Talk:Brazil/Archive 10

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Some of the most frequently cited scholarly sources are being neglected:

• Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant. 1999. “On the Cunning of Imperialist Reason.” Theory, Culture & Society 16(1):41-58.
• Burdick, John. 1995. “Brazil's Black Consciousness Movement.” In Fighting for the Soul of Brazil. Kevin Danaher and Michael Shellenberger, eds. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Fry, Peter. 1991. “Politicamente correto num lugar, incorreto noutro? (relações raciais no Brasil, nos EUA, em Moçambique e no Zimbábue).” Estudos Afro-Asiáticos, no. 21.

• 1994. “O Que a Cinderela Negra tem a dizer sobre a 'política racial' no Brasil.” Revista da USP, 28.
• 1995. “Why Brazil is Different.” Times Literary Supplement. December 8, pp. 6-7.
• 2000. “Politics, Nationality, and the Meanings of 'Race' in Brazil.” Daedalus 129(2): 83-118.

• Goldstein, Donna. 1999. “‘Interracial’ Sex and Racial Democracy in Brazil: Twin Concepts?” American Anthropologist 101(3): 563-578.
• Guimarães, Antonio Sérgio Alfredo. 2001a. “The Misadventures of Nonracialism in Brazil.” In Hamilton, Charles V. et al., eds. 2001. Beyond Racism: Race and Inequality in Brazil, South Africa, and the United States. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers.
• Hanchard, Michael George. 1994a. Orpheus and Power: The Movimento Negro of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, Brazil, 1945-1988. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

• 1994b. “Black Cinderella?: Race and the Public Sphere in Brazil.” Public Culture 7:165-185.
• 2003. “Acts of Misrecognition: Transnational Black Politics, Anti-imperialism and the Ethnocentrism of Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant.” Theory, Culture & Society 20(4):5-29.

• Harris, Marvin. 1964. Patterns of Race in the Americas. New York: Walker.

• 1970. “Referential Ambiguity.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 26:1-14.

• Hutchinson, Harry. 1957. Village and Plantation Life in Northeastern Brazil. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
• Lovell, Peggy A. and Jeffrey Dwyer. 1988. “The Cost of Being Nonwhite in Brazil.” Sociology and Social Research 72:136-142.
• Maggie, Yvonne and Peter Fry. 2002. “O debate que não houve: A reserva de vagas para negros nas universidades brasileiras” Enfoques
• Maio, Marcos Chor. "UNESCO and the study of race relations in Brazil: regional or national issue?" Latin American Research Review, 36(2):118- 136.
• McCallum, Cecila. 2005. “Racialized Bodies, Naturalized Classes: Moving through the City of Salvador da Bahia” American Ethnologist 32(1): 100-117.
• Marx, Anthony W. 1998. Making Race and Nation: A Comparison of South Africa, the United States, and Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mitchell, Michael. 1985. “Blacks and the Abertura Democática.” In Race, Class and Power in Brazil, Pierre-Michel Fonataine, ed. Los Angeles: UCLA/CAAS.
• Nogueira, Oracy. 1985 [1954]. Tanto preto quanto branco: Preconceito racial de marca e preconceito racial de origem. São Paulo: Queiroz.
• Sansone, Livio. 2003. Blackness without Ethnicity: Constructing Race in Brazil. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Sheriff, Robin E. 2001. Dreaming Equality: Color, Race, and Racism in Urban Brazil. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

• 2003. “Embracing Race: Deconstructing Mestiçagem in Rio de Janeiro. Journal of Latin American Anthropology 8(1):86-115.

• Silva, Nelson do Valle. 1985. “The Costs of Not Being White,” In Race, Class, and Power in Brazil. Pierre-Michel Fontaine, ed. Los Angeles: Center for Afro-American Studies, University of California.

• 1988. “Cor e processo de realização sócio-económica,” In Estrutura social, mobilidade e raça. Carlos Hasenbalg and Nelson do Valle Silva, eds. São Paulo: Vertice.

• Skidmore, Thomas E. “Race and Class in Brazil: Historical Perspectives.” In Race, Class and Power in Brazil, Pierre-Michel Fonataine, ed. Los Angeles: UCLA/CAAS.
• Sweet, James H. 1997. “The Iberian Roots of American Racist Thought.” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, 54(1):143-166.
• Tannebaum, Frank. 1946. Slave and Citizen. New York: Vintage.
• Telles, Edward 2002. “Racial Ambiguity among the Brazilian Population.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 25(3):415-441.

