the "it's all racism!!!" theory?

Historical factors made blacks concentrated on the poor North-Northeast while whites are overwhelmingly concentrated on the rich Center-South. What dishonest "black activists" do is separate all Brazilians in just two groups, white and black (what makes absolutely no sense in Brazil; I ask once again what is the "race" of your average Cearense or Paraibano) and then claim that "whites" are much richer than "blacks". This is a complete fraud; no analysis can be half-decent without accounting for the aforementioned geographic factors as well as the complex racial composition of Brazilians. There is no "white-black" dichotomy in Brazil, everyone knows this, but it's in the best interests of "activists" to pretend our country is just like apartheid South Africa.

As for Brazilians "not wanting to talk about racism"... we'll talk about it all day. What I won't accept quietly is to listen to grotesque generalizations about how we're all closet racists, like "black activsists" like to throw around. I won't accept quietly the creation of racial quotas denying people rights because of the color of their skin. I won't accept quietly having the whole debate shaped by the racists in the Ministry of Racial Equality. I know I am on the losing side. Brazil is deep in left-wing lunacy, running towards the cliff and cheering along the way. I'll move along, I have no interest in taking the dive with that bunch of maniacs. But I'll stand besides and say "hey idiots, you're doing everything wrong!" all the while.

White slum dwellers were pushed out just as black slum dwellers. Race played no role in the clearances. Slum dwellers in general face discrimantion, because nobody likes living next to a favela.

Btw, a very large part of the favelas' population came from states like Ceará and Paraíba, meaning they aren't black, but rather of undefined racial background. They certainly don't think of themselves as black.


The second part is true, which is why I prefer to use the term non-white.

I cannot agree with the first part though. Race is linked to class, people who don't like living next to a favela don't like living next to poor non-white people. It's both the poor and the non-white. You can't separate the two.

People also don't like living next to a favela, but they like to hire their maid from there on low wages...

Edit: if you don't mind indulging my curiosity, I take it you live in one of the recently "pacified" communities. Are you guys paying IPTU nowadays? What about electricity bills?

No problem. Well of course, some people were always paying for electricity, not everyone here is stealing. My community was only pacified last year, so nothing has been regularised yet. We have been told that it will happen (electricity, taxes, titles to properties etc.) in the next year. I think some of the other communities have been regularised already, but it takes time.

Yes I lived in the UK for some time. I think that there was racism there, but less than in Brazil. I also found that people were prepared to talk about it and not deny its existence or hide behind platidudes.

What? That is the definition of how race is dealt as in the UK. It is the most PC country I have ever been too.

From when I lived in Venezuela, race wasn't ever an issue(that I could recall) and was only really ever mentioned as a physical characteristic, like the color of hair.

And personally I think Venezuela has more of a disparity of wealth between it's races than other Latin countries.

Indeed. Some have been claiming it doesn't exist in Brazil for decades, just as they continue to do in the US and most any other country where it is still pervasive.

That is also quite likely true, and I would tend to agree myself that racial quotas are not the best way to do so. But there is great reluctance from many to effectively change things while giving lip service to equal educational opportunities to minorities.

Yes, that is exactly the problem. Everyone is prepared to say that they want equality in education and society but oppose any measure which might make it happen.

Forced desegregation of the public schools was a very painful period in the South for decades, but it was really the only way to make even modest gains from the days of forced segregation to de facto segregation. But now, de facto segregation is again creating a double standard in educational opportunities for many. While the Fair Housing Act and other measures have had some positive effect, much of the US is still segregated racially to a great degree, and the public schools in the minority neighborhoods are typically substandard compared to the ones elsewhere.


The problem here is that public schools offer a very poor education and there is little political pressure to improve them. Every middle class Brazilian will send his children to a private school. They would consider it irresponsible to do otherwise. This means that the public schools are only for the poor. It's classic case of something which makes sense for the individual but is a disaster for the society. Like it makes sense for an individual to save money rather than spend but if everyone does it, the economy collaspes.

It's well known that having schools with a mixture of students from different social classes leads to better results for the poorer children, but this simply doesn't happen in Brazil. The middle class destroy the education of the poor by sending their children to private schools.

It's a complicated problem and unfortunately one that won't be resolved in the near future.

The second part is true, which is why I prefer to use the term non-white.

You see why the division between "whites" and "blacks" pushed by "black activists" and endorsed by the Supreme Court is so troublesome.


I cannot agree with the first part though. Race is linked to class, people who don't like living next to a favela don't like living next to poor non-white people. It's both the poor and the non-white. You can't separate the two.

They are separated. Look, given Rio's history, it's obvious that most poor people here are black. As I mentioned earlier, Rio was the largest slaving port in the history of mankind. But that is not at all an absolute fact. Go to poor areas in Southern Brazil and you'll see plenty of whites living in destitute conditions. Most people on poor areas there are white. As I also mentioned earlier, most white Brazilians are poor and have crappy jobs.

You can't know what's inside other people's minds. I think it's terribly unfair to automatically assume that opposition to "favelization" is racism. Any rational person is opposed to a favela springing up next to their home. It brings property values crashing to the floor, it raises crime, it raises night noise. Is not wanting that racism? Many people bought excellent apartments in Gávea, for example, with all their life's savings, only to see them become near worthless once they were surrounded by the Rocinha. Tijuca was once a peaceful, pleasant place to live, now it's a war zone. Are the people there racists for getting upset at that? I'd be pretty upset myself.


People also don't like living next to a favela, but they like to hire their maid from there on low wages...

There's plenty of blame all around.

What? That is the definition of how race is dealt as in the UK. It is the most PC country I have ever been too.

I'm afraid I don't really understand what your point is?

From when I lived in Venezuela, race wasn't ever an issue(that I could recall) and was only really ever mentioned as a physical characteristic, like the color of hair.

And personally I think Venezuela has more of a disparity of wealth between it's races than other Latin countries.

I have never been to Venezuela, but it cannot be denied that race is a big issue in the politics of many Latin American countries.

Except down here where the black people died off as a result of the 19th century epidemics. Hence why there's not much concern about racism, as the population is more or less homogeneous from a 'racial' point of view.

Or, rather, was, until the '90s with over a million inmigrants having come from Paraguay, Bolivia and Peru and having had quite a lot of descendants.

What? That is the definition of how race is dealt as in the UK. It is the most PC country I have ever been too.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/img/photos/biz/photo_3431_wide_crop.jpg

Still PC, as we're not allowed to call those people retrogradous racist **Ѩ@#~€~holesuckers.

Good point, well made.

Ok, maybe you don't deny it's existence, rather you avoid the topic like a plague.

Unless it is something against white British of course.

The problem here is that public schools offer a very poor education and there is little political pressure to improve them. Every middle class Brazilian will send his children to a private school. They would consider it irresponsible to do otherwise. This means that the public schools are only for the poor. It's classic case of something which makes sense for the individual but is a disaster for the society. Like it makes sense for an individual to save money rather than spend but if everyone does it, the economy collaspes.

It's well known that having schools with a mixture of students from different social classes leads to better results for the poorer children, but this simply doesn't happen in Brazil. The middle class destroy the education of the poor by sending their children to private schools.

It's a complicated problem and unfortunately one that won't be resolved in the near future.Many in the US now take the same approach with their own children. Private schools used to be only for the affluent, but no longer. Or they are extremely careful about where they live to take maximum advantage of de facto segregation in the public schools. School vouchers are now becoming quite popular so that parents can deprive the public school system of funding while making it less expensive to send their own kids to private schools.

Many in the US now take the same approach with their own children. Private schools used to be only for the affluent, but no longer. Or they are extremely careful about where they live to take maximum advantage of de facto segregation in the public schools. School vouchers are now becoming quite popular so that parents can deprive the public school system of funding while making it less expensive to send their own kids to private schools.

You get sick of teachers unions to start teaching students. You get sick of waiting for the dumbest school administrators to start doing things right. Once you get sick of them you want to leave them. If you can't move private schools are how that is done.

I gotta agree with Luiz quota's aren't the way to do it. If we let anyone get that far they have to be able to stand with their peers or they will have more trouble later.

I am used of being angry and ashamed of being Brazilian, but this crossed a line. I now officially hate that country and don't want to ever go back to living there. A country that never had racial seggregation, that never had anti-miscigenation laws, where the majority of the population is of mixed ethnicity - this country is imposing quotas for "afro-descendants" [aren't we all afro-descendants? Out mtDNA surely implies so]. This government - and the Justices who were overwhelmingly named by this government - are racializing Brazil, and are succeeding.

