Back to our cover

Subject: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?


Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, February 18, 2002 at 06:32:59

Message:
I visited Brazil for all too short a time with some two friends back in '98. I have since then been captivated by the bubbling ebullience of the place, which I believe represents the acme of Latin joie de vivre. I definitely realised this about the place when I returned to Australia and found it, although modern, safe, neat etc., thoroughly borind and sedate in comparison.

But I'm facing a bit of a conundrum. When I see some of the images of the desfiles in Carnaval, I wonder about Brazilian society. Is is a debased, latter-day Sodom and Gomorrah? I mean, butt-naked girls performing in a national festival, televised to millions of homes, with families watching -- can this be for real? Granted Australia isn't itself a picture of rectitude, but such decadence (as seems to be the case in Brazil) is not as officially and socially sanctioned and celebrated.

A significant reason for my abiding interest in Brazil is due to my conviction that Brazil will in the future shape in the world what is commonly termed popular culture, which is today disseminated by the United States. The reason for the United States' current hegemony in this area is due to the ebullience of the so-called African-American community in that country; American popular culture can almost solely attributed to this "community" (I think racial distinctions are factitious, hence the quotation marks and the "so-called"). But Brazil has such qualities to a superlative degree, and so once a respectable economic and material condition is effected in the country, global cultural dominance is not too far away. But I shudder to think how degrading this influence might end up being, sinking the world into moral depravity.

I hope this is not the case with Brazil -- the country of the future!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Joaquim
On Monday, February 18, 2002 at 10:21:07

Message:
you've lived in Oz too long...too bad...bring on natural healthy women and let them show the world that happiness and the beautiful God given natural body is something to be grateful for and the women who posess them to be grateful for same and consider themselves blessed.

Let beauty be seen and displayed in a joyful healthy manner.

Carnival is not a depiction of the decadence of drugs...nor displayed in a pornographic manner...you may be missing the point of Brasil...go back and stay a few years and you will get the point...and yes!...world leaders...of course...bring the real Carnaval to the world.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, February 18, 2002 at 21:23:54

Message:
Thanks, mate!

Good, that's a relief to hear -- that it's a celebration of lubricity. You know, I was actually quite hesitant to reach such a negative conclusion because I'm quite aware of the different ways people can interpret the same thing due to the environment in which they have been raised. Originally hailing from East Africa, I can appreciate this reality to a greater extent than most, with the example of the different ways in which people can view breasts.

Since I lived in Africa till the age of nine, I have never really got around the Anglo-Saxon view of breasts. In Africa, as in all places where people are willing to acknowledge nature's patently clear intent, breasts are for babies. But in the Anglo-Saxon world, breasts are an object of titillation to the masculine sex. They are first and foremost for men and only secondarily, and as an afterthought, are they for feeding babies! This, although I have now lived amongst the Anglos for most of my life now (first in England and now Australia), is something I still can't relate to. And the Anglos just don't believe me when I tell them that titillation at the sight of breasts is certainly not universal.

So realising this, I was aware that what appears to be one thing to me might actually carry a different, and in this case a wholesome, meaning to the natives. So as long as the nudity displayed in Carnaval is wholesome, I'm quite prepared to accept and recognise that as being the case -- thank God!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, February 18, 2002 at 21:24:31

Message:
Thanks, mate!

Good, that's a relief to hear -- that it's a celebration of lubricity. You know, I was actually quite hesitant to reach such a negative conclusion because I'm quite aware of the different ways people can interpret the same thing due to the environment in which they have been raised. Originally hailing from East Africa, I can appreciate this reality to a greater extent than most, with the example of the different ways in which people can view breasts.

Since I lived in Africa till the age of nine, I have never really got around the Anglo-Saxon view of breasts. In Africa, as in all places where people are willing to acknowledge nature's patently clear intent, breasts are for babies. But in the Anglo-Saxon world, breasts are an object of titillation to the masculine sex. They are first and foremost for men and only secondarily, and as an afterthought, are they for feeding babies! This, although I have now lived amongst the Anglos for most of my life now (first in England and now Australia), is something I still can't relate to. And the Anglos just don't believe me when I tell them that titillation at the sight of breasts is certainly not universal.

