Brazzil

Since 1989 Trying to Understand Brazil

Home

----------

Brazilian Eyelash Enhancer & Conditioner Makeup

----------

Get Me Earrings

----------

Buy Me Handbags

----------

Find Me Diamond

----------

Wholesale Clothing On Sammydress.com

----------

Brautkleider 2013

----------

Online shopping at Tmart.com and Free Shipping

----------

Wholesale Brazilian Hair Extensions on DHgate.com

----------

Global Online shopping with free shipping at Handgiftbox

----------

Search

Custom Search
Members : 22767
Content : 3832
Content View Hits : 33083639

Who's Online

We have 578 guests online



Who Are You Voting For? In Brazil, Very Few Are Saying Lula PDF Print E-mail
2005 - May 2005
Written by Arthur Ituassu   
Wednesday, 25 May 2005 14:08

Brazil's electronic ballotThe most recent polls on the Brazilian President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and his government show that ratings are falling - and quickly.

In one of them (CNT/Sensus), Lula's approval rating fell from 66% to 60% between February and April while his negative rating rose from 26% to 29%.

A 60% popularity is certainly still high but Lula undoubtedly recalls that in January 2003 a staggering 83% of the Brazilian population thought well of him.

Since Lula's election in October 2002, the approval ratings of the government have been worse than those of the president. Government approval has been close to 40% since the beginning of the year and disapproval rose from 13% to 16% in April.

In fact, if one asks Brazilians who they are going to vote for in the 2006 presidential election, the chance of hearing a "don't know" is close to 65%, despite the fact that Lula is certainly planning to run again.

For Brazil's political analysts, the game is to work out why discontent with such a charismatic president is growing. Lula is Brazilian democracy's star.

With no university degree, the former factory worker was elected in 2002 after three unsuccessful attempts (1989, 1994 and 1998) and more than a decade of challenging military rule (1964-1985) as leader of a labor union, which later transformed itself into the Workers' Party, Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT).

There are two factors that help to understand what is happening. The first concerns the expectations of the people. With the guiding theme "not afraid to be happy", Lula and the PT came to express the desire for change in Brazilian politics, a mirror for the hopes of the common man and woman.

Their platform expressed the citizen's dreams of a better life: more money, more schools, better health, more security, jobs and justice - nothing less than the transformation of politics (finally) by virtue.

The second factor situates the first in the crossroads of history, and concerns the capacity of the Brazilian state as presently organized to fulfill its basic obligations and address the demands of the people.

From 1995 to 2004, a timespan that includes the first two years of Lula's presidency, four major accounts have determined government expenditure in Brazil: interest rates; pensions; bureaucratic salaries and current spending of the federal (so-called public) sector.

Interest rates have been at the center of the Brazilian political debate. Last month, impatient with his critics, Lula told people to look for lower interest rates, even though he knew they would only find them outside the borders of Brazil.

Under the stewardship of Lula's Finance Minister, Antonio Palocci, interest rates have climbed as high as 19.75% a year (without discounting inflation) and have averaged 14.2% in real terms in the last ten years.

This is the price Brazilian society pays for stabilizing the economy from 1994-2002, when stopping inflation had consequences for public sector finances at all levels.

The then President, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, had to reorganize those public and private banks which lived on the fall of the value of money. He had also to acknowledge some debts that had been hidden: the "esqueletos" (skeletons).

Those actions and others built the basis for stability but also elevated the public debt and consequently the interest rates paid by the Brazilian government.

There is great public concern about interest rates and a Brazilian federal government debt of US$ 297 billion. The current spending of the federal public sector (which includes even the famous cafezinho) reached US$ 1.13 trillions from 1995 to 2004.

The salaries of the bureaucracy cost US$ 437 billion and pensions amounted to US$ 490 billion in the same period.

All four accounts add up to US$ 2.36 trillion in the last ten years, six times bigger than the US$ 361 billion invested in health, education, social security and infrastructure together.

In the same period, the (so called) public sector investment as a proportion of the federal budget amounted to 0.49% in security, 5.85% in health and 6.67% in education, these last two thanks to a law that obliges the government to spend a certain amount in both areas.

Even the outlays on pensions and education are far from genuine public expenditure, since only those people who work for the state (including judges and senators) retire on full salaries and government investment in education basically goes to the federal universities, which are free for the best students of the country who were mostly educated, in turn, in expensive private schools.

In two and a half years Lula has not touched any of these problems. Cardoso, by contrast, cut federal spending on salaries from US$ 46.66 billion to R$ 38.47 billion during his last year in government. At the end of the first year of the PT's presidency in Brasília it had risen to R$ 40.73 billion.