Yeah, my condolences.

Adopting racial quotas and similar nonsense to "promote equality" is actually the best way of creating resentment between people and splitting the society into racially-defined groups. Disgusting and thoroughly anti-liberal multikulti nonsense.

The only way to solve racism is to create legal distinctions based on race!

The only way to solve racism is to create legal distinctions based on race!
Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it any less trite.

I suppose you're the kind of person who thinks power comes at no cost. I thought it was possible to call the judge to the stand if you think the individual was also involved in the crime?

The only way to solve racism is to create legal distinctions based on race!
Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it any less trite.
I'll have you know it doesn't make it any less true. :p

This is crazy, I often can't tell whether I would call people white, pardo or black when I'm in Brazil - how are they going to judge people's ethnicity? This is going to lead to an inverse of the pó de arroz incidents!

Why don't you use the tried-and-trusted British Empire strategem of barging in and saying 'hello natives, take me to your leader'?

That only works if you have a handy Scotsman to bayonet him when he stubbornly refuses to understand. Perhaps you'd be free to accompany him?

Tha sgian dubh an seo. Tha sgian dubh agam.

Yes, preparations have been made.

This is crazy, I often can't tell whether I would call people white, pardo or black when I'm in Brazil - how are they going to judge people's ethnicity? This is going to lead to an inverse of the pó de arroz incidents!

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of all the evil being perpretaed by the Workers' Party against Brazil. The country gets more disgusting each passing day.

You see why the division between "whites" and "blacks" pushed by "black activists" and endorsed by the Supreme Court is so troublesome.


Creating divisions is never a good thing, but at the same time, it is important to recognise the divisions that do exist in society. It helps no one to pretend that everything is ok when it isn't.

They are separated. Look, given Rio's history, it's obvious that most poor people here are black. As I mentioned earlier, Rio was the largest slaving port in the history of mankind. But that is not at all an absolute fact. Go to poor areas in Southern Brazil and you'll see plenty of whites living in destitute conditions. Most people on poor areas there are white. As I also mentioned earlier, most white Brazilians are poor and have crappy jobs.

Unsurprisingly, I am aware that many white people in Brazil live in poverty...

Again though, as has been pointed out, if we look at the general situation, the average white Brazilian has a better life and better life chances than the average non-white Brazilian.

You can't know what's inside other people's minds. I think it's terribly unfair to automatically assume that opposition to "favelization" is racism. Any rational person is opposed to a favela springing up next to their home. It brings property values crashing to the floor, it raises crime, it raises night noise. Is not wanting that racism? Many people bought excellent apartments in Gávea, for example, with all their life's savings, only to see them become near worthless once they were surrounded by the Rocinha. Tijuca was once a peaceful, pleasant place to live, now it's a war zone. Are the people there racists for getting upset at that? I'd be pretty upset myself.


Given our different backgrounds, I think we are going to find very little common ground here. My sympathies will always be with the people in Roupa Suja, rather than those who can afford to buy an excellent apartment in Gávea. I also doubt your claim that those apartments became worthless. For those who don't know the city, Gávea and São Conrado (the neighbourhoods next to Rochina) are the most expensive in Rio.

Any rational person should be opposed to the kind of society where allows favelas to exist at all. Yet wealthy Brazilians are content to force the poor and the black on to
the hills, through the economy and society which they create and then they complain when they move to the hill near their nice apartment. They can't have it both ways.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of all the evil being perpretaed by the Workers' Party against Brazil. The country gets more disgusting each passing day.

PT are thieves, but then which of our parties isn't?

What do you mean evil? The economy is growing, millions of Brazilians have been lifted out of poverty and we have some good social programs now. Of course there are many serious problems still and many things that need to change, but I think the PT have moved the country in the right direction.

Now if only we could have some serious redistribution of wealth...

Isn't it being redistributed from the poor to the rich?

Now if only we could have some serious redistribution of wealth...
Commie scum :(

Isn't it being redistributed from the poor to the rich?

No, compared to what came before. Strangely as it may seem to you, they were actually an improvement on that issue. Just not enough. Same goes for your own country's government compared to its predecessor, btw, you just didn't notice it because they're still clinging to the products of the mess created by the 90s privatizations and debt buildup. Again, they're far from doing enough about powerboat...

Creating divisions is never a good thing, but at the same time, it is important to recognise the divisions that do exist in society. It helps no one to pretend that everything is ok when it isn't.

Unsurprisingly, I am aware that many white people in Brazil live in poverty...

Again though, as has been pointed out, if we look at the general situation, the average white Brazilian has a better life and better life chances than the average non-white Brazilian.

You are not reading what I wrote. Talking about overal averages is a dishonest tactic employed by the racialists in order to make it loo like there is a "black-white" division in Brazil, which there isn't. If there were, could you explain why blacks from the Center-South are substantially richer than whites from the North-Northeast?


Given our different backgrounds, I think we are going to find very little common ground here. My sympathies will always be with the people in Roupa Suja, rather than those who can afford to buy an excellent apartment in Gávea. I also doubt your claim that those apartments became worthless. For those who don't know the city, Gávea and São Conrado (the neighbourhoods next to Rochina) are the most expensive in Rio.

I think we can feel sympathy for different people. A lot of people have the attitude "oh screw the people from Gávea and São Conrado, they're rich." That makes me sick. We're talking about honest people who put their life-savings in apartments only to see them vanish once the neighborhood was illegally occupied and dominated by crime lord.

BTW, the time when those neighborhoods were the most expensive is long gone. The value of the square meter there is far behind that of Leblon, Ipanema, Lagoa, Jardim Botânico, etc. São Conrado still pays the highest property taxes, but that's just the government adding insult to injury. The value of property there doesn't hold a candle to Leblon, the most expensive neighborhood nowadays.

And of course not all apartments are worthless, those far from the favela are still expensive. But if you look at the properties on the heights of Marquês de São Vicente street, in Gávea, you'll see places that were bought by well over a million dollars twenty years ago selling for under 100 thousad. A childhood friend of mine lives in such a place, and he can't move out because the price he would get would not buy a two bedrooms apartment in any decent South Zone neighborhood.

And of course we don't need to talk only of rich neighborhoods. Lets talk about the once pleasant Tijuca, a refuge of the lower middle class. Don't you feel sympathy for the simple people who also put their life's savings on apartments there only to be surrounded by favelas and have their windows frequently destroyed by stray bullets?


Any rational person should be opposed to the kind of society where allows favelas to exist at all. Yet wealthy Brazilians are content to force the poor and the black on to
the hills, through the economy and society which they create and then they complain when they move to the hill near their nice apartment. They can't have it both ways.
Nobody is forced to live there. It's just more convenient. Yes, we can blame the government for failing to provide fast transportation to the suburbs, and for failing to provide affordable credit for housing.

But I don't buy the self-pity and victim mentality of some slum dwellers. Nope, they were not forced there. Many people living on minimum wage live on regular homes in São Gonçalo or São João do Meriti; pay their taxes and their electricity bills and endure the torment of public transportation every day. Slum dwellers chose to be where they are because it's quite convenient living in the most privileged neighborhoods on a short walk from work. If they were forced there I wonder what explains the millions of equally poor people living in that crapland that are Rio's suburbs and metropolitan zone. Of course, I am not saying they have it good or that I feel no sympathy for them. Of course I do, it's a crappy situation. But less self-pity and blaming of "society" would only do good.

PT are thieves, but then which of our parties isn't?

That's their main line of defense nowadays: "sure, we steal your tax money and have all become gazillionaires, but everybody does that too! And we throw some bones towards you every now and then!"

Well, I don't buy it. Or rather, of course there is corruption in all our parties and they all suck to varying degrees, but it's a hard fact (as measured by NGOs such as Transparency International) that corruption got much worse since Lula was elected. So there are choices, and fighting corruption and denouncing corrupt politicians is not a waste of time. Brazil was always corrupt, but in recent times it has never been even near this level of depravity. Not even during Collor.


What do you mean evil? The economy is growing, millions of Brazilians have been lifted out of poverty and we have some good social programs now. Of course there are many serious problems still and many things that need to change, but I think the PT have moved the country in the right direction.