So realising this, I was aware that what appears to be one thing to me might actually carry a different, and in this case a wholesome, meaning to the natives. So as long as the nudity displayed in Carnaval is wholesome, I'm quite prepared to accept and recognise that as being the case -- thank God!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, February 18, 2002 at 21:24:43

Message:
Thanks, mate!

Good, that's a relief to hear -- that it's a celebration of lubricity. You know, I was actually quite hesitant to reach such a negative conclusion because I'm quite aware of the different ways people can interpret the same thing due to the environment in which they have been raised. Originally hailing from East Africa, I can appreciate this reality to a greater extent than most, with the example of the different ways in which people can view breasts.

Since I lived in Africa till the age of nine, I have never really got around the Anglo-Saxon view of breasts. In Africa, as in all places where people are willing to acknowledge nature's patently clear intent, breasts are for babies. But in the Anglo-Saxon world, breasts are an object of titillation to the masculine sex. They are first and foremost for men and only secondarily, and as an afterthought, are they for feeding babies! This, although I have now lived amongst the Anglos for most of my life now (first in England and now Australia), is something I still can't relate to. And the Anglos just don't believe me when I tell them that titillation at the sight of breasts is certainly not universal.

So realising this, I was aware that what appears to be one thing to me might actually carry a different, and in this case a wholesome, meaning to the natives. So as long as the nudity displayed in Carnaval is wholesome, I'm quite prepared to accept and recognise that as being the case -- thank God!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, February 18, 2002 at 21:24:58

Message:
Thanks, mate!

Good, that's a relief to hear -- that it's a celebration of lubricity. You know, I was actually quite hesitant to reach such a negative conclusion because I'm quite aware of the different ways people can interpret the same thing due to the environment in which they have been raised. Originally hailing from East Africa, I can appreciate this reality to a greater extent than most, with the example of the different ways in which people can view breasts.

Since I lived in Africa till the age of nine, I have never really got around the Anglo-Saxon view of breasts. In Africa, as in all places where people are willing to acknowledge nature's patently clear intent, breasts are for babies. But in the Anglo-Saxon world, breasts are an object of titillation to the masculine sex. They are first and foremost for men and only secondarily, and as an afterthought, are they for feeding babies! This, although I have now lived amongst the Anglos for most of my life now (first in England and now Australia), is something I still can't relate to. And the Anglos just don't believe me when I tell them that titillation at the sight of breasts is certainly not universal.

So realising this, I was aware that what appears to be one thing to me might actually carry a different, and in this case a wholesome, meaning to the natives. So as long as the nudity displayed in Carnaval is wholesome, I'm quite prepared to accept and recognise that as being the case -- thank God!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, February 18, 2002 at 21:25:08

Message:
Thanks, mate!

Good, that's a relief to hear -- that it's a celebration of lubricity. You know, I was actually quite hesitant to reach such a negative conclusion because I'm quite aware of the different ways people can interpret the same thing due to the environment in which they have been raised. Originally hailing from East Africa, I can appreciate this reality to a greater extent than most, with the example of the different ways in which people can view breasts.

Since I lived in Africa till the age of nine, I have never really got around the Anglo-Saxon view of breasts. In Africa, as in all places where people are willing to acknowledge nature's patently clear intent, breasts are for babies. But in the Anglo-Saxon world, breasts are an object of titillation to the masculine sex. They are first and foremost for men and only secondarily, and as an afterthought, are they for feeding babies! This, although I have now lived amongst the Anglos for most of my life now (first in England and now Australia), is something I still can't relate to. And the Anglos just don't believe me when I tell them that titillation at the sight of breasts is certainly not universal.

So realising this, I was aware that what appears to be one thing to me might actually carry a different, and in this case a wholesome, meaning to the natives. So as long as the nudity displayed in Carnaval is wholesome, I'm quite prepared to accept and recognise that as being the case -- thank God!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, February 18, 2002 at 21:28:14

Message:
Thanks, mate!

Good, that's a relief to hear -- that it's a celebration of lubricity. You know, I was actually quite hesitant to reach such a negative conclusion because I'm quite aware of the different ways people can interpret the same thing due to the environment in which they have been raised. Originally hailing from East Africa, I can appreciate this reality to a greater extent than most, with the example of the different ways in which people can view breasts.