Since Lula needed to spend more, he tried recently to raise taxes, which now account for 40% of the GDP. Worse, he used a political mechanism that he had condemned for years - the Medida Provisória (provisional measure), an anachronistic device that allows the executive to pass a law without the approval of congress. Brazilian society reacted and the President was forced to retreat.

Lula is now in a dilemma. He is the incarnation of the hope for a happy society: free, prosperous and equal. But the President and his party have always defended the status quo that resulted from the historical process of industrialization in Brazil, the same process that created a strong country but generated the most unequal distribution of income after Namibia, Lesotho and Sierra Leone.

According to the United Nations, the richest 10% in the country receive 46.7% of the earnings, while the poorest 10% people get only 0.5%.

Historically, Lula always defended laws that protected workers and took a protectionist approach towards international trade. His party supported state direction of the economy, opposed privatizations and supported the nationalization of the nuclear and energy sector.

Equally it favored the public sector bureaucracy and defended the federal universities, some of which have bigger budgets than some Brazilian provinces.

Lula has not yet decided if he wants to be who he always was or something different. Nobody even knows if he can be something different and even small movements towards difference quickly provoke questions of accountability. But whatever Lula wants, one thing is undeniable: Brazil certainly wants to be different.

Arthur Ituassu writes for the Rio's daily Jornal do Brasil and is professor of international relations at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

This article appeared originally in Open Democracy - www.opendemocracy.net



Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Free and Open Source Software News Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! TwitThis Joomla Free PHP
Comments (39)Add Comment
Poorest 10%
written by Guest, May 26, 2005
Time for the poorest 10% to get up off their butts and migrate to another country, after all the richest 10% were once poor in the country that they migrated from. How do you think they learned how to be rich! They got their butts kicked somewhere else and looked around and said, " you know, I could probably get rich in Brazil since the poorest 10% in brazil dont know how to get rich in one of the richest countries in the world! Let us go there and exploit them! They will be pissed off for a little while, but they will go along with fattening our pockets because thats just the way they are! OTHER PEOPLES POCKET FATTENERS!
Valeu!
written by Guest, May 27, 2005
The poorest 10% should arm themselves to their teeth, and kill white folks. Why not? They have nothing to lose.
Dumbest 10%
written by Guest, May 27, 2005
"the richest 10% were once poor in the country that they migrated from" Where are you getting that bulls**t from? You are one ignorant motherf**ker. You must be one of the dumbest 10%.
I am a foreigner
written by Guest, May 27, 2005
By reading all these posts, I just wish to thank all my fellow brazilians. I am a fool and and will dumbly die for this country that cares nothing about me or my brazilian family, just as my fellow brazilian citizens don't. Brazilians say they are not racist, but as a southern man, with grandparents from Austria and Italy, I can't criticize it without being labeled as ingrate. How dare am I anyway? I live in Curitiba, which is known not to be part of this great and rich country that's Brazil, and that doesn't share the same marvellous culture. We are not part of it, the mainstream press itself doesn't consider us part of it, and whenever there is something showing southern Brazil in the TV, it's used to show us as if we were another country. Well, perhaps they are right. We southern people, who are not among the 10% richest (for most of the richest people are still the same people who inherited lands and properties since the colonial times, with a few exceptions, just keep yourselves informed). We southern people should raise for once and stop being loyal to this country that "saved our souls, that sheltered us in difficult times" to replace slave labor and, of course, pay taxes, the highest taxes paid by any region in comparison to the benefits received from federal government. We southern people should not allow this nonsense to continue anymore. If they don't accept us as part of their country, let's have a country of our own, where we can have free trade and the traditions of ours, without so much government interference. I know we can do better without them.

You know, I just didn't support all these separatist ideas in the south. I thought we were one country. But then I had to live in the north for a while... and that really changed my mind. Southern Brazil must not be a country just for what our people think. We should be a country simply because the brazilians don't want us and the government is against us.
...
written by Guest, May 27, 2005
O SUL É MEU PAIS!!!!!!!!!!!
Exactly
written by Guest, May 27, 2005
"most of the richest people are still the same people who inherited lands and properties since the colonial times, with a few exceptions"

Exactly, which is why the first poster is among the dumbest 10%.
Southerner
written by Guest, May 27, 2005
Don't think that way. There is resentment and envy among people in all countries, but there's no sense in separatism.
Separatists are short sighted
written by Guest, May 27, 2005
but as a southern man, with grandparents from Austria and Italy

This a colonizado mind. He doesn't consider himself as Brazilian, and must excuse himself with his own sense of inferiority by saying where his family have come from and that he lives in the "south".