Now if only we could have some serious redistribution of wealth...
The economy has grown at a pathetic pace, far below that of our South American neighbors and other major emerging markets (a comparisson with China and India is painful; we don't manage to grow at one third of their pace. But we also lagged far behind the likes of Mexico, Peru, Chile, etc.). Basic education has gotten worse. Infra-structure is collapsing. The tax rate increases every years, is already unbearable, and has destroyed whatever was left of our competitiveness. The only thing that keeps our economy going is raw materials being exported; we're back where we were in 1500. Our industry is dying a slow death. Consumption is booming on borrowed money. It's all a big joke, and the joke is on us (or rather you, because I don't plan on going back living in Brazil).

The economy has grown at a pathetic pace, far below that of our South American neighbors and other major emerging markets (a comparisson with China and India is painful; we don't manage to grow at one third of their pace. But we also lagged far behind the likes of Mexico, Peru, Chile, etc.).

That's a blatant lie, Brazilian GDP growth was approximately the same as India in 2010, and while it slowed down in 2011, it's not a third of the growth rate; Brazil has a much higher GDP than India. Brazil is still outstripping the current growth rates of Mexico, Peru and Chile. Last time I checked, infrastructure isn't collapsing nationwide (although it is going down in the state of Rio de Janeiro). Meanwhile, here's a British nationalist view on how Brazilian manufacturing is holding up (http://nationalistunityforum.co.uk/index.php/brazils-economic-growth-centred-on-manufacturing-the-lesson-for-britain/), while some statistics on how manufacturing is growing (admittedly not during PT's reign, but it isn't exactly showing a ''slow death'') (http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Brazil-INDUSTRY.html#b)

That's a blatant lie, Brazilian GDP growth was approximately the same as India in 2010, and while it slowed down in 2011, it's not a third of the growth rate; Brazil has a much higher GDP than India. Brazil is still outstripping the current growth rates of Mexico, Peru and Chile. Last time I checked, infrastructure isn't collapsing nationwide (although it is going down in the state of Rio de Janeiro). Meanwhile, here's a British nationalist view on how Brazilian manufacturing is holding up (http://nationalistunityforum.co.uk/index.php/brazils-economic-growth-centred-on-manufacturing-the-lesson-for-britain/), while some statistics on how manufacturing is growing (admittedly not during PT's reign, but it isn't exactly showing a ''slow death'') (http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Brazil-INDUSTRY.html#b)

Uh, Brazil has not grown even near India in any year in recent times, not even in 2010 which was a point outside the curve. Here, lets look at some real data:

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4678/crescimentopatetico.jpg

You shouldn't call other people liers when you have no idea what you're talking about (that is, 99% of the time in your case). Please show me when Brazil was anywhere near India in that graph).

As for Brazilian industry, it's actually getting smaller. This isn't a hint, it's a fact. I won't even bother to read your article on what an "English nationalist" thinks; it doesn't matter because it is wrong.

As for infra-structure, you've got to be kidding me. Except for the private roads of the opposition-controlled state of São Paulo, everything else in Brazil is a huge hole. Airports, roads, ports, railways (which barely exist). It's a big joke.

Check this (http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/01/two-brics-india-vs-brazil.html), and this (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/gdp-growth-rates-list-by-country). Not exactly ''a third of their pace'' in 2010.

Infrastructure can't be collapsing if it was barely there in the first place, especially because there is heavy investment in urban roads and transport (Such as this - Link is in Portuguese (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linha_3_do_Metr%C3%B4_do_Rio_de_Janeiro)) right now.

This isn't a hint, it's a fact. I won't even bother to read your article on what an "English nationalist" thinks; it doesn't matter because it is wrong.

Real open-mindedness, eh? :rolleyes:

These statistics show (admittedly fairly low) growth rates in Brazilian industries (http://www.latinamerican-markets.com/brasil---setores-de-maior-crescimento-na-industria)

Check this (http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/01/two-brics-india-vs-brazil.html), and this (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/gdp-growth-rates-list-by-country). Not exactly ''a third of their pace'' in 2010.

Infrastructure can't be collapsing if it was barely there in the first place, especially because there is heavy investment in urban roads and transport (Such as this - Link is in Portuguese (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linha_3_do_Metr%C3%B4_do_Rio_de_Janeiro)) right now.

Are you for real? Are you countering the fact that Brazil grew at a ridiculously low pace compared to China and India based on a single year, which is outside the curve because it follows one years in which the Brazilian economy actually had a negative growth??

I posted a graph showing the performance of the whole reign of the PT. You can see that compared to the other BRICs and even some South American countries, Brazil's growth has been pathetic. To deny that because of one single year, in which Brazil also grew much less than India BTW, is even more pathetic.


Real open-mindedness, eh? :rolleyes:

These statistics show (admittedly fairly low) growth rates in Brazilian industries (http://www.latinamerican-markets.com/brasil---setores-de-maior-crescimento-na-industria)

And here you can see that in all of that last seven months, Brazilian industrial production has fallen. In 2012 alone, there was a fall of 3%.

http://www.jb.com.br/economia/noticias/2012/05/03/producao-industrial-brasileira-cai-05-em-marco-diz-ibge/

If it was not for raw material exports, we'd be completely bankrupt. Brazilian economy lost all competitiveness, all capacity to innovate and add value. We're selling iron ore and soy beans, and they happen to be at the highest prices in history. That's the economic legacy of the PT: going back to the colonial economy.

Are you for real? Are you countering the fact that Brazil grew at a ridiculously low pace compared to China and India based on a single year, which is outside the curve because it follows one years in which the Brazilian economy actually had a negative growth??


India has a lot to make up for in terms of GDP compared to Brazil anyway - Brazil is way above India in GDP, while China's growth is ridiculous, and would make any country's statistics look crap. You talk about how Brazilian industry has fallen in the last 7 months, and yet also complain that I didn't post statistics of the entire reign of the PT. :rolleyes:

There is heavy investment in the oil industry, with multi-million dollar projects still currently being made (See here (http://www.cnbc.com/id/42749867/Building_a_Brazilian_Oil_Platform))

You also seem to have ignored that small part of PT policy that involved lifted tens of millions out of poverty.

India has a lot to make up for in terms of GDP compared to Brazil anyway - Brazil is way above India in GDP, while China's growth is ridiculous, and would make any country's statistics look crap. You talk about how Brazilian industry has fallen in the last 7 months, and yet also complain that I didn't post statistics of the entire reign of the PT. :rolleyes:

The fact is looking at the last decade (PT's reign), Brazil's aggregate growth was really about one-third of India's (to be more precise, between 1/3 and 1/2). Looking at a single exceptional year, that followed a recession in Brazil (but not in India) is outright stupid. And of course we need not compare Brazil just with China and India: of all major emerging markets, Brazil is the one growing the least. And by that I mean in the decade aggregate, so please don't try to prove that as false by showing Russia did worse in a couple of years: their aggregate is still vastly superior to ours. I hope you can understand that concept.

Looking at the last 7 months of industrial production, OTOH, is not stupid. Brazilian industry has been growing very slowly or stagnating for much of the last decade, and now it seems to be collapsing. This is not at all comparable with choosing one random year and saying Brazil is growing fast.


There is heavy investment in the oil industry, with multi-million dollar projects still currently being made (See here (http://www.cnbc.com/id/42749867/Building_a_Brazilian_Oil_Platform))

Yeah, another raw material we're about to export. If it were not for them, we'd be bankrupt. Instead we're just moving sideways.


You also seem to have ignored that small part of PT policy that involved lifted tens of millions out of poverty.
What lifted millions out of poverty were:
-the end of hyper-inflation, achieved by the FHC government;
-social programs initiated by the FHC government;
-the gigantic windfall of commodity money that allowed Lula to expand the programs initiated in the FHC government.

You know that Bolsa Família is just a repackaging of existing programs, right? No, of course you don't.

While yes, FHC instituted some social reform, he didn't exactly do all of what Lula did during his reign. No matter what the legacy of your predecessor is, it's still a great achievement to lift 20 million people out of poverty - Barack Obama, for example, wouldn't have been able to do that kind of feat. What FHC did federalise (Bolsa Escola) was actually the brainchild of Cristovam Buarque - A member of the PDT. Bolsa Família hugely reduced administrative costs and bureaucratic inefficiency, creating a system which was much easier to use.

While yes, FHC instituted some social reform, he didn't exactly do all of what Lula did during his reign. No matter what the legacy of your predecessor is, it's still a great achievement to lift 20 million people out of poverty - Barack Obama, for example, wouldn't have been able to do that kind of feat. What FHC did federalise (Bolsa Escola) was actually the brainchild of Cristovam Buarque - A member of the PDT.