Since I lived in Africa till the age of nine, I have never really got around the Anglo-Saxon view of breasts. In Africa, as in all places where people are willing to acknowledge nature's patently clear intent, breasts are for babies. But in the Anglo-Saxon world, breasts are an object of titillation to the masculine sex. They are first and foremost for men and only secondarily, and as an afterthought, are they for feeding babies! This, although I have now lived amongst the Anglos for most of my life now (first in England and now Australia), is something I still can't relate to. And the Anglos just don't believe me when I tell them that titillation at the sight of breasts is certainly not universal.

So realising this, I was aware that what appears to be one thing to me might actually carry a different, and in this case a wholesome, meaning to the natives. So as long as the nudity displayed in Carnaval is wholesome, I'm quite prepared to accept and recognise that as being the case -- thank God!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, February 18, 2002 at 21:28:29

Message:
Thanks, mate!

Good, that's a relief to hear -- that it's a celebration of lubricity. You know, I was actually quite hesitant to reach such a negative conclusion because I'm quite aware of the different ways people can interpret the same thing due to the environment in which they have been raised. Originally hailing from East Africa, I can appreciate this reality to a greater extent than most, with the example of the different ways in which people can view breasts.

Since I lived in Africa till the age of nine, I have never really got around the Anglo-Saxon view of breasts. In Africa, as in all places where people are willing to acknowledge nature's patently clear intent, breasts are for babies. But in the Anglo-Saxon world, breasts are an object of titillation to the masculine sex. They are first and foremost for men and only secondarily, and as an afterthought, are they for feeding babies! This, although I have now lived amongst the Anglos for most of my life now (first in England and now Australia), is something I still can't relate to. And the Anglos just don't believe me when I tell them that titillation at the sight of breasts is certainly not universal.

So realising this, I was aware that what appears to be one thing to me might actually carry a different, and in this case a wholesome, meaning to the natives. So as long as the nudity displayed in Carnaval is wholesome, I'm quite prepared to accept and recognise that as being the case -- thank God!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, February 18, 2002 at 23:14:25

Message:
Thanks, mate!

Oh that's good to hear, Joaquim. As long as it's wholesome then I can easily accept that. You know, the reason I have been quite hesistant to reach a negative conclusion on Brazil's moral fibre is because I'm quite aware of the different interpretation that can be given to the same thing by people due to the environment in which they were raised. You see, I originally hail from East Africa and have lived in Anglo-Saxon nations from the age of nine (England first and Australia since 1991). Now although I've lived amongst the Anglos for most of my life now there is one particular thing which I still can't relate to. And that one (or two!) thing is breasts. In Africa, as in anywhere else where people are willing to acknowledge nature's patently clear intent, the only purpose breasts serve is to feed babies. But in the Anglo-Saxon world, breasts are seen as being first and foremost objects of titillation for men, and only as an afterthought are they seen as being for babies! The Anglos just don't believe me when I say that titillation at the sight of breasts is certainly not universal and is not the case with me (the girls especially think that I'm trying to trick them when I say this).

So being aware of this, I was quite prepared to accept that what appears to many in the outside world to be lubricity in Brazil might not actually be the case and might in fact be a nature of the culture which is quite wholesome.

I have to admit, in the six weeks I spent traversing as much of South America with my two friends in '98 as we could, I was mightily impressed with the women from that part of the world. You talk, Joaquim, of beauty being displayed in a joyful, healthy manner. And what I noticed was that the Latin women seemed to delight in the fact that they were female. They seemed to possess a deluxe femiminity, often characterised by a sinuous grace. And, moreover, they were looking at me! Man, I'd never had that before, that constant and aggressive eye-contact thing! Now being a negrito (y'all say neguinho over there?) is also an advantage here in Australia when it comes to women. But they just don't look at you. They don't take any notice of you. They don't give any indication of liking men! I had hitherto assumed all women the world over to be inscrutable and enigmatic. But now I realised that non-Latin women were only female in the biological sense of the word, . As you said yourself, the women in Brazil "consider themselves blessed" being women. In much of the Occidental, Teotonic world, the women feel themselves to be cursed having been born women. They believe they've been "oppressed" by their menfolk and often eschew feminimty, as a result often pursuing an ideal of no distinction between the sexes (there aren't any actresses anymore: all are now "actors"). They want to be commandos, business exucutives, racing-car drivers -- anything but be female. But the fact that your women delight in the fact that they are women is a real blessing, and it's heartening to know that what was appearing to me to be sexual exploitation of women in Brazil is not actually the case and is in fact a wholesome appreciation of the opposite sex.