• 2003. “US Foundations and Racial Reasoning in Brazil.” Theory, Culture & Society 20(4):31-47.
• 2004. Race in Another America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

• Telles, Edward E. and Stanley Bailey. 2002. “Políticas Anti-Racistas e Opinião Pública: Comparações com os Estados Unidos.” Opinião Pública 8(1):30-39.
• Telles, Edward E. and Nelson Lim. 1998. “Does it Matter Who Answers the Race Question?: Racial Classification and Income Inequality in Brazil.” Demography 35(4).
• Twine, France Winddance. 1997. Racism in a Racial Democracy: The Maintenance of White Supremacy in Brazil. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Wacquant, Loïc J. D. 1997. “For an Analytic of Racial Domination.” Political Power and Social Theory 11:221-234.
• Wagley, Charles. 1952. “Race Relations in an Amazon Community.” In Race and Class in Rural Brazil, Charles Wagley, ed. Paris: UNESCO.
• Warren, Jonathan W. 2001. Racial Revolutions: Antiracism and Indian Resurgence in Brazil. Durham: Duke University Press.
• Winant, Howard. 1992. “Rethinking Race in Brazil.” Journal of Latin American Studies 24:173-192.
• Wood, Charles and José Alberto Magno de Carvalho. 1988. The Demography of Inequality in Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The table constructed above, and much of the "data' presented, seems to assume that (1) races are discrete/exclusive, (2) are marked by diferent colors, (3) which signify descent from people from distinct parts of the world. In fact, these are all matters of scientific debate. These three basic principles are part of an ideology that emerged in Europe in the post-Colombian period. Today it takes the form of related ideologies in Europe, Hispanophone America, Lusophone America, Anglophone America, each of which are different because of different histories. The question of how best to represent how people identify themselves racialy is also a matter of debate. States (and some scientists) generally try to reduce and simplify racial categories. This does not make such categories "real" and the degree to which people actually think in these terms is a matter of still another debate. I don't think throwing around percentages means anything until there has been a discussion of the debates that have informed how race is represented, and how representations of race are understood. Which is what the most recent sources above are doing. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, unfortunately you are not helping dealing with the matter. We are not in here discussing ethnicity in Brazil and we are not fighting to show who has more sources. And no, your books are not considered the most frequently cited sources. At least they are not in Brazil, as none of them are used in Schools or Universities. And based only in the titles, the books you cited must be devoted mostly to Racism matters or similar. Not the case in here. What is being discussed is simple: Opinoso said that in Brazil the word "Caboclo" does not exist and even less it is used by scholars. Plus, he said that Caboclos are not the majority of the population in the northeast (where I do live, BTW), but instead, Blacks. So, it would be nice if you could keep the focus on the matter, if possible. Also, the books I cited were not 50 years out of date. The oldest is from 1971 and the youngest from 1996. Do the math. And even if they were 50 years old, that would't make them unworthy. A book is not considered out of date because of its age and even less because of your personal opinion, which is the case right now. Books are not Computer hardware. Unless, of course, you can prove to us that the books I cited, that exist in every Public Library in Brazil (or you thought I had them all?) are considered "out of date" and that the books you cited are the one most used. It would be interesting to see a writer saying that Caio Prado Júnior is out of date. Perhaps Adam Smith is also out of date in studies about Capitalism? --Lecen (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Lecen, I already addressed the issue between you and Opinoso: the dispute can be easily resolved if both of you were to adhere to our NPOV and V policy. Wikipedia is not about presenting "the truth" so the question is NOT whether Blacks or Caboclos are the majority in Bahia or another state in NE Brazil. The question is, what are the significant views - emphasis on the plural - in reliable sources. There is no reason why the article cannot say, According to X, the majority of people in NE Brazil are Black, but according to Y, they are Caboclos. This is simple. But there is a bigger question which is, what discourse do these words belong to? What other discourses of racial or ethnic identity are there in NE Brazil? How did these discourses develop and how are they used? This is a highly relevant set of questions that many of the readings I suggest address. You are correct that a book at is thirty, forty, fifty years old or more can have merit, I am glad to be corrected by you - but books or articles, no matter how old or how widely they are relied, on operate within particular contexts and those contexts should be spelled out. By the way, Adam Smith never wrote about capitalism. The word capitalism never appears in The Wealth of Nations. Perhaps you meant to say "markets" or "international trade." Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Also I do not think Ninguem is useing MtDNA data correctly, and some of the readings I provide as sources address these issue. Leccen, I am sorry you think this is a game about showing off who "has" more sources. I am suggesting these as useful references for improving the article. If you think I unfairly insulted some of the sources you have used, that is one thing, but it should not prejudice you against these sources. They aren't "mine," they are written by a wide range of scholars many of whom disagree with one another; they do not represent "my" view, they represent a range of scholarly views on how people (including us, by implication) talk about race/use racial categories; these are serious cholars who put a lot of time into their research. This is not a game of "who has the most sources," it is always a good thing to bring more reliable sources to an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rubenstein, while I think that we certainly should have a discussion about ethnicity, race, color, etc., in Brazil, I would say that this article is not the place for it. It should be discussed in Pardo, Caboclo, White Brazilian, African Brazilian, Black Brazilian, Crioulo, Sarará, Mameluco, Cafuzo, etc, and, especially, in Ethnic groups in Brazil. Here we should just say what the available sources state about the issue - caboclos are the majority of the population of the Northern Region and Northeastern hinterland. The readers who want to know what a caboclo is, whether the word exists and is used by Brazilians at large or by anthropologists, and what are the newest discoveries and discussions by anthropologists, historians, ethnographists, geneticists, etc. concerning this category, should be redirected to those articles. Ninguém (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, Wikipedia has an article about a word that "makes no sence": Caboclo. One of its contributors is... Opinoso. Who hasn't, on that article or its Talk Page, voiced the opinion that it doesn't make sence. Ninguém (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Here, a whole book (of 2006) about "nonsence": .