Barack Obama would never be able to do what was done in Brazil because you can't lift people out poverty in the US for as little as you can in Brazil - our definitions are vastly different, and if we used their definition virtually nobody really left poverty here. The so-called "C Class" or "New Middle Class" that emerged in the last 20 years would be called "really really poor class" in the US.

If you read my point number 3, you'll see I mentioned Lula expanded the funding of FHC's programs. He did it because he could, thanks to a windfall of commodity money Brazil was suddenly receiving hundreds of billions of dollars that simply did not exist in FHC's time. This is not of Lula's doing, but rather a consequence of the rise of Asia. He really has very little merit. He kept FHC's macroeconomic policies, failed to carry on the reforms of the state, failed to reform anything really, and just surfed on an unprecedented money wave that came our way. If (God forbid) China goes into recession, even a mild one, Brazil would uttlerly and completely collapse. We would be at the IMF with hat in hand in no time.

Surely the rise of Asia happened long ago enough that the windfall would occur at least in FHC's Presidency, if not earlier? Lula completely reformed the previous social programs, centralising them and heavily increasing their efficiency in terms of administrative costs and bureaucratic red tape. Lula had renewed IMF agreements, and managed to easily pay off the debts, two entire years before they were due; In comparison to the evil figure you're portraying him to be, George Bush managed to inherit the largest surplus in US history and turn it into by far the biggest deficit in US history, and in fact Brazil is currently loaning money to the IMF now.

No, compared to what came before. Strangely as it may seem to you, they were actually an improvement on that issue. Just not enough. Same goes for your own country's government compared to its predecessor, btw, you just didn't notice it because they're still clinging to the products of the mess created by the 90s privatizations and debt buildup. Again, they're far from doing enough about powerboat...
Given that this country's government is its own predecessor, your point is moot.

Surely the rise of Asia happened long ago enough that the windfall would occur at least in FHC's Presidency, if not earlier? Lula completely reformed the previous social programs, centralising them and heavily increasing their efficiency in terms of administrative costs and bureaucratic red tape. Lula had renewed IMF agreements, and managed to easily pay off the debts, two entire years before they were due; In comparison to the evil figure you're portraying him to be, George Bush managed to inherit the largest surplus in US history and turn it into by far the biggest deficit in US history, and in fact Brazil is currently loaning money to the IMF now.

No, FHC ruled through the collapse of Asian economies, the Asian Crisis of the late 90's. Lula ruled over unprecedented global growth and an unprecendented rise in commodity prices. During Lula's rule, the price of iron ore (Brazil's largest export) increased manyfold. Iron ore was worth peanuts during FHC's time, now it's worth a fortune.

Lula simply centralized a lot of programs created by FHC under a new name, so that he could take all the credit, as he is an egomaniac that refuses to admit any accomplishments by his predecessors. And he had more money to throw at them because he ruled over a commodity boom.

He is also a corrupt thug, as even people on the left will tell you. Hell, the PT doesn't even deny they're corrupt thugs nowadays, they just say the others are like them too.

I don't know why you insist on discussing issues you know nothing about of a country you know nothing about. You're obviously googling pieces to try and create a narrative that puts your preferred party in a positive light, but it's not working.

Below is an index of commodity prices. Note that this is an aggregate; Brazilian commodities such as iron ore actually did much better than the aggregate. But anyway, you can clearly see that FHC ruled over a period of low and stable prices, while Lula ruled over an unprecendented boom. So he just got lucky and had zero merit. Note that when the prices took a hit during the crisis Brazil immediately went into recession, and when they spiked back we resumed growing.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Graph-RBA-Index-of-Commodity-Prices.gif

So where is his merit? That he merged a bunch of social programs created by his predecessor under a new name? That he happened to rule over a commodity boom? That except for commodities other industries are lagging or falling? That consumption is growing but not production? The commodity boom started pretty much exactly when his presidency started, and we're a major commodity exporter, if not the major. Really, where is the merit?? Our economic performance was very poor compared to other major commodity exporters. Dishonest PT propagandists like to point out we grew more than we did in the 90's, well, big effin' deal. Look at the graph and see why. The big question is why we were outperformed by our peers, why Lula failed to use the unprecedented windfall to make any real change, why our industrial competitiveness all but disappeared.

And can we get the thread back on topic, please?

Barack Obama would never be able to do what was done in Brazil because you can't lift people out poverty in the US for as little as you can in Brazil

Yes. And will you admit that that goes for economic growth also when you compare Brazil to India or even China? It's easier to have fast development in someplace where that was a lot behind to start with.

If it was not for raw material exports, we'd be completely bankrupt. Brazilian economy lost all competitiveness, all capacity to innovate and add value. We're selling iron ore and soy beans, and they happen to be at the highest prices in history. That's the economic legacy of the PT: going back to the colonial economy.

So you're agreeing that Brazil has indeed been developing a "dutch disease" lately? As opposed to, say, the previous development policies centering on building up industry even if it had to be the state to create those industries?

Yes. And will you admit that that goes for economic growth also when you compare Brazil to India or even China? It's easier to have fast development in someplace where that was a lot behind to start with.

India, yes. China? Not so much. Their per capital income isn't that lower than ours nowadays.

Not to mention countries with higher per capita income that still managed to grow far more than us in the last decade, such as Mexico or Russia.


So you're agreeing that Brazil has indeed been developing a "dutch disease" lately? As opposed to, say, the previous development policies centering on building up industry even if it had to be the state to create those industries?
It would be one thing to have a "dutch disease" after decades of high growth and development, as is sometimes the case. What we're seeing is the stagnation if not decadence of the other sectors of the economy following a at best modest economic growth.

What angers me about people who praise Lula's economic performance is that actually he ruled over an extremely favorable scenario for Brazil and wasted it, achieving sub-par results. And now even the mediocre results of the last decade seem increasingly out of future reach.

And if the economic mismanagement was not enough, his government tried and largely succeeded in racializing Brazil.

You are not reading what I wrote. Talking about overal averages is a dishonest tactic employed by the racialists in order to make it loo like there is a "black-white" division in Brazil, which there isn't. If there were, could you explain why blacks from the Center-South are substantially richer than whites from the North-Northeast?


Actually I think it's rather dishonest to claim that the divisions are all down to 'regional differences'. Of course there are regional differences, but they do not explain the differences in places with a mixed population. You have already admitted that in Rio for example, the poor are mostly non-white and it's same story in São Paulo.

And we can ask ourselves as well who are the elite. Those in the top professions and those in politics. Of course, they are rich and they are white, with a few exceptions. Even in places like Bahia, the elite are white, yet whites make up just 20% of the population.

I think we can feel sympathy for different people. A lot of people have the attitude "oh screw the people from Gávea and São Conrado, they're rich." That makes me sick. We're talking about honest people who put their life-savings in apartments only to see them vanish once the neighborhood was illegally occupied and dominated by crime lord.

And most people in favelas are honest people who work hard etc. The difference is that their life saving amount to very little if anything at all.

BTW, the time when those neighborhoods were the most expensive is long gone. The value of the square meter there is far behind that of Leblon, Ipanema, Lagoa, Jardim Botânico, etc. São Conrado still pays the highest property taxes, but that's just the government adding insult to injury. The value of property there doesn't hold a candle to Leblon, the most expensive neighborhood nowadays.

As I not so familiar with the prices in the very top neighbourhoods, I will take your word. ;) However, we can at least agree that they are among the most expensie neighbourhoods.

And of course not all apartments are worthless, those far from the favela are still expensive. But if you look at the properties on the heights of Marquês de São Vicente street, in Gávea, you'll see places that were bought by well over a million dollars twenty years ago selling for under 100 thousad. A childhood friend of mine lives in such a place, and he can't move out because the price he would get would not buy a two bedrooms apartment in any decent South Zone neighborhood.

.....

But I don't buy the self-pity and victim mentality of some slum dwellers. Nope, they were not forced there. Many people living on minimum wage live on regular homes in São Gonçalo or São João do Meriti; pay their taxes and their electricity bills and endure the torment of public transportation every day. Slum dwellers chose to be where they are because it's quite convenient living in the most privileged neighborhoods on a short walk from work. If they were forced there I wonder what explains the millions of equally poor people living in that crapland that are Rio's suburbs and metropolitan zone. Of course, I am not saying they have it good or that I feel no sympathy for them. Of course I do, it's a crappy situation. But less self-pity and blaming of "society" would only do good.