And, yes, I'll be sure to spend more time in Brazil -- maybe even live there!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, February 18, 2002 at 23:14:51

Message:
Thanks, mate!

Oh that's good to hear, Joaquim. As long as it's wholesome then I can easily accept that. You know, the reason I have been quite hesistant to reach a negative conclusion on Brazil's moral fibre is because I'm quite aware of the different interpretation that can be given to the same thing by people due to the environment in which they were raised. You see, I originally hail from East Africa and have lived in Anglo-Saxon nations from the age of nine (England first and Australia since 1991). Now although I've lived amongst the Anglos for most of my life now there is one particular thing which I still can't relate to. And that one (or two!) thing is breasts. In Africa, as in anywhere else where people are willing to acknowledge nature's patently clear intent, the only purpose breasts serve is to feed babies. But in the Anglo-Saxon world, breasts are seen as being first and foremost objects of titillation for men, and only as an afterthought are they seen as being for babies! The Anglos just don't believe me when I say that titillation at the sight of breasts is certainly not universal and is not the case with me (the girls especially think that I'm trying to trick them when I say this).

So being aware of this, I was quite prepared to accept that what appears to many in the outside world to be lubricity in Brazil might not actually be the case and might in fact be a nature of the culture which is quite wholesome.

I have to admit, in the six weeks I spent traversing as much of South America with my two friends in '98 as we could, I was mightily impressed with the women from that part of the world. You talk, Joaquim, of beauty being displayed in a joyful, healthy manner. And what I noticed was that the Latin women seemed to delight in the fact that they were female. They seemed to possess a deluxe femiminity, often characterised by a sinuous grace. And, moreover, they were looking at me! Man, I'd never had that before, that constant and aggressive eye-contact thing! Now being a negrito (y'all say neguinho over there?) is also an advantage here in Australia when it comes to women. But they just don't look at you. They don't take any notice of you. They don't give any indication of liking men! I had hitherto assumed all women the world over to be inscrutable and enigmatic. But now I realised that non-Latin women were only female in the biological sense of the word, . As you said yourself, the women in Brazil "consider themselves blessed" being women. In much of the Occidental, Teotonic world, the women feel themselves to be cursed having been born women. They believe they've been "oppressed" by their menfolk and often eschew feminimty, as a result often pursuing an ideal of no distinction between the sexes (there aren't any actresses anymore: all are now "actors"). They want to be commandos, business exucutives, racing-car drivers -- anything but be female. But the fact that your women delight in the fact that they are women is a real blessing, and it's heartening to know that what was appearing to me to be sexual exploitation of women in Brazil is not actually the case and is in fact a wholesome appreciation of the opposite sex.

And, yes, I'll be sure to spend more time in Brazil -- maybe even live there!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, February 18, 2002 at 23:20:09

Message:
Talk about repeating yourself! Sorry guys. I thought I wasn't posting.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Pork_Chop_1
On Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 17:48:34

Message:
Hey Hombre, that's quite a perceptive take on the whole gist of what the 'carnival' culture may portend in the future. You know, I kind of ruminated on that thought also. I mean, carnival didn't start out showing completely nude bodies, and it's gotten progressively worse (or better?). Now, I'm beginnig to wonder if this trend, that many would call debauchery, is a mirror of ancient Roman society before it crumbled.

But is Brazil setting the trend, or simply following it? I believe that sexual liberalization, etc. began in Europe and North America and slowly disseminated throughout the world. Pornography was first allowed in those places before it became accepted in Brasil. So I don't know about that one.

The other thing is, even though it is evident you are not Anglo-Saxon, you seem to be taking the traditional Anglo-Saxon (puritanical) position that female nudity and sex is a sign of moral degradation. That is implied by your question. Many other people and cultures take a very different view of this matter. I would question though, the implied suggestion that Brazilians are looking at the female breast like East Africans in traditional societies: that is something for feeding babies, and not as an object of titillation, as in Anglo-Saxon societies. I think most people would agree with me that the writhing nake female bodies in a carnival parade are very much looked upon SEXUALLY, breasts included. It's just that it is not looked upon by brazilians with shame or embarassment, as it may be in countries with a more strict puritanical traditions. (The 'Puritans' were after all, English). If you don't believe that this attitude still exists in these societies, just look at the whole Clinton sex scandal. That special prosecutor (I forget his name) pursued this with such a zeal that it would of made the religious leaders of the 'Scarlet Letter' proud.