I also have ascendents from Europe, but you know what, they have f**ked so big time everyone in this world that I'd rather wash their filth from this land. This is for brasileiros only, my heart and my soul say so. Latino, as estadounidenses say, so be it.

Take a look at the spanish America, what a wonderful world huh? What I mean is, they are divided in 20 or so weak and small countries and none is as rich as Brazil. Division is weakness. And if you think division is good, then, yes, you're dumb. Division is the worse demonstration of shortsightness, since all great countries in the world are also great in phisycal space, natural resources and numbers of population. Countries from Europe are small today.

The problem with the south is that it's full of germans. They live in their gueto mentality and don't integrate with the rest of the country. It's the only place in Brazil for example that have centers of traditions, no, not brazilian traditions, but GERMAN traditions. That's as Nazi as you can get.
Re: Separatists are short sighted
written by Guest, May 27, 2005
No man, it's not a colonizado mind. I meant that because I'm always remembered, whenever I criticize this country, that I am not a real brazilian, because I am from the south and have foreign grandparents. Then, in the last paragraph, you express the prejudice that makes the southern people so angry, even those who do not have a german ascendence, like me (my austrian family had slovenian ethnicity). You made it man. You called them Nazis, just as I have been called for all my life, no matter if I consider the nazi-fascism a crap that has only brought poverty and destruction to the countries that embraced it (see Spain and Brazil, two countries that adopted fascist policies and were not destroyed by war. Spain quit it, Brazil is strongly embraced to it yet).

You did it man. You proved my point. You don't consider those people as being part of Brazil. No problem if it was only you, but most brazilians think that way, and worst, this vision is present in our omnipresent government. When will brazilians recognize that Southern Brazil is part of the nation, that many of southern brazilian traditions are native to Brazil, and stop selling samba, axe and mulatas as being the one and only brazilian expression of culture, being the rest something alien that must be destroyed, in the name of the "wonderful" brazilian culture?

Finally, the defence of southern brazilian traditions is the defense of no tradition. For there are germans, dutch, ukrainian, polish, russians, portuguese, black, japanese, a myriad of people here who have their own traditions. They all should be respected and considered part of the country, as an example of how this country accepts the different people inside it.
Piada
written by Guest, May 27, 2005
I am from SP and I lived in Curitiba for a few years. When people told me that the south was going to separate from Brazil I could resisted and laughed. I think one must be really stupid to think that it is possible. I guess they would build an arm of soy and win the war.
Separatists,us? Why?
written by Guest, May 27, 2005
Please do not copy Europeans or Americans who love to talk about their origins. In 1994, when Brazil won the world cup, my American husband and I, were in Brazil. We went to the streets to watch Brazilians of all ages, shapes, and colors to celebrate our victory. My husband commented that he wished that all Americans could celebrate together something or "anything" besides war. This spontaneous "get together", to be only “one people” with common "happiness" is envy of a lot of foreigners. Let's not "copy" the bad stuff, only the good ones. Southerners, travel abroad! Brazil is not perfect, but we have a lot of things we do better than the rest of the world! In the US, the white dominant class has managed to let the “little guys” to be busy while fighting against each other: Hispanics don’t get along with Asians; Asians don’t get along with Blacks and so on. In Brazil, we don’t need this recipe for disaster. We have a historical opportunity to teach the world how to live reasonably happy in a multicultural society.

We all came from the same place in Africa! Climate made us look physically different! That’s it! I know this can be disappointing but we all share common biology! We did not originate in different planets! Let some Americans and some Europeans think that way!

Let’s not copy this “barbarian” model of discrimination of people just because it fits our personal interests or just because make us look or feel better.
Myth of the Strong President
written by Guest, May 28, 2005
Is is becuase of the history of military dictatorship? Why is there a myth of the strong President in Latin American countries, including in Brasil? Lula is not a dictator. Thankfully those days are over. He cannot just decree that the reforms he promised occur. The office of President is rather weak, actually. He needs the Legislature to agree and to act. That's democracy. Lula's administration has made progress toward fulfilling his promises. People are too impatient…I guess that's democracy too.
This discussion is about LULA, not RACE!
written by Guest, May 28, 2005
Hello guys, what is wrong with you all?? One thing that annoys me when I read the posts here in this forum, is that sooner or later someone always starts to talk about race, colonialism, white vs. black, ect. instead of relating to the specific subject that is (supposed to) be discussed.

