Brazzil Forum
Message Board
» back to brazzil.com
Register | Profile | Log-in | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Search

» Welcome Brazzil: Log out | Messenger | Check New Posts | Mark all posts as read

    Brazzil Forum
    General
        indians
Mark all forum posts as read   [ help ]
» Your last visit to this forum was: Mar. 25, 2003 - 6:12pm «

Topic Jump
<< Back Next >>
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: No One
 

 
Guest



Anonymous
   
As I see there's this giant discussion on the racism issues in Brasil going on in this forum; however, it only touches upon the relations between the white and the black population of Brasil. What about the Indians? No one talks about them and often it seems to me that they are just forgotten as something of lesser importance, because there's not as many of them.
So I would like to initiate another topic here, pretty general - lets just try to keep each other informed. I am personally interested in any news on indigenous issues, any legislation, the campaigns, conflicts, controversies - anything. ...just to make a point that they are important as well... ok?  
perhaps I can initiate the topic by asking this - were the indigenous issues even mentioned in the 2002 presidential campaign? Is anything at all being done, or is the government just neglecting them, because there are so many other things to deal with?

Krista

Total Posts: 211 | Joined Dec. 2002 | Posted on: 4:44 pm on Jan. 31, 2003 | IP
ELEGANTGENT



Junior Member
   
krista, my fiance in rio is partially brazilian indian, not full, but to look at her, she has all the features, but light brown skin. i am sure that there are many indians in the cities as well as in the amazonas and rural areas as they are through out the americas. then also take for granted that just as she, the many many are of indian mix that are black,white or mullato. like rum, indians have been in the mix and blend. my mother is cherokee/black.
as for the speech by bush, i was not very enthused. the speech for the most part did not touch on the critical interest of the nation very much and was evasive, not to mention the vain clapping during every other sentence. you can tell who the people in the audience were of.  not much time to talk further.. i am at work now. tchau

Total Posts: 53 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 5:16 pm on Jan. 31, 2003 | IP
krista



Junior Member
   
"...as for the speech by bush..."
what does bush have to do with the brasilian indigenous?
I'm just wondering if this is even an issue discussed... seems not. Is it that Brasil doesn't much care about its indigenous population, or is it that people don't really know enough to be able to have an opinion?
Even a brief glimpse on some random articles on the indigenous people of Brasil gives me an impression that there's a lot of violence and injustice involved; perhaps even way more than in the black issues of Brasil. No? I want to challenge the previous topic in this General Forum (the racism one) and claim that the indigenous problem is in a way even worse than any other form of racism in that country...

-----
Radio Do Mar: http://www.live365.com/stations/226288

Total Posts: 97 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 6:06 pm on Jan. 31, 2003 | IP
Ze


Junior Member
   
There where tribes that where estinguished during the colonial ages, some that the military extinguished, and there are those who now live in reserves on their original lands.

Historically, it was brutal in the past, but no country has the right to throw the first stone at us, at the present the comunities that are nearer to "civilization" suffer from the drawbacks.

There are a few articles on the Brazzil magazine that may enlighten you further than my goodwill.

Total Posts: 93 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 1:59 am on Feb. 1, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
One thing that needs to be firmly remembered here: “Indian” is a legal, historical and cultural category, not a genetic one. It doesn’t matter how much “Indian blood” one has, if one isn’t a member of a tribe, one isn’t an “Indian” in any meaningful sense of the word.

I only mention this because it’s incredibly common to hear urban Brazilians who maybe had an Indian great-grandfather go on and on about their “heritage” when they can’t even tell what tribe or village their ancestor was from.

Here’s a good acid test for claims to Indianess. Ask “Who were your grandparents? Where did they live? Who were their people? Where are their bodies?” A “real” Indian will probably be able to tell you all this.


-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 6:21 am on Feb. 1, 2003 | IP
Tais


Newbie
   
Macunaima, I am becoming a fan of yours by each post you make. I love your enthusiam to make people clear on certain things, although some things I've not agreed totally, there is still a level of respect you exude.

I absolutely agree with you on the claiming of "Indian" this seems to happen not just with my fellow Brasilians, but others as well.

Total Posts: 8 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 11:51 am on Feb. 1, 2003 | IP
MARQUESEAZY


Junior Member
   
ITS WEIRD IN THE U.S ITS THE BLACKS WHO CLAIM THEY HAVE SOME INDIAN IN THEIR BLOOD BUT IN BRAZIL ITS THE WHITES WHO CLAIM THEY HAVE SOME INDIAN IN THEIR BLOOD

Total Posts: 88 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 3:21 pm on Feb. 1, 2003 | IP
Ze


Junior Member
   
Wow, a half baked truth in a minute! Isn't it marvelous?

Total Posts: 93 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 12:58 am on Feb. 2, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
there's a realy good book written by a North American Indian named Vine Deloria Jr. that I often tell students to read called "Custer Died for Your sins: An Indian Manifesto". Unfortunately, it has never been translated into Portuguese.

Though Vine was talking about the U.S., 90 percent of what he says applies to Brazil, too. He has an entire chapter on white Americans claiming to be Indians and why this may occur.

His son has just launched a fantastic book on this topic, too. Called "Playing Indian", Phillip Deloria gives a penetrating overview of "Indianist" movements among white Americans in the last two centuries.

Very, very much worth a read if you want some stuff to chew over on this issue. Basically Phillip says there's plenty of good, logical, cultural reasons why white people in the Americas want to play Indian. The only problem is, the "game" involves real Indians' lives, lands and cultural traditions.

-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 4:27 am on Feb. 2, 2003 | IP
erpo


Newbie
   

Quote: from Macunaima on 6:21 am on Feb. 1, 2003
One thing that needs to be firmly remembered here: “Indian” is a legal, historical and cultural category, not a genetic one. It doesn’t matter how much “Indian blood” one has, if one isn’t a member of a tribe, one isn’t an “Indian” in any meaningful sense of the word.

I only mention this because it’s incredibly common to hear urban Brazilians who maybe had an Indian great-grandfather go on and on about their “heritage” when they can’t even tell what tribe or village their ancestor was from.

Here’s a good acid test for claims to Indianess. Ask “Who were your grandparents? Where did they live? Who were their people? Where are their bodies?” A “real” Indian will probably be able to tell you all this.





In Australia, we have people claiming to have aboriginal ancestry, so that they can receive extra social security benefits. Yet these same people, couldn't even name a single aboriginal tribe, if they were asked.