Anyways , I digress. I would just like to leave this with one question. Is it more debauched and perverted to display overtly sexual images and themes, or to carry out violence against another person. The reason why I ask this is by way of comparison with the USA. I believe the US is an inherently violent culture and society. Yes, I know that there are more murders per capita in Brazil than America, but I belive this is in large measure due to the extreme poverty of a large part of these people. Take away this povery, and I don't think the country would be near a violent as the USA. Anyways, I think a propensity for violence and violent behaviour is more indicative of a moral degradation in the society than a tendency towards sexual displays.

Well, that's my food for thought. You do the dishes.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Mikos
On Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 19:06:44

Message:
Maybe you should go to Afganhastan where they cover there whole bodies up. I'm sick in tired of people saying that our woman are easy. THis is true most brazilian woman are , but they want your money noy your love man!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 05:15:35

Message:
Who said that Brazilian women are easy? It's just that what I noticed while over there is that they seemed to possess a deluxe femininity. And most of the chicas and garotas assumed I was a local neguinho anyhow. They weren't after my money. I'd hurt my knee on the way to S.America in New Zealand and so had a knee-brace. People stared at it big-time 'cos it looked really high-tech. I wanted to make sure that the looks I was getting weren't because of the strange-looking knee-brace. So I took it off and hobbled around a bit of Niteroi with my mates. I was gratified to find that the agreeble attention hadn't gone -- and it wasn't because of my hobbling, either! Although being a negrito here in the antipodes is an advantage when it comes to the opposite sex, Anglo-Saxon women are, in comparison, very difficult to read. An Anglo-Saxon girl may be desperately attracted to you, or she might find you insufferable, but either way her expression may remain the same. Whereas in the Latin world, you operate on the working assumption that if she's warm and breathing -- she's interested in you! Until proved otherwise, of coarse (I am yet to confirm the behaviour of the other Latin womenfolk, namely the French and Italians)

Thanks for your interesting, percipient response, Pork Chop. But my concern and interest over Brazil is based on her coming influence in the world. This influence is currently dispensed solely by the United States. In attempting to figure out the reasons for the way things are here in Australia -- amongst the highest suicide rates in the world, the highest per capita drug-abuse rate in the world, most likely the most bibulous youth in the world etc., and all this in a country where having a swimming pool is quite normal -- I settled on America being the source. More specifically, I settled on the Sixties and concluded that much of the baleful statistics just mentioned can be attributed to the massive changes ushered in by that generation. As a result, I am what would be known in you country as a right-wing nut -- one of the Alan Keyes/Ann Coulter variety. So for things to change long-term in Australia, things must first change in the United States.

And looking even further down the track, where's that influence gonna come from? Well, for a nation to possess the role of conducting the global (popular) culture, that nation has to possess two things: wealth and ebullience. The United States possesses massive, to say the least, wealth. And her ebullience comes solely from the so-called African-American community. Almost all of American popular culture currently sweeping the globe can unltimately be attributed to this "community", from rock, dress (like sneakers even!) mannerisms etc. Japan has lots of wealth but does not possess an ounce of ebullience or joie de vivre. Thus, her cultural influence is limited to the occassional "tamagochi" fad and the like. France has loads of culture (though not of the very ebullient sort) but is only a middle-ranking power now -- and her influence today, in contrast to that of the past, reflects this.

Now what of Brazil? Well, Brazil is bursting at the seems with this ebullience; in fact, it is struggling to keep it contained. But Brazil does not have the other half of the criteria: wealth, and the respect this engenders. Now clearly the potential is there. People anticipate and anguish constantly at the tantalising potential. But I think it is attainable. Over in this region of the world we've seen the Asian Tigers' meteoric rise in material scale of things. All it needs is some steady, competant government.

But what nature will this influence take? Will it be this sordid lubricity which you, Pork Chop, have led me back to believing is the case with Brazil (I guess it was a bit sanguine of me to think that writhing and gyrating naked hotties might not carry any sexual connotations)? The cultural influence of the so-called African-Americans in your country is powerful (though it is taking a more distinct and separate form in rap and hip-hop today). But those people ("African-Americans") are extremely dissaffected and bitter. Thus, there influence is quite often rather negative. Listening to rap lyrics can be disturbing, especially when one takes into account the often didactic nature of the music. So although one can recognise the disproportionate influence of this "community", one can nevertheless be disconcerted at the nature of the influence -- violent, misogynistic (or unchivilrous), contumacious, etc. And all this stuff trickles down to even little ol' Oz all the way down under! I wouldn't want the same thing to happen with Brazil -- for the influence to be negative and degrading.