If you don't have any opinion about Lula's government, but a totally different agenda, I suggest that you find an other place to preach moral about race and the subjects that you are interested in.
Discussion
written by Guest, May 28, 2005
Issues of race, the effects of prior colonialism, migration patterns, attitudes, etc. are all important issues which affect the office of the president and the entire country. I for one have got no problem with wherever the discussion goes. It's a big, diverse country with lots of agendas. Just ignore the posts you don't care about.
About the discussion
written by Guest, May 29, 2005
What exactly does "Issues of race, the effects of prior colonialism, migration patterns, attitudes" have got to do with that economic policy of the Lula administration? For me these issues are totally different. The article isn't about Brazil's past, it's about the present and future economic policy of the country, about the possibilities and the challenges of the future. So people here are being asked if they will continue to support Lulas government, in spite of the present economic difficulties, yet they start talking about things that are not related to the subject.

I'm not a brazillian, but after having read many of the posts here for a while, I get the impression that some people are almost obsessed with the issues of race/colonialism/discrimination ect. so that they talk about all the time. You also write "It's a big, diverse country with lots of agendas". Well then why do people in this forum only seem to be interested in talking about that one issue?
About the discussion
written by Guest, May 29, 2005
Well, you are beginning with a false premise, to wit: that issues of ace, the effects of prior colonialism, migration patterns, attitudes, etc. are in the past. Maybe you haven't been to Brazil, and maybe the articles in Brazzil.com have not done much to alert you to the fact that these issues are very much in the present.

What do they have to do with economic policy? Well, the economic disparity in Brazil is about the worst in the world. The entrenched class system flows directly from Brazil's colonial past. Most of the wealthy are descendents of white colonialists. Also, by far the vast majority of Brazil's poorest are Afro-Brazilian. How to break this cycle of poverty, how to redistribute wealth, how to distribute land, how to educate, how to provide economic opportunity, and on and on are all tied to the issues that you erroneously dismiss as in the past. There are also significant issues involving Brazil's indigenous people, the intrusion into tribal lands, the status of such people, relations between them and the majority population of Brazil, etc.

I am in no position to open your eyes to the issues. But I encourage you to read more about Brazil. If you sign up with Google news alerts (key word Brazil), for example, you'll get a lot of news stories about Brazil, and occasionally a story that is worth the effort. Then there are books you can read if you become more inquisitive.

I also am wondering whether you think these are relevant issues in your own country. I would guess that it is worth studying these issues at home too. You really don't have to be Brazilian to see the significance of these issues to current politics.
Approval rating
written by Guest, May 29, 2005
A 60% approval rating is still pretty outstanding.

The author claims, "if one asks Brazilians who they are going to vote for in the 2006 presidential election, the chance of hearing a 'don't know' is close to 65%, despite the fact that Lula is certainly planning to run again." I'm not sure where the author gets this figure. But, all it demonstrates is that close to 65% of people don't know whom they're going to vote for before they know who's actually running. Sholdn't it be much closer to 100% before the race has started? Hmm, I'm rather impressed that 45% can say they know for whom they're going to vote before the race has begun. Who else is "certainly planning" on running? If only Lula is "certainly planning" on running, then that means 45% are committed to Lula without even knowing whom a likely opponent is. That is extraordinary.
On the other hand
written by Guest, May 31, 2005
I just got this news: "Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's government approval rating fell to 39.8 percent in May from 41.9 percent in April, pollster Instituto Sensus said."

His "personal popularity rating fell to 57.4 percent from 60.1 percent in April."