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

In the demographics section of this article, there is a passage I wrote:

The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officialy called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (of Blacks and Indians) [dubious – discuss] The Caboclos forms the majority of the population in the Northern,[dubious – discuss] Northeastern [dubious – discuss] and Central-Western [dubious – discuss] regions. Bahia and Maranhão are the exception, as there is a large Mulatto population in both states.

As you can see, there are dubious tags in it. The reason claimed by another editor is that:

1. Caboclos are not the majority of the population in the Northern and Northeatern Brazil. Blacks are, with 85% of the total population according to his newspaper source.
2. Caboclo is not a name used or recognized in Brazil.

However, at least eight different Brazilian authors disagree with this view. To them, not only Caboclo (a descendant of a white and a Indian) is a name commonly used but it is also the majority of the population of those regions. One of those authors is Caio Prado Júnior, still a main reference up to this day to matters related to the Brazilian people formation and the other is Melhem Adas whose book is used in Brazilian high schools and the newest edition is from 2004.

So, it's simple: the passage should stay or should it be removed and changed for the 85% black population info? --Lecen (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply include the tables from the Brazilian census, and if there is a discussion to be had, a brief referenced note that usage of the term is disputed by x, y or z. Rich Farmbrough, 11:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC).

I like the idea of including the tables from the Brazilian census. But, when it comes to demographics, I'd rather have official sources like IGBE or state government sites being used for statements. The reason is that IGBE has the special task of dealing with demographics and this is the field that their supposed to be the most adept, reliable and most accurate in because this is their main job. From experience, mostly newspaper sources, are sometimes unreliable especially when it comes to demographics. They typically use one source and stick with it. That source has a chance to be unreliable (sometimes really unreliable) and might not be from official sources. Authors who write books typically use multiple sources and I generally accept them as reliable because they typically use multiple sources in which they are able to compare and write about a subject. However, I haven't seen the IBGE use Cafuzos or Caboclos from their site though. But I wouldn't count them out as incorrect yet because I know in Latin America there are many different names for mixed races. Sorry, but I have insufficient knowledge at this time based on what I currently know to discuss more about the demographics. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The demographics section should be reverted to its original content (before Lecen decided to include the Caboclo informations). It had only the IBGE census data and some informations about the formations of the Brazilian population. It did not claim who is the majority in North or Northeastern Brazil (this is not the place to give details about the people in only two areas of Brazil). By the way, to claim who is the "majority" is dangerous since different sources claim different things.

About the 85% Blacks in North or Northeastern, this is because IBGE counts Blacks and Pardos as Blacks. It's not a surprise, since light Mulattos are counted as Whites in Brazil, only the dark Mulattoes are counted as Pardos and only the Congolese-looking people are counted as Blacks. Strange in a country that imported over 4 million slaves from Africa, and only 6% of the population is self-reported to be Black, while the country received only 5-6 million Europeans, and nearly 50% are self-reported as White.

Nobody needs to look Norwegian or Finish to be White in Brazil. If you are a little light, then you're always non-Black and usually White. But to be Black you have to look as if you came straight from Congo or Nigeria. The "Whiten" ideology is really alive here.