Well since your friend's apartment is worth 'only' $100,000, I have an idea that might solve his problem. He could buy a huge house in São Gonçalo or maybe a palace in Nova Iguaçu or a whole street in Bangu for that amount. Would he like that? :lol:

But at least you feel sorry for the poor, so sorry that you want to move them from their homes and neighbourhoods, maybe 35km and a 2-3 hour bus ride from their jobs . I'd hate to see what you'd propose if you didn't care!

Nobody is forced to live there. It's just more convenient. Yes, we can blame the government for failing to provide fast transportation to the suburbs, and for failing to provide affordable credit for housing.

And for failing to ensure that people are paid a decent wage, and for failing to provide enough jobs, for failing to ensure that people can have a job a reasonable distance from their home, for failing to build enough houses for people to live, for failing to plan for the arrival of people from parts of the country, for failing to provide houses even for those invited to work on big projects in the city (Avenida Brasil for example), for failing to ensure that enough of our economic output was directed to the poor to allow them to live decent lives....(I could go on)

but of course, no one was forced....

And of course we don't need to talk only of rich neighborhoods. Lets talk about the once pleasant Tijuca, a refuge of the lower middle class. Don't you feel sympathy for the simple people who also put their life's savings on apartments there only to be surrounded by favelas and have their windows frequently destroyed by stray bullets?

Well I think this an exageration. I have friends in Tijuca, Andaraí etc. and few of them have experienced problems. The problem is a few things happen, the media goes crazy and suddenly it's a 'war zone'.

Besides, all Tijuca's favelas have UPP for quite a long time now, so if anyone actually was getting their windows smashed by bullets, those times should be over now.


That's their main line of defense nowadays: "sure, we steal your tax money and have all become gazillionaires, but everybody does that too! And we throw some bones towards you every now and then!"

Well, I don't buy it. Or rather, of course there is corruption in all our parties and they all suck to varying degrees, but it's a hard fact (as measured by NGOs such as Transparency International) that corruption got much worse since Lula was elected. So there are choices, and fighting corruption and denouncing corrupt politicians is not a waste of time. Brazil was always corrupt, but in recent times it has never been even near this level of depravity. Not even during Collor.

Come on, this is just more exageration. Collor presided over hyperinflation and actually froze the money in everyone's bank accounts! I think people are still receiving compensation for the things he did today.

Brazil has always been corrupt, as you say, but actually there are not really choices. I mean, if you can tell me who I can vote for to get an honest government, then I will vote for them, but I think I will be waiting a long time for an answer...

Given that, I don't think that corruption is the best way to judge the government (and I don't think that corruption has really gotten worse under PT, if you have evidence that it has then I would like to see it), we need to look at other measures. As I am rather left wing, my preferred measure is the life of the ordinary working man and woman. It is undeniable that life has improved, in many cases enormously, for the ordinary people of Brazil, People enjoy a whole range of products and services which they could not afford before. As I said before, millions have also been lifted out of poverty.


The economy has grown at a pathetic pace, far below that of our South American neighbors and other major emerging markets (a comparisson with China and India is painful; we don't manage to grow at one third of their pace. But we also lagged far behind the likes of Mexico, Peru, Chile, etc.). Basic education has gotten worse. Infra-structure is collapsing. The tax rate increases every years, is already unbearable, and has destroyed whatever was left of our competitiveness. The only thing that keeps our economy going is raw materials being exported; we're back where we were in 1500. Our industry is dying a slow death. Consumption is booming on borrowed money. It's all a big joke, and the joke is on us (or rather you, because I don't plan on going back living in Brazil).

Well others have already said it, but China and India were starting from a much lower base than we were and so there was more 'low hanging fruit' to pick. Now you might complain that the growth rate was 'pathetic' but people were very happy with what Lula achieved. In fact when the last election was fought, Serra didn't make any argument like that, in fact he avoided criticising his record. He basically said that he would be the best man to build on Lula's work.

The other things you said, well I think there are interesting discussions to be had about all of them, but maybe it's best to leave for another thread, as you have already complained about this one going off topic. ;)

Also, I thought you were here, do you mind if I ask where you are living now?

Actually I think it's rather dishonest to claim that the divisions are all down to 'regional differences'. Of course there are regional differences, but they do not explain the differences in places with a mixed population. You have already admitted that in Rio for example, the poor are mostly non-white and it's same story in São Paulo.

And we can ask ourselves as well who are the elite. Those in the top professions and those in politics. Of course, they are rich and they are white, with a few exceptions. Even in places like Bahia, the elite are white, yet whites make up just 20% of the population.

My point was that regional divisions are much important than "racial" divisions, given the fact that whites from the poor regions are much poorer than blacks from the rich regions. So, obviously, race is not the dominant factor at play, and shouldn't be treated as such.

As for the elite, yeah, it's mostly white. But that's because of historical reasons, not because of actual barriers preventing black people from moving up in life. The percentage of blacks in the elite is very small, but so is the percentage of whites of poor origin. It's a matter of correlation and not causation.


And most people in favelas are honest people who work hard etc. The difference is that their life saving amount to very little if anything at all.

Depends on the favela. How much is an average house in Rocinha worth nowadays? 50,000 reais? Maybe more. The per capita income of Rocinha is higher than the average per capita income of Brazil. There are rich neighborhoods in Rocinha, with people making over 10,000 reais per month. Which reinforces the notion that the victim speech is overplayed and there is much choice going on.


Well since your friend's apartment is worth 'only' $100,000, I have an idea that might solve his problem. He could buy a huge house in São Gonçalo or maybe a palace in Nova Iguaçu or a whole street in Bangu for that amount. Would he like that? :lol:

The problem of course is not the amount per se. If you bought a house for 50,000 and a few years later it's worth 100,000, you're a happy man. If you bought it for 1 million and a decade later it's worth 100,000 you probably lost most of your wealth.


But at least you feel sorry for the poor, so sorry that you want to move them from their homes and neighbourhoods, maybe 35km and a 2-3 hour bus ride from their jobs . I'd hate to see what you'd propose if you didn't care!

I worked for over an year at a steel mill in Santa Cruz, while living in Lagoa. That's a 2-3 hour ride each way, every day, through the hellish traffic of Avenida Brasil. I never thought of myself as a victim, much less considered building a shack next to work! Such is life in a messed up city of a messed up country, sometimes it's tough.


And for failing to ensure that people are paid a decent wage, and for failing to provide enough jobs, for failing to ensure that people can have a job a reasonable distance from their home, for failing to build enough houses for people to live, for failing to plan for the arrival of people from parts of the country, for failing to provide houses even for those invited to work on big projects in the city (Avenida Brasil for example), for failing to ensure that enough of our economic output was directed to the poor to allow them to live decent lives....(I could go on)

but of course, no one was forced....

I see you suffer from a very common syndrome in Brazil, which is to see the government as all-powerful and as responsible towards rge people as a mother towards her baby.
The government can't ensure that people are paid a decent wage. That depends on the level of development of our economy, there is no magic wand. If the government could do that, people from socialist countries such as Cuba or North Korea would be well paid instead of living on 5 dollars a month. All it can do is lay the foundations for economic growth and try not to stand in its way.
Same with "providing enough jobs". The government can't hire 200 million Brazilians.
As for a "job within a reasonable distance from their homes", nobody is entitled that. In the US people frequently work 50 km or more away from home. In Europe it's common for people to live in smaller towns and work in the big cities, one hour or more away by train. What the government should have done but didn't is invest in freeways and mass transportation. Where people will get jobs is their problem.


Well I think this an exageration. I have friends in Tijuca, Andaraí etc. and few of them have experienced problems. The problem is a few things happen, the media goes crazy and suddenly it's a 'war zone'.

Besides, all Tijuca's favelas have UPP for quite a long time now, so if anyone actually was getting their windows smashed by bullets, those times should be over now.

Tijuca did get a better with the UPPs, now some regions of Niteroi and Macaé are the true war zones, I'll concede that much. But windows destroyed by bullets were in fact very common in Tijuca and still do happen every now and then; ask anyone living near Mangueira or Boréu. I have slept in friend's apartments there where you could see the bullet marks in the outside concrete walls, and where windows were broken.


Come on, this is just more exageration. Collor presided over hyperinflation and actually froze the money in everyone's bank accounts! I think people are still receiving compensation for the things he did today.