Is it more debauched and perverted to display overtly sexual images and themes or to carry out violence against another? It depends on the effects. Carrying violence against another has immediate, palpable effects. Displaying overtly sexual images and themes, on the other hand, has less obvious, immediate consequences. For example, the relationship between the breakdown of the family and the sexual revolution might not be that obvious, but the relationship between your black eye and the mugging you received the previous day is clear for all to see.

An interesting thought just came to mind: was this violence in the United States you talk about existent before the Sixties, before the display of overtly sexual images and themes became the norm?

But what I'm concerned about is the global effect. Although I have respect for the United States (the respect has been mounting from that of the derision common in much of the world to an appreciation and envy of the superior and unparalleled understanding of fundamental principles in that country), I wouldn't care much for the place if it wasn't for her great influence in the world, influence which affects how we live even on the other side of the planet! And it is this same concern of how I'll live, and how future generations will live both here in Australia and elsewhere, which spurns my strong interest in Brazil and her development. As I said, we're not gonna be looking to Japan or Germany for how to dress, dance, sing, act and be cool in the future for the simple reason that these countries just simply are not cool.

So the answer is: it depends on the negative effects they would produce, whether lubricity or violence would have negative repurcussions all over the world. Personally, I think I'm more inclined to fear the lubricity than the violence. America has great culural influence (popular culture) over Australia, but there isn't much violence here. One simply doesn't have to worry about being mugged over here. All the violence is contained on the sports field in these parts -- and we do play very violent sports! But sexual permissiveness is a lot more insiduous. I mean I'm as red-blooded as the next guy, but, obviously due to my background, my bubbling testosterone has been kept in check. But speaking as a qualified chickodologist (an expert on women -- and go ahead, laugh; everyone else does) it is distressing to see the sad effect this unfettered testosterone has on girls. All around me I see poor girls suffering from what I term an Alannis Morrissette Syndrome. You know what I mean. To explain: when a woman wants to increase her libido, she can visit the doctor and have the hormone testosterone injected into her, thus making her "hornier". But the thing is, the amount of this hormone in males, upon hitting puberty, shoots up to roughly fifteen times that of women. Surely I don't have to explain to you the resulting differences in how males and females think, and the differing motivations they all too often have(girl: "I thought you loved me!" boy: "I just wanted to have sex, man, not get bogged down in -- daa-da-duuum -- COMMITTMENT"). Now I know Germaine Greer et.al. have been going around trying to convince everyone that such things aren't the case and women are indistinguishable from men, even when it comes to libido; and you're quite welcome to believe her. But realise that you would be contending with biology and not me and my chickodological expertise so much. And what, may I ask, is the result when the gates holding back this bubbling testosterone -- fifteen times that of a girl's, I remind you! -- are open wide? You guessed it: skyrocketing sales of Alannis Morrissette CDs!

I'm rambling now. Anyway, from that you ought to see why how the Brazilians behave concerns me greatly. I think they are a great people who display the acme of the Latin joie de vivre, but it is precisely this potential resulting from this which worries me. Will their influence be for the better or for the worse? Either way it's gonna come. And I for one hope it'll be for the good.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 06:16:46

Message:
Oh, nearly forgot! In my magnum opus above I neglected to answer one of your questions, Pork Chop. You seemed to question why female nudity and sex should be seen as signs of moral degradation. You seem to suggest that such thinking is culture-specific, that is, it is due to the cultural heritage of the Anglo-Saxons in particular, of which I seem to be masquerading as an honourary member.

First of all, I wasn't saying that either of these two things is bad in itself. No, such things are quite fine -- within certain parameters. And I was, moreover, presupposing an absolute standard. If there is no universal, transcendant standard, then all is relativism. And if this is the case, then what the National Socialists did to the Jews, for example, cannot be seen as being wrong in an objective sense. It cannot be seen as being right either. It can only be seen as being something that just...happened -- a value-free occurrence. It was therefore just a chance, meaningless occurence ultimately caused by impersonal forces in the inscrutable struggle for life, of which we are all in involuntary participation.