This is based on an interview of 2,000 Brazilians in 195 cities, from May 24 to May 26. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
A word to the wise...
written by Guest, June 01, 2005
Find another way to settle issue of race. In the USA, for instance, the "oppressed" population has been conditioned to associate ALL of their problems with racism. Now, while this may be true to some extent, the mindset that has been created as a result is racism against the so-called "oppressors", which is counterproductive if it is the "oppressor" that you wish to have a change of heart. In the USA, the "oppressors" have been forced into a defensive posture on many fronts (the perception being that many of the "oppressed" demand reparations for slavery during the colonial days, they are disproportionately more likely to commit crime and abuse government services, etc.). A "you owe me" attitude inhibits open and mutually repsectful interaction between the races. Yes, there is racism, but to think you can change it through force is nuts. All you do is create bigger barriers to equality. Learn to respect you neighbor, regardless of race or social bearing. Accept that you are not entitled to his possessions, simply because you are without. Understand that violence hurst everybody, including those committing the acts. Start with yourselves.
Please
written by Guest, June 01, 2005
There's much more of a "no one owes you a goddamn thing" attitude than there is a "you owe me" attitude. The latter is a myth of the establishment, i.e., whites that don't want to give anything to repair the harm caused to a group of people that has had lasting repercussions. As for the US, there was 300 years of slavery. I say there should be 300 years of affirmative action and reparations to make it even (I'm white, by the way, so how's that with starting with myself?). And why is it you put the word, "opressed" in quotations? Becuase you don't believe it exists? And what are you talking about violance? Violence is committed by racists AGAINST minorities, not the other way around. Haven't you read the news? They're starting to burn crosses on lawns again in the US. Those aren't and never have been black people doing that. Tell the racists to start with THEMSELVES. People of color just want equality and peace. I'd like to see that too. But it's going to take white people to make that happen, becuase they have been the opressors and violent ones, not people of color.
...
written by Guest, June 03, 2005
I have read of no instances where crosses have been burned in the yards of blacks, in recent times. Not to say that it doesn't happen, but if it does, it's not happening in large enough numbers to attract attention from the press. Now, if it were happening as you allege, the US press would be all over the story, being left of center as they are (as I am on social issues).

I put "oppressed" and "oppressor" in quotes to stay away from racially tense labels, not because I do not believe that it exists. In fact, if you really read my post you'd see that I agree that racism does exist. My position is that to reverse the tables and preactice racism against whites will not result in "equality". Also, discrimination agaisnt the white majority (i.e., to exact an eye for an eye) will not produce the desired result but will instead cause further resentment against the "oppressed". Rather (and I don't think you want to hear this), we need to be more Christ-like and turn the other cheek; work together for the good of all. 30 years of affirmative action solved nothing, so ten times that will not do it either. Affirmative action is legalized discrimination, which has been repeatedly struck down by the courts. If discrimination is illegal, it is illegal, regardless of your race.

As for the crime issue - statistically, blacks do commit more crime than whites, per capita. With that, you also have more crime committed by blacks against whites than whites agains blacks, per capita. That blacks make up around 20% of the population in the US needs to be considered and it also means that in hard numbers, there may be less black against white crime that vice-versa. But, to argue from a hard-number standpoint ignores the statistical reality that there is an imbalance in the population.

And I did refer to the whites as "oppressors", again in quotes, to stay away from racial labels.
furthermore...
written by Guest, June 03, 2005
Slavery was being practiced in many countries at the time it was legal in the US, which I admit, is no excuse. However, I'd have to take issue that it was practiced for "300 years". It was abolished in the 1800's at the close of the civil war, which occured less than 100 years after the US officially broke from England in the 1700's. The colinization of the US didn't take really root until the 1600's. Slavery was wrong, no doubt. However, it was also wrong, from a revisionist perspective, for Columbus to have colonized the Carribean as he did and for the Europeans to colonize steal treasure from South and Central America. That said, the people in those days were, for the most part, living and making decisions in accordance with accepted norms for their times, not ours. Using your logic, the US owes me and 60 million other Catholics reparations because there's an engrained culture of discrimination against Catholics in the US that by the way, was legal in this country years ago. It still exists and was exposed again during the recent presidential elections when it was really only the Catholic Kerry's faith that was made and issue and not the protestant Bush's.

I am sure we can find many examples of such discrimination, if we look for them. But where does it end? Someone has to stand up and say, "Enough". I am sorry that blacks are discriminated against, wherever it may occur. I am also sorry that some feel that the road to equality is simply to take it from the fortunate and give it to the less fortunate.

My original comments were just me expressing my wish that Brazil not get trapped in the same kind of us-against-them culture we have in the US.

God Bless you
recent cross burning
written by Guest, June 03, 2005
Affirmative action
written by Guest, June 03, 2005
"preactice racism against whites"

That doesn't exist.

"Affirmative action is legalized discrimination, which has been repeatedly struck down by the courts."

That's not true. Some affirmative action programs have been upheld, others struck down. There is a Constitutional "strict scrutiny" analysis that must be applied on a case-by-case basis. Thus, when the state chooses to use race in its decision making process, an affected individual "is entitled to a judicial determination that the burden he is asked to bear on that basis is precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest." The Supreme Court of the US has stated that, "[t]he State certainly has a legitimate and substantial interest in ameliorating, or eliminating where feasible, the disabling effects of identified discrimination."