-----
I love Bahian babes

Total Posts: 10 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 11:53 am on Feb. 2, 2003 | IP
ELEGANTGENT



Junior Member
   
macunaima, gotta disagree with you this time dude. you are dead wrong. being indian does not require being a tribe member. indian is a race just as is white, black, asians etc. as i stated before, some prefer african american compared to black. my heritage is native black american. i do not know of any african tribes nor recall hearing of but a few. my mothers tribe are cherokee and they lived in the southern states (immediately georgia, florida). various tribes in north america are related as well as tribes of people of other continients. (if you want to refer them as tribes). where are you from?

Total Posts: 53 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 4:13 pm on Feb. 4, 2003 | IP
Ze


Junior Member
   
Indian is a culture, the race is "asian". I don't really recall, but the scientific name is something else.

Total Posts: 93 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 6:14 pm on Feb. 4, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
Well, human races don't exist biologically. They are social constructs. There is no "Indian" race biologically speaking, just as there are no "white", "black" or "asian" races. These terms themselves are leftovers from 19th century social Darwinism. We humans aren't dogs. Our genetic make-up is not stable enough to allow pure breeding subspecies - or races - to form. Insofar as race exists, its a political, historical and - most importantly - symbological construct.

As far as Indian social race goes, in both Brazil and the States, Indians were encouraged to intermarry. As the owners of land whites wanted, it made sense to downplay their numbers. Thus no hypodescendency for them: one needed a MINIMUM quantum of Indian "blood" to be considered Indian. Africans were property: it made financial sense to increase their numbers. Thus one needed ,merely a drop of blood to be African. In this sense, the founding logic behind Indian and African social race went in diametrically opposite directions.

Today, claims to being a member of the Indian "race" are often used to downplay what's left of Indian cultural and political power. Basically, people can claim to be whatever they want, but if they aren't a recognized member of a tribe, they aren't Indian in any meaningful sociocultural or political sense of the word. The Cherokees are the most confusing case precisely because they were so successful at adapting to white ways. they even owned black slaves who, after abolition, became tribe members. TheCherokees almost got their own state, Oklahoma, in 1900, but were eventually overrun by white and black settlement. They intermarried A LOT and there are thus millions of people with some "Cherokee blood" who have no social or political call on indianess. Vine Deloria Jr., back when he was head of the Native American Youth Council, said it was a standing joke around the council offices that whenever someone who was socially considered to be white or black dropped by the offices in order to show support for their lost racial brothers, the person in question always claimed to be "of Cherokee blood".

Furthermore, tribes are nations. They have the right to decide who's a member and who isn't. People who are not Indians by "blood" can become Indians through marriage and their children can be enrolled in the tribe. tribes are nations, just like Germany, France and the U.S.

Here's a simple test to determine your social race: what do people see when they look at you, a black man or an Indian? Unless others - and more importantly other Indians - see you as an Indian, you most probably aren't, just the same way that my having a Prussian great-great-grandmother doesn't make me german. If I were to go to Berlin today, claiming to be German, I'd be laughed out of town. The first thing people would mention is that I don't speak the language...

That's the last thing that should be added here. There is no such thing as an "Indian". There are Cherokees, Lakota, Tapirapé. Ka'apor, Menominee, Haudensosaunee, Yanomami... In short, there are thousands of Indian nations, each with their own language, history and customs. Saying one is "Indian" is like saying one is "European": it really says very little of substance.

-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 6:15 pm on Feb. 4, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
No science about it, Zê. Last time they tried toa ctually count the number of human "races", they counted some several thousand. Turns out that there's no one set of stable characterisitics, anywhere, tha one can point to and say "That's a race".

-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 6:29 pm on Feb. 4, 2003 | IP
Ze


Junior Member
   
Yeah, it was not my smartest move to use long buried and archaic "science" just to economize a few words on an argument.

...(Não eram três os principais grupos humanos?)

Total Posts: 93 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 8:44 pm on Feb. 4, 2003 | IP
krista



Junior Member
   
Getting back to my original question...
People seem to be quite relaxed about this topic of chopping the indians, while it has been compared to a genocide so many times even in the 90's (i haven't really seen any newer sources, but i can bet the claims continue). Not genocide as a plan run by the government, but the chopping done by greedy miners + landowners...and this is further facilitated by the corrupt officials. And even though I don't remember any numbers, I have this impression that the killings are as massive as they can be within such cmall groups. (there's a geat book on the whole issue - J.Meunier + A.M.Savarin "The Amazon Chronicles" the book contains lots of quite reliable-sounding information and facts, and makes me shiver of horror).
I have never seen a single article on this kind of topics in Brasilian media... Is the topic forgotten? Is it the government covering up, or is it the lack of information that keeps the public so quiet? Or is it that there's really not much happening, other that some human rights' activists getting overly excited and exaggerating about the issue?
every time I come to this forum site, I see this giant discussion on how hard it is to be black in Brasil...I guess the topic is bigger, because there are more people around to share their experience, and there are more black people in general as well. But still - I'm stubborn (haha, coming from a nation of barely 1 million with various smaller ethinc groups dying within it, I guess I have this thing for small ethnic/whatever groups), so I guess I'm going to drag this topic until I find a better one.
---
ps: Does Brasil actually have some official policy towards the indigenous or some official stand on the topic???


-----
Radio Do Mar: http://www.live365.com/stations/226288

Total Posts: 97 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 10:53 pm on Feb. 4, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
Hmmmm. Well, to answer your last question first, Brazil has had an official Indian Service since 1910. The SPI (Serviço de Proteção aos Índios) was turned into FUNAI (Fundação Nacional do Índio) in the '60s because of scandals .

The Indian Service's biggest problem is that its vastly underfinanced, unable to police reservations and with no law enforcement power of its own. This means it rushes around, dumping water on brushfire after brushfire without having the ability to engage in long term planning.

Almost all Indian deaths occur on the contact frontier as white landowners try to hustle into Indian territory. The Indians react, the goons are sent in, and Indians end up dead. By the time FUNAI hears about it, the culprits are long gone. Even when they are caught, local "justice" systems usually let killers off the hook. Nothing can be done unless FUNAI is successful at getting federal charges passed, which, as you can imagine, isn't very often.