• Most Pardos are of African descent, and look to be of African descent (mixed or not). Many Whites (if not most) also look to be part African:

In Brazil black is the very dark black, the mulatto is the Pardo and then is half white, and if the skin color is a little lighter, the person is incorporated into the white community (Darcy Ribeiro)

• The IBGE does count Pardos as Blacks. It's not wrong to count Pardos as Blacks, because the majority of them are Blacks or partly Black, while the light brown mixed population is included in the White population. Even though there are "some people" trying to sell the idea that most White Brazilians look European, they don't. Most look mixed and have light brown skin, not really an European look. Moreover, Ribeiro describes Pardo as synonymous for Mulatto:

"The blacks have reached a maximum of 5.6 million, while those who define themselves as Pardo (Mulatto) would be 13.7 million, and the whites (who are mainly mixed) amount to 32 million." (Ribeiro)

• Caboclos are usually counted as Whites:

This also explains, in part, the whitening of the Brazilians, since mixed people of European and Indian heritage make up a light brown type, that in the eyes and sensitivity of any Brazilian, seem to be pure Whites. (Darcy Ribeiro).

• The theory by Darcy Ribeiro is confirmed in a survey in Rio de Janeiro: most Caboclos in Rio claim to be Whites, not Pardo (brown). On the other hand, most Mulattos claim to be Pardo (brown), not Whites.:

Moreover, in Rio de Janeiro, the majority of Pardos claim to be a mix of African, European and Amerindian. They are not Mulattos or Caboclos, but a mix of them. Then, the binary classification of Pardos in Mulattos on one side and Caboclos on the other side is ridiculous, since most people in Rio, and possibily in the rest of Brazil, are and claim to be a mix of African, European and Amerindian. And yes, Darcy Ribeiro does use the Caboclo term in his book, but more as a cultural term, not as a racial word. A large part of people in Northern Brazil are descended from Northeastern migrants, who "became" Caboclos after settling in the Amazon Rainforest. Moreover, there is a large population of African descent in Northern Brazil, even though this is usually ignored.

• Black slaves were many in Northern Brazil:

In 1833 the Province of Pará (Northern Brazil) had 119,877 inhabitants, being 32,751 Amerindians and 29,977 black slaves. Mixed-race people were 42,000. The White minority was 15,000, over half of them Portuguese.("A hora da desforra", por Júlio José Chiavenato, Revista História Viva, nº 45, páginas 84 a 91)

As one can see, the Northern region historically had a majority of Amerindians, Blacks and mixed people, and a really small minority of Whites. It's wrong to claim people from Northern Brazil to be racially only a mix of Whites and Indians, since historical censuses show that Black slaves were very numerous there and they did not "disappear", their descendants still live there, racially mixed with other people. With the more recent influx of Northeastern migrants to the North, it's not a surprise that the Black element grew even more. By the way, Northern Brazil is home to only about 10% of the Brazilian population, and they have a small impact in the ethnic compostion of the whole Brazil.

Conclusion: the Caboclo majority is not true, since this group is historically mixed with Black people. Moreover, the minority that is of strict European and Amerindian ancestry is mostly counted as Whites, not as Pardos. Most Pardos are of African descent and are counted as Blacks by the IBGE. By the way, stop trying to devide the Brazilian people in different races or ethnic groups, because this is not possible since everybody is mixed and racial categories are not well-defined in this country. Leave the census data and some informations about Amerindians, Black slaves and European/Asian immigration. The definition of who is a "majority" or "minority" is dubious and often wrong. Opinoso (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about reporting right views, or not reporting wrong views. Wikipedia is not about right or wrong, true or false. it is about views - majority view and minority views, or just different views. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not want to share my opinion because I thought I had said enough and I really wanted this thread to be something simple, like "I chose this one", not a place for heavy long debates that will drive other editors away. But now that Opinoso has turned to another direction, let's see what we can do.

Opinoso wrote: The demographics section should be reverted to its original content (before Lecen decided to include the Caboclo informations).

Fine, that's your vote.

It did not claim who is the majority in North or Northeastern Brazil (this is not the place to give details about the people in only two areas of Brazil).

I disagree because Brazil is a country of the size of a continent. To say that Europe has only whites and that's it is to ignore that a Turk is different from a British who is different of an Italian. All whites, but all diferent at the same time. In Brazil, there are whites, blacks, Indians, Pardos and Mongolic Asians. Even more complicated and diversified than Europe.

By the way, to claim who is the "majority" is dangerous since different sources claim different things.

What sources? At least since the 1960s up to 2000s all experts says exactly the same about Brazilian ethnic groups. In fact, the book used on Brazilian High Schools say that too. So, are you saying that millions of Brazilians students are learning wrong?

About the 85% Blacks in North or Northeastern, this is because IBGE counts Blacks and Pardos as Blacks.