Collor was impeached for what, paying with public money to buy a lousy Fiat Elba and reforming his home. How is that even remotely comparable to the mensalão? What about Lula's son, who used to make minimum wage working at a zoo and is now a multi-millionaire through deals with public concessions? What about Palocci, Pimentel, José Dirceu, all multi-millionaires from day to night? Really, Collor is a choir boy compared to that bunch. There was a lot of anti-corruption protests back then, but that's because PT was the opposition. I think that's the worst thing they have done: they have convinced Brazilians that corruption is OK. Collor was impeached; Lula's involvement in the mensalão was well established and he is still viewed as the messiah by some idiots.


Brazil has always been corrupt, as you say, but actually there are not really choices. I mean, if you can tell me who I can vote for to get an honest government, then I will vote for them, but I think I will be waiting a long time for an answer...

Given that, I don't think that corruption is the best way to judge the government (and I don't think that corruption has really gotten worse under PT, if you have evidence that it has then I would like to see it), we need to look at other measures.

Well of course corruption is difficult to measure, but perhaps the most widespread index is the one by Transparency International, which is on the link below. You can see that from 1994-2002 Brazil was steadily improving, and from 2003 onwards we went down the hill again. What happened in 2003? Lula happened.
http://www.contasabertas.org/website/noticias/arquivos/722_IPC_-_1995_-_2011(1).pdf


As I am rather left wing, my preferred measure is the life of the ordinary working man and woman. It is undeniable that life has improved, in many cases enormously, for the ordinary people of Brazil, People enjoy a whole range of products and services which they could not afford before. As I said before, millions have also been lifted out of poverty.

Yeah, thanks to a commodity boom and social programs created by his predecessor.


Well others have already said it, but China and India were starting from a much lower base than we were and so there was more 'low hanging fruit' to pick. Now you might complain that the growth rate was 'pathetic' but people were very happy with what Lula achieved. In fact when the last election was fought, Serra didn't make any argument like that, in fact he avoided criticising his record. He basically said that he would be the best man to build on Lula's work.

China is about as rich as Brazil on a per capita basis, and soon will be richer. And we should also compare ourselves with Mexico or Russia, wealthier countries that also grew far more than Brazil and improved the life of their people far more as well (check their human development index, it beats ours soundly).

As for Serra, he is more genuinely left-wing than Lula, so his posture was unsurprising.


Also, I thought you were here, do you mind if I ask where you are living now?
Concepción, Chile. I am in Rio right now, though, as that's where the South American headquarters of the company I work for is located.

I'll tell you this much: living in Chile, a South American country that just a few decades ago was poorer than Brazil, makes us realize even more how pathetic Brazil is.

------------

Edit: And for the purpose of putting to rest once and for all the lie invented by PT propagandists that Brazil had a spectacular growth during Lula's rule, please take a look at the graph below. Brazil grew far less than the developing world average, and any comparison with Asia becomes pathetic. There was nothing remarkable about Brazilian growt; or rather it is remarkable that we grew so little while the products we export got so much more valuable. Next time someone tells you Lula was responsible for great economic performance, call him a liar.

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/9637/crescimentoridiculo.jpg

To get the thread back on topic, and highlight how some folks want to turn Brazil into a racialized police state:

Alexandre Pires, a black singer, is being prosecuted by public authorities for the supposed racism of his song "Kong" (http://noticias.uol.com.br/cotidiano/ultimas-noticias/2012/05/07/ministerio-publico-abre-investigacao-para-apurar-suposto-racismo-em-musica-de-alexandre-pires.htm). The song also has the participation of the equally black rapper Mr. Catra and football star Neymar, who is of mixed race and thus also black in the distorted logic of "black activists". According to the prosecution, the song and clip are comparing blacks to monkeys. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the "gorilla" mentioned in the song is a cheap sexual metaphor; in fact anything with Mr. Catra is a cheap sexual metaphor!. But no, in the eyes of our enlightened public authorities what is happening is 3 black guys, plus some 10 black dancers, all calling black people monkeys.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is where Brazil is heading. A couple of weeks ago, the self-proclaimed "State Council for the Rights of the Negro", based in Rio, wanted to sue a toy vendor because one black doll was selling for a lower price than one blonde doll. Really!

What an awesome country this is becoming. Who can spare a few ICBMs?

ICBMs? To allow your monarchy to invade Uruguay again? No thanks.

..but, but luiz! we are just righting the wrongs of the past by imitating them in the present!

As for the elite, yeah, it's mostly white. But that's because of historical reasons, not because of actual barriers preventing black people from moving up in life. The percentage of blacks in the elite is very small, but so is the percentage of whites of poor origin. It's a matter of correlation and not causation.

I think that's a little contradictory. You say it's not because of actual barriers but for historical reasons. Well those historical reasons are the barriers. The people at the top have been maintaining their positions for a long time. It is like an exclusive club, and to be a member you have to rich and white. There are ways to enter the club of course, such as getting a very good education, but guess which people monopolise the good education!

As for poor whites making it to the top, one word, Lula! Now of course, as you say, very few people with poor origins make it into the elite, but I wonder how long it will be before we see a black or mixed race president.

Depends on the favela. How much is an average house in Rocinha worth nowadays? 50,000 reais? Maybe more. The per capita income of Rocinha is higher than the average per capita income of Brazil. There are rich neighborhoods in Rocinha, with people making over 10,000 reais per month. Which reinforces the notion that the victim speech is overplayed and there is much choice going on.

I'm not sure about the average price, but I would think it's probably lower than 50,000. I remember a few years ago it was possible to buy a house (not a very nice one, admittedly) for between 5,000-10,000. Of course Rocinha is huge and there is a lot of variation there, rich, middle and poor. Prices have also been rising for a while now, and with the UPP this will only accelerate. This should be good news for your friend as well, because as security improves (or rather the perception of it) and values increase in the favela, so values will increase around the favela.

But of course we cannot only talk about Rocinha or other favelas in the zona sul, the majority of people do not live in the zona sul. How much is a house in Jacarezinho or Manguinhos worth?

Of course while most people who live in the favelas are poor, I also object to this idea that everyone in the favela must be poor. It's like when people say "oh those Palestinian 'refugees' have houses and TVs and even running water, how can they call the places refugee camps, they should be living in tents". Those people have been for 60 years, of course they will have done things to improve their situation and make life better for themselves. It's the same in the favelas, when someone arrives maybe he can build a very basic house and have a few simple things, but over time, as he works and earns money he will improve his home, get more things, and improve his life.


I worked for over an year at a steel mill in Santa Cruz, while living in Lagoa. That's a 2-3 hour ride each way, every day, through the hellish traffic of Avenida Brasil. I never thought of myself as a victim, much less considered building a shack next to work! Such is life in a messed up city of a messed up country, sometimes it's tough.

I would imagine that you were being paid quite well though for your job and/or it was helpful in your career, and so it was worth it to you to do this. However the calculation will be very different for someone working a minimum wage job with zero chance of advancement.

Also imagine what your journey would have been like if the favelados in the zona sul were living the Baixada and using the Avenida Brasil every day. You would still be waiting in the traffic now. ;)

I see you suffer from a very common syndrome in Brazil, which is to see the government as all-powerful and as responsible towards rge people as a mother towards her baby.
The government can't ensure that people are paid a decent wage. That depends on the level of development of our economy, there is no magic wand. If the government could do that, people from socialist countries such as Cuba or North Korea would be well paid instead of living on 5 dollars a month. All it can do is lay the foundations for economic growth and try not to stand in its way.
Same with "providing enough jobs". The government can't hire 200 million Brazilians.
As for a "job within a reasonable distance from their homes", nobody is entitled that. In the US people frequently work 50 km or more away from home. In Europe it's common for people to live in smaller towns and work in the big cities, one hour or more away by train. What the government should have done but didn't is invest in freeways and mass transportation. Where people will get jobs is their problem.

The government can do many things, it can raise minimum wages, it can invest in areas with few jobs, it can build decent infrastructure, it can build social housing etc. There are a whole range of things that a government can do to help people live decent lives. Unfortunately our government has failed to do even these basic things in the past and this is why things are not better organised today.

Just because people in the US might travel 50km to get to work does that mean it's a good idea?! It's ridiculous for people to do that, it makes no sense. People living near to where they work is the best policy. It's more efficient in terms of infrastructure, in terms of the environment, it's better for the people's quality of life. Why wouldn't a sensible government want to promote something like that.