All in all, it's very similar to what happened to California Indians. We have a genocide going on that has no central planning, no center of activity at all. While all this crap is going on, our Indian Service is trying out its Hamlet immitation.

-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 3:23 am on Feb. 5, 2003 | IP
Estudante de Ingles


Newbie
   


IBGE DATA:


The Brazilian Indian population increased faster than the total population between 1991 and 2000.  .

1991 Indians was 0,2% of Brazilian population
2000 Indians was  0,4% of Brazilian population

IBGE DATA:  51,6% of brazilians think and say they are white.  Genetic reasearchs prove:  the male ancestors of these 'whites' are 98% europeans. But their female ancestors are  39% europeans, 33% indians, 28% africans.


Indians:  annual population  growth rate : 3.5% ( higher than the total population growth rate, 1.3% )

Numbers (2002):  

12% of the  national territory belongs to the indians

358 000 indians of 215 ethnic groups live in 588 reserves


(Edited by Estudante de Ingles at 3:35 pm on Feb. 11, 2003)


(Edited by Estudante de Ingles at 3:37 pm on Feb. 11, 2003)


(Edited by Estudante de Ingles at 3:46 pm on Feb. 11, 2003)

-----
"nós gatos já nascemos pobres porém já nascemos livres"

Total Posts: 22 | Joined Feb. 2003 | Posted on: 3:31 pm on Feb. 11, 2003 | IP
krista



Junior Member
   
muito obrigada, estudante
i'm happy to hear that at least in some aspect things are getting better; i really am.
i hope someday the slaughtering sone by the illegal miners will be history as well... but, yes, I heard of the larger growth rate of indigenous population as well. Does anyone know if this includes everyone who calls themselves indigenous, or does this piece of statistics only include those who are part of a tribe?


-----
Radio Do Mar: http://www.live365.com/stations/226288

Total Posts: 97 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 5:29 pm on Feb. 11, 2003 | IP
krista



Junior Member
   
This is not really the right place for my next comment, but I didn't want to open a whole new topic for it...
I just wanted to share this link to a news website.. Not much any connection to Brasil really, except for that PAULO COELHO ROCKS MY WORLD!!!

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=260737&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

(and please, don't be insulted by that...just in case anyone really hates the article)
peace. seriously.

-----
Radio Do Mar: http://www.live365.com/stations/226288

Total Posts: 97 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 5:35 pm on Feb. 11, 2003 | IP
Ze


Junior Member
   
You could create 2 topics with this, one for Paulo Coelho ( I agree with his opinion, but I hate his books, and cannot stand his poor writing skills in portuguese), the other for us to beat on each other on the subject of the war.

... since the racism topic is starting to slow down, I suggest you open the next arena.

Total Posts: 93 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 7:52 pm on Feb. 11, 2003 | IP
krista



Junior Member
   
ok. new topic started. but i'm expecting some good replies now.

cheers.

-----
Radio Do Mar: http://www.live365.com/stations/226288

Total Posts: 97 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 8:42 pm on Feb. 11, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
"IBGE DATA:  51,6% of brazilians think and say they are white.  Genetic reasearchs prove:  the male ancestors of these 'whites' are 98% europeans. But their female ancestors are  39% europeans, 33% indians, 28% africans."

This is one of those supposedly "conclusive" pieces of evidence based on genetics that "proves" Brazil's racial mix.

Too bad that race has very little to do with biology and almost EVERYTHING to do with social values.

Also, that "98 percent white male ancestors" looks EXTREMELY fishy to me. How did they define "white", "black" and "european" in this study, I wonder? By declaring white hypodescendency for the males and non-white for the females? As I said, it looks like a piss-poor use of statistics and genetics to "prove" an argument about race that Brazil would just love to hear. I'll have to pass this one by my colleague who's studying the use of genetics in the social sciences.

-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 2:17 am on Feb. 12, 2003 | IP
ELEGANTGENT



Junior Member
   
krista, again you have brought to my attention an interesting book (the amazon chronicles). of course there have been and still are killings, theft, corruption going on with the indians (no such thing according to mac according to what he wants to believe, if we are not in a tribe the only thing we can claim for sure is to be african since that is human origin) in brazil. pbs has had documentarys over the years about that and the distruction of the rainforest. it is known that the brazilian government (corrupt ones) have been stuffing and covering for years. i would love to round up a machete weilding/grenade launching posse to go to the amazonas to bring an end to the evils. the indians were shown to be worry free and disease free until contact with the invaders. they had cures for the few illnesses that they may have had until that time for the most part. they had respect for the earth and for god. i did not like how one tribe treated the women by forcefully taking them the way that they did. still with all the mining and evil greed that's going on it will be hard to stop distruction.
krista, as for the brazilians comment on bush and the war, that was funny. i have one problem with that, does blair deserve 1%? i think that is 1% too much. that 1% should go to that brazilian guy because his ideas are much better than any thing that came from blair.

Total Posts: 53 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 12:12 pm on Feb. 12, 2003 | IP
krista



Junior Member
   
haha...if you look at Coelho's explanation carefully enough, you'll notice that the 1% is for Blair to shut up.
haha...i just adore that man.

About the round with a machete... Can you tell me when you're planning to do it, 'cause I'd love to join you on that one. Grenades aren't much good idea - we'd be just destroying the forest as bad as everyone else... In fact, I agree best with the Villas-Boas brothers who said that the best thing to do with the indians is to stay away from them. I could see them doing so much better if we cleaned up their lands of all outsiders and let them live there on their own...

-----
Radio Do Mar: http://www.live365.com/stations/226288

Total Posts: 97 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 1:09 pm on Feb. 12, 2003 | IP
ELEGANTGENT



Junior Member
   
hey krista, you're right, grenades would be bad, but instead, how about putting posters of hilary clinton and janet reno in bikinis on as many trees as possible, then we capture them and put them in windowless cells lined with the posters. i say it wouldn't be long before they would see god in the face of the indians and fall on their knees before them. i just hope the posters don't scare the wild life away.

Total Posts: 53 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 2:55 pm on Feb. 12, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
Elegantgent sez: "according to mac according to what he wants to believe, if we are not in a tribe the only thing we can claim for sure is to be african since that is human origin".

Huh? Where did I say or even imply that human beings are all African, GENT? I think you're mistaking me for someone else.

"the indians were shown to be worry free and disease free until contact with the invaders."