You still haven't brought to us a single source from IBGE that says that Blacks and Pardos are the same. In fact, this is view has obvious flaws. Why count 2 different categories if they are in fact the same one? And more: juat becauae IBGE is the official government agency does not mean that it should be taken for granted anything it says. If that was the case, I would have to believe that when Saddan Hussein was "re-elected" in 2003 with 100% of the votes it was to be taken as the supreme truth and could not be contested at all.

since light Mulattos are counted as Whites in Brazil, only the dark Mulattoes are counted as Pardos and only the Congolese-looking people are counted as Blacks.

Oh, so, are you saying now that the IBGE treats whites, pardos and blacks as the same? Because if light mulattoes (black+white) are treated as whites and dark mulattoes (black+white) are treated as Pardos and Pardos are treated as Blacks doest that mean that Brazil has 100% blacks? And again, does IBGE says that? That it counts light mulattoes as whites and only dark mulattoes as Brown? Why to divide mulattoes in two different categories? And why to add two different categories (pardos and blacks) into one? Isn't that arbitrary? Pardos and Blacks are the same, but MULATTOES AREN'T THE SAME EVEN AMONG THEMSELVES? I am sorry, it's just very, very hard to follow yours thoughts.

Strange in a country that imported over 4 million slaves from Africa, and only 6% of the population is self-reported to be Black

Maybe because most of them died in captivity? If black slaves (or any kind of slave) were a self-grown population, why bothering to bring hundreds of thousands each year from Africa?

while the country received only 5-6 million Europeans, and nearly 50% are self-reported as White

Maybe because they came in the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century and well... err... they were not beaten to death, starved to death or forced to work like animals as the poor black slaves had to?

Nobody needs to look Norwegian or Finish to be White in Brazil.

So, to be white someone must be blond and have blue eyes? Weird concept you have of "white". What about the Arabs? They are probably blacks then?

If you are a little light, then you're always non-Black and usually White. But to be Black you have to look as if you came straight from Congo or Nigeria.

Oh, oh! I got it! So, a male white has a child with a black woman. Their child is a mulatto (50% white and 50% black on this particular case). He is neither too white nor too black. So, he is to be considered white then according to you? Because to be black he would have, what you said? "look like if you came straight from Congo or Nigeria". So, why the mulattoes are considered blacks then if they are in fact treated as whites? God, it's so hard to follow Opinoso! He enters in contradiction too often!

The "Whiten" ideology is really alive here.

So, you're saying now that IBGE can not be trusted because it has a racist view of Brazilian ethnicity? Just a minute ago you said that IBGE was to be treated as a dogma, and now it is not worth a dime? So many contradictions!--Lecen (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Most Pardos are of African descent, and look to be of African descent (mixed or not). Many Whites (if not most) also look to be part African:

Most Pardos, if not almost all, are of white descent, so, why are they considered blacks and not whites? Since when the black category has primacy over the white category?

So whites in Brazil look like blacks? Wait, most? You said most? Most look like part African. So, whites in Brazil are in fact mulattoes and if they are mulattoes, they are blacks?

In Brazil black is the very dark black, the mulatto is the Pardo and then is half white, and if the skin color is a little lighter, the person is incorporated into the white community (Darcy Ribeiro)

What book? What page? Because if that's how we are going to discuss in here, I am going to write "Lecen is 100% correct (Joaquim Barbosa da Silva dos Reis Jaboticaba)". Here it is the online version of Ribeiro's book. Tell us on what page it is then.

The IBGE does count Pardos as Blacks.

You just said that IBGE treats Mulattoes as Whites because it has a racist view. Now it can be treated as a reliable source? Make up your mind once and for all, please!

It's not wrong to count Pardos as Blacks,

But it is correct to divide Mulattoes? What? Two different categories are treated as the same but one same category (mulatto) it isn't? After all, according to you, we have the "light mulattoes" and the "dark mulattoes".

because the majority of them are Blacks or partly Black

As they are white or partly white. Why aren't they considered white then? All, I forgot, whites are blacks too.

while the light brown mixed population is included in the White population.

Too arbitrary, why IBEGE does that? Why it divides a same category and treats two different ones as the same?

Even though there are "some people" trying to sell the idea that most White Brazilians look European

Who are those people? Do they have names? And White brazilians do not look european? They look like what then? Are you saying that if white Brazilians are not truly whites that means that IBGE is not a reliable agency as it uncapable of giving a true information about the ethnics groups in Brazil? --Lecen (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Most look mixed and have light brown skin, not really an European look. Moreover, Ribeiro describes Pardo as synonymous for Mulatto:

You said before that Caboclo is a name that does not exist in Brazil and it is not recognized by Brazilian experts on that field. However, Darcy Ribeiro has a whole chapter devoted to the Caboclos. So, he is wrong? Or he is right? Why your sources are wrong and right at the same time anytime it suits you?