Now we can't have such thinking, can we?

By the way, the Anglo-Saxon Puritanism you speak of sardonically is the reason why Anglo-Saxon nations have nothing serious to worry about when it comes to such things as AIDS. Those promiscuous African and Latin men are set to bring upon there societies further needless suffering and misery if their unchivalrous behaviour (chivalry probably being the Anglo-Saxons'greatest contribution to the world) continues unchanged.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 06:17:31

Message:
Oh, nearly forgot! In my magnum opus above I neglected to answer one of your questions, Pork Chop. You seemed to question why female nudity and sex should be seen as signs of moral degradation. You seem to suggest that such thinking is culture-specific, that is, it is due to the cultural heritage of the Anglo-Saxons in particular, of which I seem to be masquerading as an honourary member.

First of all, I wasn't saying that either of these two things is bad in itself. No, such things are quite fine -- within certain parameters. And I was, moreover, presupposing an absolute standard. If there is no universal, transcendant standard, then all is relativism. And if this is the case, then what the National Socialists did to the Jews, for example, cannot be seen as being wrong in an objective sense. It cannot be seen as being right either. It can only be seen as being something that just...happened -- a value-free occurrence. It was therefore just a chance, meaningless occurence ultimately caused by impersonal forces in the inscrutable struggle for life, of which we are all in involuntary participation.

Now we can't have such thinking, can we?

By the way, the Anglo-Saxon Puritanism you speak of sardonically is the reason why Anglo-Saxon nations have nothing serious to worry about when it comes to such things as AIDS. Those promiscuous African and Latin men are set to bring upon there societies further needless suffering and misery if their unchivalrous behaviour (chivalry probably being the Anglo-Saxons'greatest contribution to the world) continues unchanged.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Pork_Chop_1
On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 12:09:14

Message:
Firstly, I was very heartened to hear you say that you are what might be called a 'right-wing nut' of the Anne Coulter variety. I too am a fairly regular reader of 'National Review Online.' So we may be viewing these issues you raised from a similar ideological perspective. Because it's quite frustrating discussing something, when you don't even agree with the basic premises of the other person's argument.

A little background about myself: I am Canadian, living in (beautiful) Vancouver, B.C. As my name would suggest, I am of Portugese descent. I immigrated to Canada, with my parents, when I was 8 years old. My family here still maintain close relations to relativis in that country (my mother still owns her original house there), as well as to extended family members in the large Portugese community of New England.

Portugal is nowadays thoroughly infused with Brazilian culture. Brazilian 'novelas' are all the rage there, and I have heard they are also quite popular in many other parts of the world, the english speaking world, excluded. When I visited Brazil a few years ago, I essentially expected to find a Portugese culture, in all its shapes and mores, transplanted on to a tropical climate. Well, I did find the manners, ways of thinking, and what you call the Latin 'joie de vivre' there. But only MORE SO! Much more so. And whereas the Portugese can be somewhat shy and inhibited, Brazilians are quite the opposite. I have never met any people who displayed the sheer joy of just being alive so enthusiastically, as I have seen from Brazilians. This quality seems to emanate from every gesture and tone of voice, in short, from every pore of their body.

With regards to the Brazilian women being easy issue: I kind of find this term rather loaded and offensive. I never found this to be so. I read in an article on this website, that only in Brazil do women whistle at a man they fancy walking by. Although I never experienced this myself, nor observed it, if true, I find this wonderful! I mean, what is a so-called liberated woman after all, if she does not have the inner freedom from inhibition to flirt is such a way, as in this traditional male practice?

With regards to your assertion, Hombre, that American popular culture, which now dominates the world is a product, almost exclusively, of African-American society and culture: I have some qualifications to that. Yes, I think you are quite right, but only to some aspects of this culture; namely, the musical arts, and some sports where African-Americans dominate - like basketball. Music, in particular, is their genius.
But American popular culture is so much more than that. One of the major avenues trough which American pop culture is disseminated and dominates, is the film industry. Hollywood rules! Many would say that African-Americans are under-represented there, and hence the major ethos promulgated by this industry is that of white America.
The other major area of American cultural dominance is in computer technology and the internet. This whole industry was essentially an American invention, and by white, middle-class American nerds (almost exclusively male). Hence the terms used, the language, the whole esthetics of it derives from this group. But yes, I think the power and wealth of the white community combined with the ebullience, as you call it, of African-Americans, has made American pop culture such an unbeatable force.