Oh, dear Lord. Talk about treating the Indians as nonhumans! I don't know what's worse, the folks who think Indians are animals to be slaughtered or the people who want to turn them into little cardboard and plaster saints... Neither group really looks at Indian realities and neither give two hoots about REAL, LIVE Indians, who are human beings and whose shit stinks like everyone else's.

I hate to break this to you, GENT, but things are a hell of a lot more complicated down here than that PBS documentary implied. Not that the Indians don't deserve support in their struggle for their land, nor am I saying that they haven't suffered from genocide. It just makes things a hell of a lot easier if people expect them to be humans with human problems rather than untouched, pure creatures of the bucolic woodlands, which they most certainly aren't.

Krista: "I could see them doing so much better if we cleaned up their lands of all outsiders and let them live there on their own..."

Well, Vine Deloria Jr. once said what the Indian needs more than anything else is a "let Indians alone" law.

That said, what about those Indians who don't WANT to be stuck in the stone age but want video recorders, cars, outboard motors and the like while still remaining Indians? In your ideal world, what would you do about them, Krista? Or do you simply presume that such Indians don't exist?

Now my solution is treat them like nations and let them plot out their own future. If we do that, though, it may mean having to accept things when they make stupid decisions, like clear-cutting their land for cash.

-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 5:44 pm on Feb. 12, 2003 | IP
ELEGANTGENT



Junior Member
   
no mac, you don't get it. when your reply is not requested on an opinion. don't answer. i am not here to argue with anyone that trys to correct any and everyone just because they think they know it all. the comment that i made in reference to you, of which you just responded, was of irony. nothing serious enough for you to yell fire. lighten up dude and go suck down a brewski.

Total Posts: 53 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 5:57 pm on Feb. 12, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
Who's yelling?

And if you don't want a comment of mine, then you certainly shouldn't be sticking words in my mouth.

Go back to yer Pauno Coelho, GENT.

-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 6:00 pm on Feb. 12, 2003 | IP
krista



Junior Member
   
"That said, what about those Indians who don't WANT to be stuck in the stone age but want video recorders, cars, outboard motors and the like while still remaining Indians? In your ideal world, what would you do about them, Krista? Or do you simply presume that such Indians don't exist?"
"Now my solution is treat them like nations and let them plot out their own future. If we do that, though, it may mean having to accept things when they make stupid decisions, like clear-cutting their land for cash."

Dear Macunaima - your solution is actually quite close to what I meant. I meant leaving them alone to make their own decisions, instead of us making the decisions for them. I did not mean cutting a piece of land and imprisoning them in there... But, yes, they should be guaranteed their own land and perhaps some sort of partial autonomy on their territories (no, I do not mean a separate state or anything. just their own right to decide over their own lives).

I don't think too many of them would go for selling the land for $$ if the land is given to the community as a whole, not to separate individuals. I have this impression that most indian tribes are quite interested in their survival.

And at the same time I can completely see many indians going to public schools and universities and living like an ordinary westernized person, of course. But I also want to guarantee to those, who wish to continue their life according to their tribal traditions, that they can. I don't think indians should be treated as a one homogenous mass, no. They should be free to choose - if one wants to work in an office and have a car, let him do that. But if one wants to for the traditional ways, let him do that too.


-----
Radio Do Mar: http://www.live365.com/stations/226288

Total Posts: 97 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 7:57 pm on Feb. 12, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
Hmmm.

I kinda like what Canada has done, making Nunquavit (SP?) a native province. We'll have to see how that goes, long term.

Have you read about the Mohawk and Lakota civil wars? One of the problems with this stuff is what should the nation state do if internal conflict errupts. I'm of the opinion that they should let folks alone and let them sort it out among themselves.

-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 4:20 am on Feb. 13, 2003 | IP
krista



Junior Member
   
ah, when it comes to a conflict, that's already a much harder problem. One part of me would look at all the dead, all of those lives wasted over probably some quite stupid argument; and that part would like to go in and juss confiscate all the weapons. Then again, being realistic, I agree with you - if we decide to leave them alone, then that's exactly what we should do. Indians can take care of themselves and don't need us poking our nose in their business with our western point of view. See, often I see then biggest problem in that when the outsider goes in, he goes in with his outsider point of view and tries to change things around according to his ideas/beliefs. I think that's pure wrong. At the same time...culture too is a dangerous excuse. If it ever happened that the Indinas among themselves came up with some internal genocide of one certain tribe or something - would we let it happen, because we don't want to force our western values into their world, and because we promised to leave them alone; or would we break our own promise and mess with them once again, possibly screwing everything up again...
But really, I think the idea of a native province is actually quite good. In Brasil it would perhaps have to be several smaller places here and there, because I can't quite see the government moving those in south to the north, or those in north to the south... Yet, in any case, I would be happy to see them left alone.

-----
Radio Do Mar: http://www.live365.com/stations/226288

Total Posts: 97 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 6:04 am on Feb. 13, 2003 | IP
Estudante de Ingles


Newbie
   


CIÊNCIA  
DEMOGRAFIA

Marcas genéticas da miscigenação
Estudo avalia a herança    indígena, negra e    européia nos brasileiros    brancos

Três em cada cinco brasileiros, o equivalente a cerca de 95 milhões de pessoas, carregam em cada célula do corpo uma herança genética que provém dos índios ou dos africanos e se preservou por meio das mães ao longo das gerações. Mesmo que não se traduza necessariamente em traços do rosto ou na cor da pele, a miscigenação entre os povos formadores do Brasil é mais intensa do que se imaginava, como demonstrou um grupo de pesquisadores da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) num artigo publicado na Ciência Hoje de abril.