The blacks have reached a maximum of 5.6 million, while those who define themselves as Pardo (Mulatto) would be 13.7 million, and the whites (who are mainly mixed) amount to 32 million."

Give us the page and book. So, Ribeiro says that Caboclo exists, but they are not Pardo? What are they? Whites? But didn't you say a couple of lines ago that whites were indeed "black-look-alikes"? Are whites in Brazil whites, Caboclos or light mulattoes? Perhaps white are all at the same time? So white in Brazil is a multiethnic category? Man, your thoughts are so full of holes that make a Swiss cheese look like a soccer ball.

Caboclos are usually counted as Whites

So whites are indeed a multiethnic category? But blacks aren't? After all, they have to team-up with pardos to be treated as a sole category, right? Oww.... headache....

The theory by Darcy Ribeiro is confirmed in a survey in Rio de Janeiro: most Caboclos in Rio claim to be Whites, not Pardo (brown). On the other hand, most Mulattos claim to be Pardo (brown), not Whites.:

But you said that there is no word such as caboclo and it is not even recognized as an ethnic group in Brazil! Now there are caboclos? Will you make up your mind or not? --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It should definitely stay. All sources agree that the majority of the population of the Northern Region is cabocla. All sources agree that the majority of the population in the hinterland of the Northeastern Region is cabocla. Ninguém (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

IBGE counts Blacks and Pardos as Blacks. (Opinoso)

That's just plainly wrong.

The IBGE counts people; this includes counting people regarding to their perceived "cor ou raça". When it does this, the IBGE gives people five options:

• Branca
• Parda
• Preta
• Amarela
• Indígena.

(Notice that "parda" and "preta" are two distinct options.)

Besides that, people also are counted as "Sem Declaração" (undeclared), when they, for any reason, reject those categories (or perhaps just forget to answer this item).

It is not the business of the IBGE to "count pardos as Blacks", and it doesn't do that.

Other Brazilian governmental agency, namely the SEPPIR (Secretaria Especial de Políticas de Promoção da Igualdade Racial) do, for their own reasons, group pardos and pretos (as people who need affirmative action from the Brazilian State). It doesn't by any stretch of imagination mean that pardos and pretos are the same thing. Ninguém (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

light Mulattos are counted as Whites in Brazil, only the dark Mulattoes are counted as Pardos and only the Congolese-looking people are counted as Blacks. (Opinoso)

This is again totally mistaken.

The IBGE doesn't count light Mulattos as Whites. The IBGE counts self declarations on "cor ou raça". If a light Mulatto considers him/herself White, he/she will be counted as White; but if he/she considers him/herself as Black, he/she will be counted as Black.

Whether light Mulattos count theirselves as White or not, the IBGE has no statement about it.

Sérgio Pena's paper discussed below seems to imply otherwise. According to it, people self-declared as pretos in Rio de Janeiro have, on the average, 50.9% Subsaharian genes; people self-declared as pardos have 23.6% Subsaharian genes. So apparently what is counted as pretos are Mulattos properly, and what is counted as pardos are what would be called in the United States "quadroons".

Evidently, this could be distorted by the fact that the genes for skin colour are a diminute part of human genome. But either there are actual sources to support Opinoso's weirdly phrased ("Congolese-looking"? I wonder whether any other editor could refer to people in this way without being reported into ANI and accused of something very dirty) claim, or it is mere original research, that cannot be taken into account when editing Wikipedia. Ninguém (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Darcy Ribeiro does use the Caboclo term in his book, but more as a cultural term, not as a racial word. (Opinoso)

Does he?

We cans see it here:

A população neobrasileira da Amazônia formou-se também pela mestiçagem de brancos com índias, através de um processo secular em que cada homem nascido na terra ou nela introduzido cruzava-se com índias e mestiças, gerando um tipo racial mais indígena que branco. (The Neobrazilian population of the Amazon was also formed by the mixing of White males and Indian females, through a centenial process in which each man born on the land or brougth into it mixed with Indian and mixed-race women, generating a racial type closer to Indians than to Whites)

Doesn't seem more cultural than racial.