Affirmative action often comes up in the context of school admissions. The Supreme Court has held that the attainment of a diverse student body "is a constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education." In that regard, "ethnic diversity" can be "one element in a range of factors a university properly may consider in attaining the goal of a heterogenous student body." In an admissions program dedicated to achieving a mixed student body a university may, therefore, deem race or ethnic background to be "a `plus' in a particular applicant's file, [when] it does not insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats. " In other words, race can be a factor in determining a particular candidate's "potential contribution to diversity without the factor of race being decisive " when compared to the qualities exhibited by others.

Percentages used for their own sake (i.e., quotas) are not proper.

Affirmative action is a complicated subject. The phrase means many different things.

"Among them: outreach to broaden the pool of eligible individuals to include more members of specific groups; targeted or compensatory training to upgrade the qualifications of individuals in these groups; goals and timetables to measure progress; preferences; set-asides; and actual quotas. Affirmative action programs have arisen as a result of executive orders, legislation, consent decrees stemming from government investigations, court-ordered remedies, and voluntary action by corporations and other non-public institutions.

"The distinction between government-mandated and voluntary programs is important: for the most part, court decisions restricting public programs on constitutional grounds do not directly affect voluntary programs in the private sector. Some scholars argue that retrenchment in public programs could nonetheless lead to private-sector retreat. 'Without government enforcement,' writes sociologist Alan Wolfe, 'some private companies may indeed drop their enthusiasm for diversity and retreat to birds of a feather' hiring policies.' On the other hand, Wolfe notes that support for affirmative action is unexpectedly strong among leading American corporations, and he expects them to go on practicing it for the same reasons they do now: 'out of pragmatism, trying to meet particular corporate objectives.'"

Your understanding is inherently limited and incorrect. Affirmative action is still a viable public policy and as relevant and as strong as it has been in the past.
...
written by Guest, June 04, 2005
If you want to argue that the 200 years of slavery before the US made an "official break" from England doesn't matter, then there's really no use in my arguing with you anymore. Such absurd contortions of reasoning bear the mark of an ideologue who isn't interested in truth or justice.

Then there's your strange statistical analysis of crime. Putting aside your statistics, my comment about violence was in response to your comment which implied that people of color are somehow violent toward whites because of race. I pointed out that historically whites have been violent toward people of color.

Your comments do not lend credence to anything you have to say because they display a disregard for the truth that is driven by an ideology which is either fundamentally unconcerned with fair play and substantial justice in it's worst interpretation, or is extremely naive given a more charitable interpretation.
...
written by Guest, June 04, 2005
"I am also sorry that some feel that the road to equality is simply to take it from the fortunate and give it to the less fortunate."

Here agian, an ideologically skewed representation of policy. No one suggests that. Christ almighty! That is such a dishonest statement of what affirmative action is about it's just incredible. I really must conclude that you are intellectually dishonest. I cannot explain your outlandish misstatements any other way.
Reparations
written by Guest, June 04, 2005
If you were genuinely interested in the subject, you could read many scholarly articles on the subject, for example, from the list posted here: http://www.library.uiuc.edu/afx/reparations.htm The topic is much more complicated than the simplistic "I didn't enslave anyone, it all happened in the past, so why should I have to pay for it?" argument you offer.

As one scholar has explained, personal responsibility and liability are not the issues. The real issues are the responsibility of the nation as a whole and the responsibility of each citizen to do his fair part in honoring the nation’s obligations. For example, the interning of Japanese Americans was an act of the United States government and its agents. At the time, the government acted for p**atively good reasons. Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, American officials were concerned about the security of the West Coast from similar attack or sabotage. Whether the government actually acted for honorable motives or not, the point remains that with the passage of time thoughtful Americans – and the government itself – have come to view the internment as an unjustified response to the war with Japan, and one that wronged its victims. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988, and the reparations it paid ($20,000 to each interned Japanese American or to his or her surviving spouse or children), represented an official apology and a small step toward making whole the material losses incurred by the internees. The reparations were appropriated out of general revenues. Consequently, taxpayers contributed a small portion, not because of any personal responsibility for the internment but because as citizens we were required to bear a share of the government’s necessary expenditures.

A parallel argument for reparations to African Americans exists. "Although countless individual Americans throughout our history exploited their power or standing to oppress African Americans, that power and standing itself derived from law – first from the latitude of the English Crown, then from the Constitution of 1787 (which accepted slavery in the states where it was established), and finally from the tissue of post-Civil War "Jim Crow" laws, rules, and social conventions that enforced de jure and de facto racial segregation. The chief wrongs done to African Americans, thus, were not simply the sum of many individual oppressions added together but were the corporate acts of a nation that imposed or tolerated regimes of slavery, apartheid, peonage, and disenfranchisement. Just as it was the nation that owed Japanese Americans reparations, so it is the nation that owes reparations to African Americans. And so it is that Americans not as individuals but as citizens owe support for the nation’s debt."