A equipe, coordenada pelo geneticista Sérgio Danilo Pena, analisou a formação genética da população a partir do DNA de 200 brasileiros brancos, de diversas origens e regiões do país. Como marcadores biológicos, os pesquisadores examinaram a variação do cromossomo Y, exclusivamente masculino. Nas mulheres, estudaram o DNA mitocondrial, encontrado nas mitocôndrias, uma organela da célula, e considerado um dos indicadores mais precisos da herança materna (a mitocôndria paterna se perde durante a fertilização do óvulo). Verificou-se que cerca de 60% das matrilinhagens (linhagens maternas) são de origem ameríndia ou africana, enquanto a maioria, mais de 90%, das patrilinhagens dos brancos brasileiros é de origem européia - portanto, apenas um em cada dez brasileiros brancos tem um ascendente paterno negro ou índio. Entretanto, pelo lado materno, seis em cada dez têm ascendência negra ou índia. A herança materna, especificamente, é constituída por 33% de linhagens ameríndias, 28% de africanas e 39% de européias, com variações de região para região. No Sul, predomina a linhagem européia, e no Nordeste, a africana. "Embora desde 1500 o número de nativos no Brasil tenha se reduzido a 10% do original (de cerca de 3,5 milhões para 325 mil), o número de pessoas com DNA mitocondrial ameríndio aumentou cerca de 10 vezes", relatam os autores da pesquisa. As patrilinhagens, muito semelhantes à distribuição genética verificada em Portugal, exibem uma variabilidade que reflete a formação do povo ibérico, para a qual contribuíram celtas, fenícios, gregos, romanos, judeus e, especialmente, mouros, que ocuparam o território luso durante 700 anos. A genética complementa os estudos históricos e sociológicos sobre miscigenação, que começou quando os portugueses chegaram - e, sozinhos, estabeleciam relações informais com as índias. O estudo também questiona o termo raça. Para os cientistas, é cientificamente inconsistente, ainda que adotado largamente, e deveria ser substituído por etnia. Segundo os pesquisadores, "não há na Terra nenhum grupo humano biologicamente (nem culturalmente) homogêneo".

Cordialmente,

Estudante de Inglês ( com preguiça ).






(Edited by Estudante de Ingles at 3:59 am on Feb. 15, 2003)

-----
"nós gatos já nascemos pobres porém já nascemos livres"

Total Posts: 22 | Joined Feb. 2003 | Posted on: 6:37 am on Feb. 13, 2003 | IP
Ze


Junior Member
   
Bibliografia por favor.

Total Posts: 93 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 8:02 am on Feb. 13, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
Well. That explains it then. The analysis is of X and Y chromosomes. You do realize that every man carries an X chromosome, right? This means that 90 percent of Y chromosomes in white Brazilians comes from Europe, not that 90 percent of their fathers were "white".

Furthermore, you'll notice that the study only looked at white Brazilians.


-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 2:42 pm on Feb. 13, 2003 | IP
ELEGANTGENT



Junior Member
   
muy bien, no matter what tribe, that is the heritage.

Total Posts: 53 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 4:51 pm on Feb. 13, 2003 | IP
Estudante de Ingles


Newbie
   
Zé:
The site is http://www.fapesp.br/ciencia525.htm

Professor Macunaima:

I would like to say that only the Y cromossome and the mitocondrial DNA were studied, not the X cromossome.

Aquele abraço,
Estudante de Inglês.


-----
"nós gatos já nascemos pobres porém já nascemos livres"

Total Posts: 22 | Joined Feb. 2003 | Posted on: 7:09 pm on Feb. 13, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
Elegantgent,

That's the GENETIC heritage. Genetics do not determine cultural heritage and race is much more a function of cultural than genetic heritage. I know this may come as a suprise to you, but even the article Estudante quotes here is quite firm on that.

Cultural heritage is what determines who is and who isn't an Indian. That and politics. It doesn't matter how much of one's "blood" is Indian: if one isn't a member of an Indian political unit, has no access to land, doesn't speak the labguage and is culturally indistinguishable from the non-Indians around one, one simply isn't an Indian.

To say otherwise would be to say that I'm "German" simply because that's where the majority of my genes come from. There are several problems with this kind of logic, the biggest being that Germany per se didn't exist when my ancestors left there. Then there's the fact that no German - except perhaps some neo nazis - would ever consider me to be German.

Sorry. It's a scientifically proven fact: race is not determined by genetics. There simply ain't no such animal as "race" biologically speaking.

BTW, I love the little dodge the geneticists do, claiming that race doesn't exist but ethnicity does. The two are the same in biological terms. Stable, recognizable human difference that could be scientifically labeled is not transmitted by our genes. We're too unstable, genetically speaking.

-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 3:56 am on Feb. 14, 2003 | IP
MARQUESEAZY


Junior Member
   
THAT MAYBE THE CASE IN BRAZIL BUT NOT HERE IN THE U.S.IN BRAZIL RACE IS NOT GENETICS BUT IN THE U.S IT SURE AS HELL IS.IN THE U.S YOU WOULD NEVER FIND A WHITE PERSON WITH SOME AFRICAN BLOOD THAT HAPPENS ONLY IN BRAZIL.IN BRAZIL THEY ARE MIXING THE BLACKS AND INDIANS OUT OF EXISTENCE AND IN A FEW YEARS THERE WILL BE NO MORE BLACKS AND INDIANS LEFT IN BRAZIL AND BRAZIL WILL BE 100% WHITE JUST LIKE ITS NEIGHBORING COUNTRY ARGENTINA.THANK GOD THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN HERE IN THE U.S SINCE US BLACKS HERE STILL MARRY WITHIN OUR OWN RACE MOST OF THE TIME BUT NOT IN BRAZIL MOST BLACKS AND INDIANS MARRY OUTSIDE THEIR RACE AND THAT WILL BE THEIR DESTRUCTION.SOON BRAZIL WILL HAVE MORE WHITES THEN EVEN THE CONTINENT OF EUROPE.IN A FEW YEARS SALVADOR WILL LOOK LIKE SANTA CATARINA LOL

Total Posts: 88 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 12:01 pm on Feb. 14, 2003 | IP
krista



Junior Member
   
do you have some problems with paranoia?
seek help. please.

-----
Radio Do Mar: http://www.live365.com/stations/226288

Total Posts: 97 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 12:11 pm on Feb. 14, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
MARQUES MULATINHO...

Seeing as how there are more dark skinned people in Brazil than there are light skinned people, how in the world will miscegenation create a homogenous white population in Brazil?

Y'know, you sound like you BELIEVE that old racist "whitening" shit. You believe that genes for light colored skin are "stronger" somehow and will replace genes for dark colored skin, even if whites are in the majority.

Sounds like fantasy projection to me, MARQUES MULATINHO.

-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 12:31 pm on Feb. 14, 2003 | IP
ELEGANTGENT



Junior Member
   
look mac, you do not know my heritage and it is none of your business to try to tell me what i am. it appears that you thrive on being arguementive and jacking with people for your own entertainment. cultural, genetically, and mentally you are of the species that love to start chit and cause problems. if you have a problem with me being indian i welcome you to confront me in person and i will show you how much of an indian i am. don't hide behind your computer to fluck with people. if you want to continue this,  try me.