Desse modo, ao lado da vida tribal que fenecia em todo o vale, alçava-se uma sociedade nova de mestiços que constituiria uma variante cultural diferenciada da sociedade brasileira: a dos caboclos da Amazônia. (In this way, besides the tribal life that was in decline throughout the valley, a new society was rising, of mixed-race people who would constitute a cultural variety differentiated of Brazilian society: that of the caboclos of the Amazon)

It seems at least as racial as cultural: a society of mestiços originated from the mixing of Portuguese men and Indian women - which created a particular "cultural variety". Ninguém (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

According to Sérgio Pena, the main expert on Brazilian genetics, Telles is wrong to label "pardos" as a group of predominant African ancestry. According to a study conducted by Pena and Suarez-Kurtz among Rio de Janeiro "pardos", the "pardos" were found to be predominantly European, at a rate of about 70% (autosomal %, the overall pic, the sum of a person's ancestry; not mtDNA or yDNA, which gives indication of single lines, far back), and the rest made of African and Native American contributions respectively. Addionally, in a sample of about 335 Brazilians from Rio de Janeiro, the "blacks" tested would be on average 41,8% European and 7,3% Native American in ancestry, thus roughly 50% non African in ancestry, autosomal ancestry (the sum of the ancestors, the overall profile)(http://www.laboratoriogene.com.br/geneImprensa/2009/pensamento.pdf). Would it be appropriate to characterize them as "Africans" then? They have multiple ancestries. And the "whites" from Rio de Janeiro would be roughly 90% European, and about roughly only 5% SSA (the African on par with the Iberian source, and practically within the noise range of the test), this way contradicting the often quoted studies posted so far. It is a proof of the high levels of diversity in Brazil. Again, it is important to stress that the diversity of the Brazilian heritage is a result of European colonialism. Unfortunately the government and scholars (except for the leading geneticists) still use the "colonial terminology" too much extensively. "Pardo", "white" and "black" are words invented by Europeans, for their own purposes and agendas. They do not describe a biological reality, they are social constructs. It does not mean that the oppressed peoples of Brazil should be not protected. Of course they should and they have been given help by the Brazilian government. Most Brazilians are the result of a brutal process led by Europe, just like the rest of America, and much of the rest of the world. To give too much significance to the European invented terminology is to be a hostage of the European colonialist mentality. Telles is of no real help, he is a biased foreign scholar. Darcy Ribeiro is another story, he is a great anthropologist, and his works are still major reference when it comes to Brazil. The quotes by Darcy Ribeiro (when not distorted) are always welcomed.

Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC).

There's nothing wrong about Telle's survey. The answers were based on self-reported ancestry of the interviewed. He did not make up the numbers. By the way, he was probably not the one who conducted that survey. And the answers do match with the genetic resource. Opinoso (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, probably there is nothing "wrong" about Telles' survey. But there are many things wrong with your interpretation of it. Pena makes it clear:

O problema é que não faz nenhum sentido (exceto talvez um sentido político, que é um oximoro) tentar englobar pardos e pretos como uma única categoria de cor. ("The problem is, it makes no sence (except perhaps a political sence, which is an oxymoron) to try to mix pardos and pretos in one single colour category.")

A análise que fizemos da ancestralidade genômica de indivíduos não-aparentados do Rio de Janeiro mostra que não faz sentido englobar pretos e pardos como uma única categoria de cor. (The analysis we made of the genomic ancestry of non-related individuals in Rio de Janeiro shows that it makes no sence to mix pardos and pretos in one single colour category.")

Salta aos olhos que a ancestralidade africana dos indivíduos pardos (0,236) é intermediária entre a dos brancos (0,069) e pretos (0,509), estando de fato mais próxima dos primeiros do que dos últimos. Assim, pela análise desta amostra, não há qualquer fator que justifique a agregação proposta de pardos e pretos em negros. ("It is striking that the african ancestry of "pardo" individuals (23.6%) is intermediate between that of brancos (6.9%) and pretos (50.9%), in fact being closer to the former than to the latter. So, by the result of this sample, there are no factors that justify the proposed aggregation between pardos and pretos into negros.")