Some propose a strategy of reparations (i) based on the wrongs done African Americans by the legal regime of racial discrimination that lasted until thirty-some years ago, and (ii) designed to stimulate creation of wealth, broadly conceived, in the African American community.

Others argue that reparations also represent payment for wealth extracted from slaves should be passed on to their descendants. That is not an insubstantial argument. For example, Judith A. Carney's ''Black Rice: The African Origins of Rice Cultivation in the Americas,'' describes how the South Carolina rice industry was built not only on slave labor but on the agricultural and technological knowledge brought over by the Africans.

The issue of reparations is much more intriguing, complex, and compelling than you have presented. But, again, I don't think you really care. Perhaps others do, however, and thus I offer the foregoing introduction.
...
written by Guest, June 05, 2005
Your position is decidedly pro-affirmative action and reparations, while mine is less so. And I don't see anybody's position changing as a result of this discourse. I see nothing wrong with the courts righting a wrong, but as the courts have said repeatedly, race cannot be used to disqualify some just as it can not be used to hand the advantage to others; unless it can be demonstrated that race was a basis for disqualification in the past. In Texas, for instance, the courts forced the state colleges to adopt other means than race in university admissions selections because there had been no clear demonstration that a race-based qualification process had kept the minority out. Now we have a system that guarantees a desk at the state university of their choosing to everyone that finishes high school ranked in the top 10% of their class, the thought being that this would boost minority participation by giving automatic admission to inner city kids, where populations are more heavily minority. The jury is still up in the air on this method and while I applaud the state for making this attempt, the reality is that there are limited number of desks available to incoming freshman, which means that in many cases, students better prepared for university study are not entering the Texas public college system because some schools, such as UT in Austin, have very few desks (and consequently little discretion) to admit kids that did not finish in the top 10% of their class but are better prepared than some automatic admits by virture of their success at tougher college prep schools, which is a more challenging and rigorous environment. So in this way, better qualified students are left out for the sake of diversity. The answer is to enlarge the public university system so that all kids having an interest are allowed to attend, not just the handful that are lucky enough to finish in the top 10% (and by definition, not every kid can) or are raised in a family that has unlimited resources for post secondary education. Society is such that a college education is alsost mandatory now if you are going to be able to meet your future family, financial needs (yes, there are exceptions).

And the fact that ~200 years of slavery happened under British rule is significant, just as it is that looting and other war atrocities committed under the Hitler regime remain Germany's responsibility and not that of the new state that rose after the Nazi defeat. Your position implicates the new tenant. Maybe South Africa should be forced to pony up reparations for all those repressed, and the families of generations before them, under the former Eurpopean colonists. Yes, society's have a responsibilty, but throwing money at a problem and paying the insulted off rarely solves the problem.
Popularity, Race and Rights
written by Guest, June 05, 2005
Dear all;

If you take a look at Folha de Sao Paulo today (Sunday, June 5th) you will see that the trend is very much the one I described in this article.

I absolutely agree with the ones who criticize the comments about race, oppression and colonialism; I can not understand what they are doing here, related to my article.

One last thing and very important; this article was published here without my consent; nobody asked me anything about publishing here; and nobody paid me anything for that; I did the article exclusively for Open Democracy; as a ".com" website I feel outrageous about the idea of someone earning money with my work without my permission, any contact or any payment.

Regards, Arthur Ituassu
Email your complaint
written by Guest, June 05, 2005
Arthur,

you should contact the website exposing your complaints and asking them to take your article immediately out if they didn't get your or Open
Democracy's permission.

As far as I know, however, this is a site written exclusively by volunteers. They make very little money. Probably not even enough to pay for hosting the site. I know because I'm in the middle and tried for years to establish my own website.

Selling Brazilian news in English is something that does not make money. If it id, some of the big media companies in Brazil like Globo or Abril would already be exploring this mine. I know of many other sites that never made it like: www.brazilianist.com or infobrazil.com. They still exist, but their news are old and stale. You can check for yourself.

By the way, great piece your wrote. Where can we read more of your stuff?

...
written by Guest, June 05, 2005
I read the article regarding recent cross burnings. It appears that they all (total of three) happened in the same city, within hours of each other, and in "public" places and not on "lawns" (implying private black residences) as the poster had said. Hardly a return to the days of old. Sounds like someone is using a campaign of mis-information to sell their position. Must be a politician!
Popularity, Race and Rights
written by Guest, June 06, 2005
Well, Arthur, the comments are present because someone brought up the issue. The discussions are pretty free-wheeling. Do you think the issues of race, oppression and colonialism are not important issues, or just not relevant to your article? Do you believe that those issues have any relation to the governance of Brazil? If so, I would be very surprised.