Total Posts: 53 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 12:55 pm on Feb. 14, 2003 | IP
krista



Junior Member
   
but don't you (elegantgent) agree that there's a difference between a westernized/urbanized person whose great grandma perhaps was an indian, and a full indian living in a tribe and following at least to some extent the traditional ways?
(well, not a racial difference, but a big difference in identity. i think that's what macunaima is talking about. and this is where i meant to start the whole discussion - i feel concerned about the chopping of the traditional indigenous people. the westernized city-indians have already made their own choice, so they're not my concern. the traditional ones, however, do not get to choose their destiny as freely as they should. Thus, you really shouldn't get upset if we exclude you from the concept "indian" right now. for the sake of keeping this discussion on the topic, we have to exclude the nontraditional indians.)

-----
Radio Do Mar: http://www.live365.com/stations/226288

Total Posts: 97 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 1:34 pm on Feb. 14, 2003 | IP
ELEGANTGENT



Junior Member
   
being indian does not mean that one must be what you may call "traditional" just as being arab, african, egyptian, chinese, hillbillie or anything else. there are traditional and non traditional of many. that does not mean that they are not of that blood or heritage.

Total Posts: 53 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 2:02 pm on Feb. 14, 2003 | IP
MARQUESEAZY


Junior Member
   
I AGREE JUST BECAUSE YOUR NOT LIVING IN A RESERVATION AND PART OF A TRIBE DOES NOT MAKE YOU ANY LESS INDIAN AND YOUR SKIN WONT BE ANY LESS BROWN.THATS LIKE SAYING AFRICAN AMERICANS AINT BLACK BECAUSE THEY DONT BELONG TO THE YORUBA TRIBE IN NIGERIA OR ANY AFRICAN TRIBE IN AFRICA FOR THAT MATTER.JUST BECAUSE A NATIVE AMERICAN LIVES IN THE CITY AND HAS BEEN WESTERNIZED HIS SKIN COLOR WONT CHANGE HE STILL PHYSICALLY IS AN INDIAN ESPECIALLY IF HE OR SHE IS HAS PURE NATIVE AMERICAN BLOOD.

Total Posts: 88 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 3:13 pm on Feb. 14, 2003 | IP
ELEGANTGENT



Junior Member
   
@mac, i did not mean to disrespect you, but ya know you can kiss somebody off trying to be an authority about something that is personal and is none of your down business. my invitation is still open. i have great hostility toward people who love instigate and be a propellant to starting doo doo.

Total Posts: 53 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 3:32 pm on Feb. 14, 2003 | IP
krista



Junior Member
   
oh, elegantgent, of course. Look at my postings - I never said that you weren't an indian or that the nontraditional ones aren't real indians. I said that in the current issue I am only concerned about the traditional ones. (Those that I consider to be "nontraditional" ones are the ones that don't carry on the indigenous CULTURE).
I can make a different analogue here in order to explain myself - If a language-genocide were to happen and wipe off every portuguese-speaker in Brasil, I would not bother much with those who don't speak portuguese but have some brasilian blood in them. Yet, they're all Brasilians, no?
The same with you. Honestly, I couldn't care less who you are and what gene did you get from your grandma. You're doing fine, you're not being chopped into pieces by some greedy illegal miner or landowner. Try to pay attention - I said FOR THE SAKE OF THIS DISCUSSION I am talking of "traditional" indigenous people when I say indian. You can call yourself whatever you want, no one cares really... It doesn't change the point of this discussion in any way.
(I'd argue with you over your identity if the matter were giving YOU some benefits. but now...just try to be sensible and don't just put words into people's mouths)

-----
Radio Do Mar: http://www.live365.com/stations/226288

Total Posts: 97 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 3:36 pm on Feb. 14, 2003 | IP
ELEGANTGENT



Junior Member
   
ok krista well said. i have no problem with that. that is correct. you know it is amazing how some people can funk anything up and how things can start out one way and be turned into something totally off course. my post was the second post on this topic. it was not about asking anyone wheather or not i or my fiance was indian. THE MAD DOG TOPIC WAS WHERE ARE THE INDIANS IN BRAZIL!!!!

Total Posts: 53 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 4:53 pm on Feb. 14, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
Er, ELEGANTGENT...

This is the second time that you've taken a comment of mine that was directed towards MARQUES "MULATINO" SEAZY as having been directed towards you. Either you two are one and the same person, or you need to relax and read a little more carefully. I'm not saying anything about your heritage in particular.

RE: your being Indian. Shrug. Knock yourself out. You can say you are whatever the hell you want to be. Call yourself a martian. It's all the same to me: I don't care what you are or are not.

However, the topic here has to do with human identity and "indianess". You are apparently upset with my observation that people who don't belong to a tribe, don't speak a native language and are not members of a native american culture cannot (and legally are not) considered Indians in any meaningful sense of the world. This comment was not directed specifically towards you, so given your anger, I would presume that you fit this category.

You don't need to convince me that you're an Indian, GENT: you need to convince whatever nation your Indian ancestors come from that you are one.

The problem with human identity is that we are not only what we call ourselves, we're what other people call us too.

For example, I'm a Brazilian in the only scientifically - or even politically - meaningful sense of the word because I am a Brazilian citizen. I have no problem accepting that facet of my identity, nor the rights and responsabilities that pertain to it. I vote, I pay taxes, I'm and active, informed member of the polis. In short, I feel I have every right in the world to call myself a Brazilian and the constitution backs that right.

HOWEVER...

Because I'm an immigrant, born somewhere else to non-Brazilian parents, there are those people -probably the vast majority of people, in fact - who believe that I'm NOT Brazilian nor ever will be. My identity is just as much defined by these peoples' beliefs as it is by my own.

Boiling it down: what you "are" is defined on the interface between what you and other claim you to be. As a man with fairly remote Indian biological heritage and probably no cultural heritgae, who is not recognized as Indian by any organized Indian political group, you are going to have anawfully hard time of convincing other people that you are, indeed, Indian.

Sorry, buddy. Dems da breaks in the identity racket.

"Race" is just as much of a social construct as nationality. There is NO, ZERO, ZIP, NONE, FUCK-ALL scientific proof that human races exist on a biological level. There's simply nothing we inherit from our forefathers that makes us "naturally" Black, white, Indian or whatever.