And, evidently, a genetic research trumps a survey on perceived ancestry: as you said yourself, most Brazilians don't actually know their ancestrals. Ninguém (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's right. Most Brazilians do not know their ancestry and do not care. They do not live in an extremely racialised society like the societies of the Anglosphere. Luiza Brunet used to define herself as "Native American" (and be perceived as such by the Brazilian population), and yet she is predominantly European, at 80,5% European, and only 15,5% Native American, definitely not Native American then. On the other hand, the "Índia Aigo", another "Native American" celebrity, is predominantly Sub saharan (at 58,4%), and the funny thing is: she looks somewhat Native American! (she has Native American ancestry too). Tiazinha, from the interior of Paraíba, is 99,9% European (and she did not know of any European ancestors!). Telles projects a racialism that simply does not exist in Brazil. People here define themselves in different ways, different than in other countries, and they are not better or worse; as long as all groups have equal share in society (which the Brazilian government has been promoting). As Sérgio Pena has said, each individual has the right to define himself as he wants to. Each individual is unique, even more so here, where, from the point of view of ancestries, each individual carries a certain % of African, European or Native American most likely not shared by his girlfriend, his relatives, or his co-workers. We have to deal with our diversity with tolerance and intelligence. What needs to be done is to bring education for the Brazilian people, who has suffered way too much so far (we don't have lobbies to even push films to show our brutal past, the crimes that European comitted here; not even apologies or financial compensations should be expected). Fortunately we live in the XXI century, where most of the most renowned scientists have told clearly that from the biological point of view there is no "race". Poor Count Gobineau, he thought that the Brazilian population would soon be sterile, when he visited Brazil in the XIX century: we are already at 200 million people, more fertile than ever. The botanist Augustin de Saint-Hilaire, an often quoted European visitor of Brazil, thought that Brazil had no future because of the lack of a "white majority": though still with many problems, Brazil has made remarkable progress, just like the rest of Latin America. Hopefully, it will get even better.

Instead of Telles, I prefer Darcy Ribeiro and Joel Rufino dos Santos.

Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22

What Sergio Pena? His DNA tests are flawled and biased. His tests can only detect European, Subsaharan African and Amerinidan ancestry, and not any other. For example if someone who is part White and part Jew gets tested at Sergio Pena's laboratory, he will come out as 100% European because his tests cannot detect any asian genes. He's a ripoff. Go visit his website and check that for yourselves. His method is unable to find out Asian, Pacific Islander or Aboriginal genes, probably not even Berber nor North-American Amerindian. Sergio Pena's method is only good to create artificial full-blooded whites out of Gypsies, Jews, Turks and Moorish-South-Europeans. Biased. Suits very well the needs of Portuguese and Spaniard who want to hide their Moor, Jew and Arab ancestry. How convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.21.136 (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're new to Wikipedia, 189.25.21.136.

You ask "What Sergio Pena?" Perhaps he's the Sérgio Pena who cowrote and coedited this book, published by Birkhäuser, which I had thought was a reputable publisher, and also the Sérgio Pena who cowrote a considerable number of papers (such as this), listed (though no doubt mixed up with papers by others) here. Some of the papers are from highly reputable organizations and publishers. Now of course not all that comes from reputable organizations and publishers is good; indeed, when such papers openly disagree with each other (as does happen), it's likely that one or other is wrong. Clearly reputable institutions can and do sometimes publish material that is "flawed and biased". But what gives you the certain knowledge that his material is based on methods that are "flawed and biased"? (Cite reliable sources, please.)

You say: "Sergio Pena's method is only good to create artificial full-blooded whites out of Gypsies, Jews, Turks and Moorish-South-Europeans." It's only good for that, not good for anything else? This is shocking. Tell us more. (Cite reliable sources, please.)

You stray beyond the usual boundaries of academic discourse when you say of Sérgio Pena, "He's a ripoff." Who has been ripped off by him? How? (Again, cite reliable sources, please.)

If you can't cite reliable sources for your allegations, don't make them. -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For example if someone who is part White and part Jew gets tested at Sergio Pena's laboratory, he will come out as 100% European because his tests cannot detect any asian genes.

But, shocking as it is, Jews are (usually) Whites - and in the case they are not, the are Black, or Asian, or Amerindian, or some mix of those. There is no such thing as a "Jewish race".

His method is unable to find out Asian, Pacific Islander or Aboriginal genes, probably not even Berber nor North-American Amerindian.

Perhaps there are no such things "Asian", "Pacific Islander", "Aboriginal" or "Berber" genes?

Sergio Pena's method is only good to create artificial full-blooded whites out of Gypsies, Jews, Turks and Moorish-South-Europeans.

Or perhaps, on the contrary, Gypsies, Jews, Turks, and Moors are White people, or people of mixed but predominantly White "race"?

Biased. Suits very well the needs of Portuguese and Spaniard who want to hide their Moor, Jew and Arab ancestry. How convenient.

But why would the Portuguese and Spaniards want to "hide" their Moorish, Jewish or Arabic ancestry? What would they have to gain by "hiding" that? And from whom would they "hide" it - especially when it is a fact that everybody already knows? Ninguém (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'd guess that Brazil has some degree of "racial" prejudice. After all, most societies do. But please, don't goad each other to continue such talk. If you want to discuss such matters, please do it in a cafe or bar.

On the other hand if somebody dismisses the value of work that might be added to the article, it seems reasonable to demand reliable sources for such a dismissal. -- Hoary (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)