Tijuca did get a better with the UPPs, now some regions of Niteroi and Macaé are the true war zones, I'll concede that much. But windows destroyed by bullets were in fact very common in Tijuca and still do happen every now and then; ask anyone living near Mangueira or Boréu. I have slept in friend's apartments there where you could see the bullet marks in the outside concrete walls, and where windows were broken.

Ok that's fair. Of course in a city like Rio there will always be some problems with crime, you can sometimes hear gunshots in many neighbourhoods, including nice ones.

Collor was impeached for what, paying with public money to buy a lousy Fiat Elba and reforming his home. How is that even remotely comparable to the mensalão? What about Lula's son, who used to make minimum wage working at a zoo and is now a multi-millionaire through deals with public concessions? What about Palocci, Pimentel, José Dirceu, all multi-millionaires from day to night? Really, Collor is a choir boy compared to that bunch. There was a lot of anti-corruption protests back then, but that's because PT was the opposition. I think that's the worst thing they have done: they have convinced Brazilians that corruption is OK. Collor was impeached; Lula's involvement in the mensalão was well established and he is still viewed as the messiah by some idiots.

I don't think comparing two scandals in isolation is helpful. There were many scandals around Collor.

I actually agree with you that people where more willing to protest about corruption then, however I think you have the reason wrong. When things are going well economically and people's lives are improving they are more tolerant of corruption. However when times are difficult and people see politicians stealing it makes them angry. It's just human nature, not some evil plot by PT.

Well of course corruption is difficult to measure, but perhaps the most widespread index is the one by Transparency International, which is on the link below. You can see that from 1994-2002 Brazil was steadily improving, and from 2003 onwards we went down the hill again. What happened in 2003? Lula happened.
http://www.contasabertas.org/website/noticias/arquivos/722_IPC_-_1995_-_2011(1).pdf


I don't see how that really supports your argument. In 2003, Brazil had a rating of 3.9 and in 2010, Brazil had a rating of 3.7, or a 2% increase in the perception of corruption. As you say it's hard to measure corruption but I don't think it's justifiable to call a 2% increase in the perception of corruption 'getting much worse'.


China is about as rich as Brazil on a per capita basis, and soon will be richer. And we should also compare ourselves with Mexico or Russia, wealthier countries that also grew far more than Brazil and improved the life of their people far more as well (check their human development index, it beats ours soundly).

Well in fact GDP per capita for Brazil is $11,769 and for China it is $8,382 (IMF 2011). That's a huge difference. India's is 3,694. So again it seems clear that these countries have more potential for growth.

You say that Brazil's growth has been due to a commodity boom and Russia? It's whole growth has been based on oil and gas. It's a cold Saudi Arabia!

Yeah, thanks to a commodity boom and social programs created by his predecessor.

…..

As for Serra, he is more genuinely left-wing than Lula, so his posture was unsurprising.

I don't agree but it seems hard to find a way that would convince you. Instead I will say that voters in Brazil were very happy with Lula's government and his political opponents did not make the arguments that you are making against him. I can only imagine that this is because those arguments would not have convinced many people.

People really saw their lives improve during his term. The quality of people's lives are not just matters of having GDP growth, although obviously these are often linked, but there other ways too, such as changing the way that wealth is divided. This was done, although I would say to a limited extent, through social programs and this is what improved people's lives.

I think that's a little contradictory. You say it's not because of actual barriers but for historical reasons. Well those historical reasons are the barriers. The people at the top have been maintaining their positions for a long time. It is like an exclusive club, and to be a member you have to rich and white. There are ways to enter the club of course, such as getting a very good education, but guess which people monopolise the good education!

As for poor whites making it to the top, one word, Lula! Now of course, as you say, very few people with poor origins make it into the elite, but I wonder how long it will be before we see a black or mixed race president.

Historical reasons aren't really barriers. What we have in Brazil are economic conditions that inhibit if not cripple entrepreneurship (very high taxes, impossible bureaucracy and red tape, etc.), making it very hard for people from the bottom to make it to the very top. It does happen, but is far rarer than in other countries. The result is the elite is largely made up of people who were born in the elite or at least in an upper-middle class. A side-effect is the very small number of blacks. But are there actual barriers preventing blacks from making it because of their skin color? Of course not.


I'm not sure about the average price, but I would think it's probably lower than 50,000. I remember a few years ago it was possible to buy a house (not a very nice one, admittedly) for between 5,000-10,000. Of course Rocinha is huge and there is a lot of variation there, rich, middle and poor. Prices have also been rising for a while now, and with the UPP this will only accelerate. This should be good news for your friend as well, because as security improves (or rather the perception of it) and values increase in the favela, so values will increase around the favela.

I'm pretty sure 50,000 is about average for Rocinha. As I said, it's per capita income is higher than the Brazilian average. I don't know if it's good news for my friend, because the increase in value is leading to a construction boom in Rocinha, each year advancing further towards the "asphalt" of Gávea and previously green preservation areas. This is very bad for property value. I remember very well it was impossible to see the Rocinha from Lagoa just some years ago, now it's a huge sight occupying former green areas.


But of course we cannot only talk about Rocinha or other favelas in the zona sul, the majority of people do not live in the zona sul. How much is a house in Jacarezinho or Manguinhos worth?

Next to nothing, and those are the favelas where urbanization efforts of the government should be centered. Not Rocinha, Pavão-Pavãozinho, Dona Marta, etc.


Of course while most people who live in the favelas are poor, I also object to this idea that everyone in the favela must be poor. It's like when people say "oh those Palestinian 'refugees' have houses and TVs and even running water, how can they call the places refugee camps, they should be living in tents". Those people have been for 60 years, of course they will have done things to improve their situation and make life better for themselves. It's the same in the favelas, when someone arrives maybe he can build a very basic house and have a few simple things, but over time, as he works and earns money he will improve his home, get more things, and improve his life.

Well considering the risk of living in those areas most people expect better off individuals to move out once they can afford it. That's why it's always shocking to hear of people making 10-20k a month living in Rocinha. It's also a bit revolting that people making that much (much more than I make) pay no property taxes, no electricity bill, no cable TV bill, etc., while the rest of the city is raped every month by ever increasing taxes and fees. It leads to resentment; just last week a taxi driver was telling me that he has a colleague who lives in a favela who has air conditioning in all rooms of his house and leaves them running the whole day, because he doesn't pay electricity bills anyway. The driver was quite mad about it all.


I would imagine that you were being paid quite well though for your job and/or it was helpful in your career, and so it was worth it to you to do this. However the calculation will be very different for someone working a minimum wage job with zero chance of advancement.

Define quite well, I would disagree ;)
The calculation is fundamentally the same, people do what they got to do.


Also imagine what your journey would have been like if the favelados in the zona sul were living the Baixada and using the Avenida Brasil every day. You would still be waiting in the traffic now. ;)

That's a good point, actually.


The government can do many things, it can raise minimum wages, it can invest in areas with few jobs, it can build decent infrastructure, it can build social housing etc. There are a whole range of things that a government can do to help people live decent lives. Unfortunately our government has failed to do even these basic things in the past and this is why things are not better organised today.

The government can't set the minimum wage at an arbitrarily high level and think poverty will disappear. It would just lead to massive unemployment. The wage level is ultimately determined by economic conditions, not the government. We've been ruled by the left for a decade now and the minimum wage is still worth peanuts, why?
I agree with investing in infra-structure and social housing.


Just because people in the US might travel 50km to get to work does that mean it's a good idea?! It's ridiculous for people to do that, it makes no sense. People living near to where they work is the best policy. It's more efficient in terms of infrastructure, in terms of the environment, it's better for the people's quality of life. Why wouldn't a sensible government want to promote something like that.

It's not just in the US, Europeans do the same, and there's good reason to it. The city cores cannot accommodate all the people involved in the economic activity there. Think of Rio's South Zone, there's far too many people living there already, causing chaotic traffic and overcrowded sidewalks (think Copacabana), so ideally the population should decrease with the removal of favelas and perhaps even more. Ideally there would be a vast freeway network, not to mention a decent subway system, so that people could live in the far end of the West Zone, or even Petrópolis or Angra, and still work in the South Zone / Downtown. That's how it is in New York, London or Paris. There's much better quality of life in a taking a 40 minutes train ride to a nice, not too crowded neighborhood, than in walking to work while living in a sardine box.