Now you may not like this, but please don't get pissed off when I point out the truth. You might as well say that I'm trying to cause a fight by insisting that the Earth is round. What I'm talking about here is not at all polemical, ELEGANTGENT, however difficult it may be for you, personally, to accept. Just because you have an Indian grandfather (or whatever) doesn't make you an Indian, simply because there's no "essence of Indianess" that's transmitted genetically.

Regarding your comments on "traditional" versus "city" Indians you are correct. "Being indian does not mean that one must be what you may call "traditional" just as being arab, african, egyptian, chinese, hillbillie or anything else."

However, notice the weird jumble of identities you've tossed together there. Being Egyptian or chinese is simply a matter of having the apprpriate citizenship and (probably, as this is a citizenship requirement in most nations) knowing how to speak, read and right the offical language. Africa is a continent: I'm not sure what you mean by "being African". A white guy from Johannesburg is African as is a Masai from the Rift Valley as is a carpet salesman in Cairo. Plus, there are plenty of black americans throughout the diaspora who consider themselves to be african even though they've never set foot on that continent. So I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, when you say "Africaness" is a question of "blood and heritage".

Which particular blood and who's heritage?

"Arab" is a category that's also pretty fucking wierd. I presume you mean people who are ore are descended from the wandering tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. Now that's a pretty big slice of humanity. Plus, if we're talking about "heritage", a big chunk of the world's culture is "Arab" starting with the numbers that are staring at you from your keyboard.

If you mean "Saudi Arabian", then my comments re: China and Egypt can be applied here. However, in order tyo become Saudi, one also probably needs to declare for Islam. In other words, there's nothing "natural" about it: being "Arabian" in this sense is a political and cultural state, not one formed by genetisc or "blood".

I don't know WHAT you mean by hillbilly, eaxctly. Do you mean poor rural whites from the Appalachian Mountain region of the U.S.? That's a cultural, regional categorization that has nothing to do with "blood". Plenty of different bloodlines are mixed up in them there hills, including a walloping dose from Africa. I presume that you are aware of the fact that most of the original "hillbillies" were descendants of indentured servants who in the pre-revolutionary south were often quartered with the black slaves? Plenty of race mixin' goin' on back then, I can assure. Some of those white boys have at least as much call to an "african" identity based on "blood" as any U.S. American black man.

MARQUES MULATINHO'S comment is useful to point out some of the misconceptions being aired here. He sez: "THATS LIKE SAYING AFRICAN AMERICANS AINT BLACK BECAUSE THEY DONT BELONG TO THE YORUBA TRIBE IN NIGERIA."

Nobody's saying your not black, MARQUES. (Though if you want to use all this pseudo-scientific racial jazz from the 19th century, you are technically a mulato. And a rather high-strung one to boot.) What I'm saying, MARQUES is that you are not NIGERIAN, YOURUBA, or even AFRICAN. You are a BLACK AMERICAN, AFRICAN AMERICAN, NEGRO AMERICAN, AFRO-AMERICAn or whatever this year's preferred identity term is. Again, call yourself whatever you want, but I doubt you'll get the Nigerians or Yoruba to call you a member of their particular groups unless you do a lot of work on yourself, first. In the case of Nigeria, you'd at least have to apply for citizenship and probably live there to boot. As for the Yoruba... Well, one presumes that you'd have to learn a whole new language, marry into the nation, and probably undergo religious conversion as well before any substantial number of people started seeing you as Yoruba.

"@mac, i did not mean to disrespect you, but ya know you can kiss somebody off trying to be an authority about something that is personal and is none of your down business. i have great hostility toward people who love instigate..."

Sorry, GENT, but I'm an anthropologist who specializes in race, ethnicity and nationality. Investigating this stuff is my business in life. And if science goes against your fundamental beliefs, that's really not my problem. I'm n ot going to stop talking about Darwin just because Creationists are offended and I'm not going to stop talking about identity simply because you are offended by the idea that your sense of self doesn't come from a gene.

If my saying this offends you, sorry. But that's not me trying to start shit.

Krista: "If a language-genocide were to happen and wipe off every portuguese-speaker in Brasil, I would not bother much with those who don't speak portuguese but have some brasilian blood in them. Yet, they're all Brasilians, no?"

Think about the quandary your question poses: if it's true that "Brazilianess" is defined by certain quantity of blood, then when did we all stop being Portuguese, French, Italian, Tapirapé, Yoruba, Bengala and Aimoré?

"Brazilianess" is based on one basic thing alone: politics. If one convinces the Brazilian state that one should be a citizen, then one is Brazilian. Even culture is secondary to "Brazilianess" as we are pluralist nation. There German Brazilians who barely speak portuguese. there are Syrian Brazilians and Egyptian Jewish Brazilians and Palestinian Brazilians and Italian Brazilians. There are Brazilians who still speak Yoruba, for Christsakes! There are Brazilians for whom the Brazilian identity is completely secondary, like many Brazilian Indian nations. There are even Anglo-Brazilians like myself.

So if your language genocide were to occur and the Brazilian state were to survive, we'd still be Brazilian in the same way that Australians are not Americans simply because they speak the same language.

And if our state were to collapse (which seems a lot more likely) we'd see a complete redefinition of who is or isn't Brazilian. Probably, those very same racist ideologies of admixture and assimilation that we have so trashed on this board would come to the fore in determining who's "really" Brazilian on an ethnic level and the vast majority of our nation's cultural and historical complexity would be completely destroyed in the search for "authenticness".

Coming back to the topic, GENT's question is predicated on the one here. "Where are the Indians in Brazil?" It depends upon how one defines "Indian". If we go on GENT'S "one drop of blood" ideology, they are everywhere.

If we follow Krista's "traditional" definition, we need to then ask what do we mean by "traditional"? I just finished working for the Tapirapé: they have concrete and brick houses, outboard motors on their canoes, access to T.V. and a host of other things that are not "traditional". Are they "traditional"?