As for republication of your article, that is very surprising that someone would reproduce original work without asking.
...
written by Guest, June 06, 2005
Regarding cross-burinings, I did not say they had been burned on private residences. The exact quote is "They're starting to burn crosses on lawns again in the US." Perhaps the "on lawns" was inaccurate. As described in an article"

"The first burning was reported at 9:19 p.m. outside St. Luke's Episcopal Church. The next came at 9:54 p.m. atop a large pile of dirt near an apartment complex construction site; the third was at 10:28 p.m. at a downtown intersection."

Nevertheless, I really find amusing your distinguishing of the burning of crosses. Seriously, who's being the "politician" here? Do you represent racists?
Mr. Itauassu
written by Guest, June 06, 2005
I thought your article an interesting. The trend does seem to be as you described, however, you may be dancing on Lula's grave too early. 2006 will be the test.

Your comment above stating "I absolutely agree with the ones who criticize the comments about race, oppression and colonialism; I can not understand what they are doing here, related to my article" was strangely gratuitous. Frankly I cannot understand why you would interject such a comment.

Who cares whether the comments strictly relate to the article? Are you trying to quash the debate of important issues? Or do just not believe that they are important at all and thus unworthy of any discussion? While you have every right to complain about where your work is published, thankfully you cannot dictate the substance of debate.
...
written by Guest, June 06, 2005
"Now we have a system that guarantees a desk at the state university of their choosing to everyone that finishes high school ranked in the top 10% of their class, the thought being that this would boost minority participation by giving automatic admission to inner city kids, where populations are more heavily minority."

Yes, I've seen this. I think it's a very good idea, since unfortunately schools in the US are funded by property taxes and thus people born into poverty, who already have a disadvantage, are further disadvantaged becuase the schools they go to are poor. I'm sure there are necessary ajustments that should be made to any system, but that seems like a fair system. That allows children who excell in their schools to move ahead. Is it perfect? No. Is the system left alone worse? Absolutely. Yes, I am in favor of affirmative action in the US.

As for reparations, your claim that it's just "throwing money at insulted people" is, well, insulting. I belive that there are very good arguments in favor of reparations, as I outlined above. Your argument that it's not fair to people who came after the "insult" is not persuasive. You simply assert your belief regarding where responsibiity begins and ends without a strong ethical argument, whereas the reparations argument has very strong ethical reasoning behind it, in my estimation. I remain open to the idea of reparations, though, in spite of your characterization, I am not a proponent.
...
written by Guest, June 06, 2005
The article above includes the following:

"Lula is now in a dilemma. He is the incarnation of the hope for a happy society: free, prosperous and equal. But the President and his party have always defended the status quo that resulted from the historical process of industrialization in Brazil, the same process that created a strong country but generated the most unequal distribution of income after Namibia, Lesotho and Sierra Leone."

Race, oppression and colonialism have nothing to do with this? Was the comment above really written by Mr. Ituassu or an impostor?
Impostor
written by Guest, June 06, 2005
I'm voting impostor. How could the author, a professor mind you, write those words in the article and then claim that comments relating to what it means to have a "free, prosperous and equal" society is not relevant? How can he point out that "the President and his party have always defended the status quo that resulted from the historical process of industrialization in Brazil, the same process that created a strong country but generated the most unequal distribution of income after Namibia, Lesotho and Sierra Leone," which affects his popularity, and claim that comments about "race, oppression, and colonialism" are not pertintent to Lula's "delemma"?
New comments
written by Guest, June 10, 2005
Dear all;

I didn't mean to criticize the debate on racism or colonialism. In fact, I find every debate a richfull experience. I just wished to mention that maybe was not the issue here but please it was not my intention at all to condemn the debate.

Again, even if it is not the intention of the website to earn money with the text; I think I should be asked permission for publication, but anyway, it is good that people are debating my work. I fell happy about that.

I'm writing one new piece for Open Democracy about corruption, since we have very bad events going on here in Brazil on that field.

For those who asked about more of my articles. I suggest the following website: www.labirinto-rio.com.br

Best wishes, Arthur
...
written by Guest, June 11, 2005
Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Ituassu. I'll look forward to reading more of your articles on www.labirinto-rio.com.br.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
Joomla 1.5 Templates by Joomlashack