I don't think comparing two scandals in isolation is helpful. There were many scandals around Collor.

But if you try to remember them, you'll see they all seem parochial and silly compared to present depravity.


I actually agree with you that people where more willing to protest about corruption then, however I think you have the reason wrong. When things are going well economically and people's lives are improving they are more tolerant of corruption. However when times are difficult and people see politicians stealing it makes them angry. It's just human nature, not some evil plot by PT.

The fact is PT controls the major labor unions, the official student movement, etc. So all those "patriots" who were in the street against Collor are now living off public money and thus couldn't care less if PT is raping public coffers.


I don't see how that really supports your argument. In 2003, Brazil had a rating of 3.9 and in 2010, Brazil had a rating of 3.7, or a 2% increase in the perception of corruption. As you say it's hard to measure corruption but I don't think it's justifiable to call a 2% increase in the perception of corruption 'getting much worse'.

I think looking at it quantitatively is troublesome. The message is corruption was decreasing in Brazil from Collor's impeachment until Lula's election, and then got worse again. This is a clear message.


Well in fact GDP per capita for Brazil is $11,769 and for China it is $8,382 (IMF 2011). That's a huge difference. India's is 3,694. So again it seems clear that these countries have more potential for growth.

The difference between Brazil and China does not explain the difference in growth. They're expected to be richer than us in just a few years. And it's not just China and India, look at the graphs I posted showing how Brazil performed far worse than the developing world average. Relative to the rest of the world, we got poorer, not richer.


You say that Brazil's growth has been due to a commodity boom and Russia? It's whole growth has been based on oil and gas. It's a cold Saudi Arabia!

Well yeah, that's the point. Brazil's growth was just like Russia growth, only smaller. Nothing spectacular and no merit whatsoever to Lula.


I don't agree but it seems hard to find a way that would convince you. Instead I will say that voters in Brazil were very happy with Lula's government and his political opponents did not make the arguments that you are making against him. I can only imagine that this is because those arguments would not have convinced many people.

People really saw their lives improve during his term. The quality of people's lives are not just matters of having GDP growth, although obviously these are often linked, but there other ways too, such as changing the way that wealth is divided. This was done, although I would say to a limited extent, through social programs and this is what improved people's lives.
Yeah, people are happy now as they were happy in the early 20th Century when coffee prices boomed. We're experiencing a commodity windfall, development in general is moving at a pathetic pace. People will realize that sooner or later.

I think that's a little contradictory. You say it's not because of actual barriers but for historical reasons. Well those historical reasons are the barriers. The people at the top have been maintaining their positions for a long time. It is like an exclusive club, and to be a member you have to rich and white. There are ways to enter the club of course, such as getting a very good education, but guess which people monopolise the good education!I think it is a bit worse than that given that the practice of slave labor is still occurring on a major scale.

Joao Ribeiro, Brazil Senator, To Be Tried On Slave Labor Charges (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/joao-ribeiro-brazil-slave-labor_n_1299240.html)

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — Brazil's Supreme Court says it will try a senator on slave labor charges.

The Supreme Court says on its website that it will rule on the charges filed by the federal attorney general against Senator Joao Ribeiro, who allegedly kept more than 30 workers under slave-like conditions on his ranch in the Amazon jungle state of Para.

As a senator, Ribeiro can only be tried by the country's highest court.

In 2004, Labor Ministry inspectors found 35 workers on Ribeiro's ranch working 78 hours a week with no medical assistance, no days off and living in "subhuman" conditions.

The inspectors found that the workers racked up debts to the ranch for the food and equipment it sold to them. The owed money was deducted from their wages.

The authorities found these people living in such deplorable conditions 8 years ago, and the Supreme Court is now finally hearing the case? They must be really busy on far more pressing matters.

Government fights slave labor in Brazil (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/09/brazil.slavery/index.html)

CNN) -- Slavery may seem like a quaint notion in a 21st century world, but that distinction is lost on up to 40,000 Brazilians who find themselves toiling for no real wages and can't leave the distant work camps where they live.

Brazilian government officials and human rights activists call it slave labor, a condition they are aggressively trying to eradicate. A special government task force established in 1995 says it freed 4,634 workers last year in 133 raids on large farms and businesses that rely on workers driven to take these jobs by hunger and the empty promises of labor recruiters.

"Slavery is the tail end of a lot of abuse of poor people and workers in Brazil," said Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based policy center. "Bad treatment reaches over to abusive treatment to treatment that becomes virtual slavery."

In Brazil, it often works this way: A recruiter known as a "gato," or cat, plumbs the slums and other poor areas of the vast country and gets people to agree to jobs in distant places. Once separated from home and family, workers are vulnerable to all sorts of abuses, such as being told they owe money for transportation, food, housing and other services.

"This is known as debt bondage, which also fits official definitions of slavery," says Anti-slavery International, a lobbying group based in Great Britain. "A person is in debt bondage when their labor is demanded as the means of repayment for a loan or an advance. Once in debt they lose all control over their conditions of work and what, if anything they are paid ... often making it impossible to repay and trapping them in a cycle of debt."

The United Nations International Labour Organization estimated there were between 25,000 and 40,000 Brazilians working under such conditions in 2003, the latest year for which it offered figures.

"Slave labor is not a disease," Sakamoto said. "It's like a fever. Fever is a symptom that something is wrong."

That something is widespread poverty.

Although the poverty rate dropped recently to its lowest levels in 25 years, nearly one of every four Brazilians still lives in poverty, according to a 2006 survey by the Getulio Vargas Foundation's Center for Social Policy Studies. The Web-based Index Mundi, which says it obtains its figures from the CIA World Factbook, estimates the poverty rate could be as high as one of every three Brazilians.

With a population approaching 200 million people, that means at least 49 million Brazilians live under squalid economic conditions.

"We have poverty. We have greed. And we have impunity," Sakamoto said. "We have to fight these three pieces at the same time. We have been fighting against impunity and we have been fighting against greed, but we are just starting to fight against poverty."

Brazil slave labor protest (http://www.chron.com/premium/gallery/Brazil-slave-labor-protest-42709/photo-2912479.php)

http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/13/07/03/2912479/3/628x471.jpg

Indians from the Hunikuni tribe protest slave labor outside the Chamber of Deputies in Brasilia, Brazil, Tuesday, May 8, 2012. Brazil's lower house is expected to vote on a constitutional amendment that would punish landholders found to be using slave labor. The proposed bill would allow the government to confiscate all property of those found to be using slave labor, among other penalties. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres) Photo: Eraldo Peres, Associated Press / AP

I wonder what the existing penalties are for ruthlessly exploiting the poor, and why it has taken so long to do anything about this widespread problem.

While there are cases of real semi-slave labor (actual slave labor does not exist, obviously), one has to be careful with those statistics and with the government "campaign against slave labor" as well.

I actually read an interesting article about it today. The Ministry of Labor forces small rural employers to meet over 240 conditions for them to employ anyone, and failing to meet any of them means they may get prosecuted for employing workers "in condition akin to slave labor". For instance, if you're a small producer and hired a guy to drive a tractor, but the tractor broke down and you ask him to look after your fruit plantation, this is considered by the government a "change of function" and as such the employee would have to pass a medical examination on a government-accredited clinic. Failing that means you can be prosecuted for slave labor. Yeah, this country is this messed up.

I think it is a bit worse than that given that the practice of slave labor is still occurring on a major scale.

Joao Ribeiro, Brazil Senator, To Be Tried On Slave Labor Charges (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/joao-ribeiro-brazil-slave-labor_n_1299240.html)

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — Brazil's Supreme Court says it will try a senator on slave labor charges.

The Supreme Court says on its website that it will rule on the charges filed by the federal attorney general against Senator Joao Ribeiro, who allegedly kept more than 30 workers under slave-like conditions on his ranch in the Amazon jungle state of Para.

As a senator, Ribeiro can only be tried by the country's highest court.

In 2004, Labor Ministry inspectors found 35 workers on Ribeiro's ranch working 78 hours a week with no medical assistance, no days off and living in "subhuman" conditions.

The inspectors found that the workers racked up debts to the ranch for the food and equipment it sold to them. The owed money was deducted from their wages.

Because the thread is about racist, I feel I should again say that this was common right from the period after the establishment of slavery, and that among the first victims of this system were many of the european immigrants attracted into Brazil in the late 19th and early 20th century. The system was one set up to exploit the poor and defenseless, but made no distinction about skin color: any victim would be a good victim...