My whole reason for starting this subthread isn't to "start doo doo" as ELEGANTGENT so elegantly puts it. It was to get you people to think about what you're talking about here. I'm a Brazilian anthropologist, folks. You seem to be fairly concerned with the Indian problem here, something I think warrants concern. HOWEVER (and please don't take this as an insult) you guys seem bound and determined to approach the problem using a lot of shopworn concepts that have DEMONSTRATABLY caused Brazilian Indians enormous ammounts of grief in the past. Why am I talking about this stuff?^Because if you're concerned enough to try to help - and you appear to be - you need toi get your heads in order and do some self-education that goes beyond whatever you saw on PBS. This isn't meant to be a cut, folks, nor a statement of my superiority. I'm sure you're all inteligent people and competant professionals in your field. That doesn't mean you're qualified to walk in and start working in a nuclear reactor. Thankfully, human relations are less complex. You still need to learn a bit about human science if you want to help the Indians, however.

In a country like Brazil, GENT's hypodescendant "blood heritage" notion of Indian identity is pure posion for Indians. Why? Because most of the country's whites can claim some "indian heritage" if the definition of heritage is who their great-grandmother was. This has horrible consequences for ther kind of Indians Krista is concerned with, which I presume are Indians living on their own lands, speaking their own languages and maintaining a culturally distinct identity.

Krista's label of "traditional", while likewise innocent, is also very dangerous as it's been used in the past to relegate Indians to the role of human museum pieces.

Guys, like it or not, I'm in the role of intern at this nuke plant and you were hired yesterday. That doesn't make me God, nor does it mean every word I say is wise. But I'm trying to pass on some stuff I've learned at great personal cost here and to call that "stirring up shit" as GENT does is simply stupid.

DON'T FUCKING PRESS THE READ BUTTON UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT IT DOES!


-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 5:11 am on Feb. 16, 2003 | IP
krista



Junior Member
   
Wow, Macunaima, this is one really long piece you've managed to put in here. I feel that I should take notes in order the remember what you said in the beginning by the time I get to the end. But I appreciate your posting, because you are addressing some important issues that we've been ignoring here (haha...one of them being us thinking that we're the all-knowing superpeople who can easily solve all the problems for the indians and everyone else too.)

I thought at first that I should start this posting by defending elegantgent a bit. There are a lot of Brasilians here in Boston, for example, who politially perhaps wouldn't qualify as "brasilians" if you want to make the definition a political term. But then I thought of it - those who call themselves Brasilian (and who I agree with), they all speak portuguese at least some part of their daily life (even if just with a few friends), they also tend to keep some kind of contact with their  people back in Brasil even if they're not planning to return... yes, one would have to be accepted as brasilian by the local community of brasilians here in order to really call themselves one. I don't really meet too many people who only have, let's say, one Basilian parent, who were brought up in US all their life, who don't really speak portu, but who still call themselves Brasilian. There could be perhaps some, but in reality...they would be called brasilians only by their friends who want to be nice and let their friends dream. i don't know if my brasilian-talk serves as a good example for the indian identity problem, but it makes sense to me at least. I'm starting to believe you more and more. Your example on african-americans and nigerian yorubas sounded too logical for me to argue, and i hope elegantgent gets this one as well.


Krista: "If a language-genocide were to happen and wipe off every portuguese-speaker in Brasil, I would not bother much with those who don't speak portuguese but have some brasilian blood in them. Yet, they're all Brasilians, no?"

Think about the quandary your question poses: if it's true that "Brazilianess" is defined by certain quantity of blood, then when did we all stop being Portuguese, French, Italian, Tapirapé, Yoruba, Bengala and Aimoré?


Oh, of course, but don't most of them also have Brasilian added to them as a part of their identity juss because they live in Brasil and are affected by Brasilian culture, events whatever? I didn't really mean my example perhaps quite as I put it...the topic isn't my domain so sometimes i have hard time finding the best examples...but what i was trying to express was that i was making up my own definition of indian just for the sake of this topic. i wasn't ever thinking that my "indian" would have to apply anywhere else but within this discussion here. Outside, in the real world, i'd probably drop my "traditional" definition first of all, because out of all the people i definitely have no right to even make a definition for them; but also, you raise a really interesting question - how much would it take, inorder to be a "traditional" indian? or any indian at all? Honestly, I have no idea.. (maybe you will tell me).. But within this specific discussion, since one of my main concerns is killing the indians because of their resourceful land, perhaps the criteria should be living on the land (i mean, the desirable indian territory, wherever these may be found). Am I making any sense?


"Brazilianess" is based on one basic thing alone: politics. If one convinces the Brazilian state that one should be a citizen, then one is Brazilian. Even culture is secondary to "Brazilianess" as we are pluralist nation. There German Brazilians who barely speak portuguese. there are Syrian Brazilians and Egyptian Jewish Brazilians and Palestinian Brazilians and Italian Brazilians. There are Brazilians who still speak Yoruba, for Christsakes! There are Brazilians for whom the Brazilian identity is completely secondary, like many Brazilian Indian nations. There are even Anglo-Brazilians like myself.

So if your language genocide were to occur and the Brazilian state were to survive, we'd still be Brazilian in the same way that Australians are not Americans simply because they speak the same language.

Oh, but that's exactly what I meant. That even though everyone can be called Brasilian there, if a language-genocide were to happen, then in my writings about that, I would mean under "brasilian" those who'd be in danger. I'm not ripping off anyone else's identity, i'm juss borrowing a definition, because i'm too lazy to write long words like "portuguese speaking brasilian" or "indians living on their resourceful lands"... it's nice for one or two sentences, but try to write a long posting likt that. so, lemme just be reeaallly clear - i am redefining indian for one specific moment and purpose only; not trying to make anything generic.

But still, i am starting to like this generic definition topic much more. I have never been in such ethnic identity discussion before, and these ideas are quite new to me. So dropping the dying indians for a moment, I wouldn't mind hearing more about this issue of identity from Macunaima.


---
and this following one...I will celebrate it as The Word Of The Week; too good: "pseudo-scientific racial jazz"
haha...all credits go to Macunaima for no other reason, but for using such creative language in his writings that I can't help but jst have lotsa fun reading it.

---
ps: and really, I guess completely unofficially/unscientifically, just for emotinal reasons...among their friends anyone can call themselves whatever they want as long as they themselves are happy.



-----
Radio Do Mar: http://www.live365.com/stations/226288

Total Posts: 97 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 9:13 am on Feb. 16, 2003 | IP
 

Topic Jump
<< Back Next >>
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Options: Lock topic | Edit topic | Unlock topic | Delete topic | Move topic

© 2003 Brazzil | Our Privacy Statement

Powered by Ikonboard 2.1.9 Beta
© 2001 Ikonboard.com