Brazil has this ebullience, only more so. It has it in spades. So I totally agree with you that it will have an increasing influence on the world. I also agree that its lack of economic power is what is holding it back. But that day may not be that far away. Currently, it is ranked about equal to Canada in economic terms - that is about 8th in the world. That is not bad. And it has a much larger population than Canada's, so it is inevitable that it will climb up the charts, so to speak. Add to that, the natural artistic and creative nature of Brazilians, and you can't help but expect great things in the future from this country. You see, for most North Americans who have never been there, they are blissfully ignorant of what a great country this is. Oh sure, they know about carnaval and futebol (Pele), but otherwise they think it is just another poor South American contry like, say Columbia, minus the drug barons. How sad! They don't know that, for all intents and purposes, Brasil is just as advanced technologically as other first world countries, and more than most. They don't know that Embraer is the world's fourth largest aircraft manufacturer, that Brazil has a vast and advanced space program, and is a participant in the international space station, or that its armaments industries is now making their own version of the cruise missile. But they will find out soon, I think.

I laughed at that Alanis Morissette referece. So true, so true. If Alanis's hysterionics and anti-male diatribes are the model for so-called female liberation, then no wonder women folk in 'Western' (ie. northern European based) societies are so screwed up!

That was a very good point you made about moral rlativism and female nudity. I don't know what to say, other than, yes, I suppose we do need some sort of absolute moral standards, otherwise we could ratiionalize anything, including genocide. Or rationalize the Sept 11 attacks say, as being justified based on some sort of 'root causes'.
I suppose the dividing line between this sexual display being fairly harmless or detrimental is whether you consider it pornography, however that is defined. But that's the crux of the problem, isn't it? How do you define pornography? I suppose if it FEELS pornographic and degrading, then it is.

Your assertion that the promiscuous Latin and African man is the cause of the AIDS epedemic in these countries is wrong. Brazil has a very aggressive campaign against AIDS, and as you probably know, is currently, or about to manufacture cheap, generic anti-AIDS drugs (much to the consternation of the Swiss drug companies that hold the patents). Statistically, their AIDS infection rates are not much worse than the average for industrial, developed countries. I don't know what the stats are for other Latin countries, but it is much lower than in Africa. Also, some of the fastest growing AIDS epedemics are in south ASIA (India, Indo-china, etc) and the countries of the former Soviet Union and East Europe. To what do you attribute that?

Well, that's my food for thought, you do the dishes.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 04:03:01

Message:
You're tempting me... I'm gonna be forced to write heaps (lots), Pork Chop. My previous "magnum opus" will end up looking like a preface! If I end up writing a whole book, I can't be held responsible!

Anyway, it's good to see that we are more or less coming from the same "ideological perspective". True, as you said yourself, it is difficult to discuss something with someone when you don't even agree on the basic premises of each other's position. Indeed, the thing I find funny about the condemnation of the Sept 11 atrocities as being "evil" is it's also coming from the modern, materialistic, relativistic media. But to know something to be evil one would have to have a standard by which to measure good and evil. Obviously the Al Qaida martyrs thought themselves to be good -- indeed, very good. By their understanding of good and evil, they did good. By our understanding of evil, they did...what? Bad? How do we know it was evil -- because we didn't like it? As I said, there has to be an objective, transcendant, immutable standard; otherwise nothing ultimately makes sense. Nothing.

With regards to your observations about American culture and who can claim most credit for its definition and its dissemination, what I perhaps might need to do is give my definition of culture first. With my explanation, you'll also be able to receive a much clearer understanding and appreciation of my interest in and committment to the likes of Brazil.

There are two types of people in the world: race people (or racialists) and culture people (or culturalists). Culture people (or culturalists) because it is their prerogative to do so, look at the world and people in it in terms of culture. They see people as being Hispanic, French, Anglo-Saxon, and so on. They see things in terms of culture because they have culture. They base their sense of identity on culture. They are culturalists.

Race people, on the other hand, do not have such a luxury. Their sense of identity is pretty much by default. Lacking culture they have no choice but to base their sense of identity on something called race. They look at the world and people in it in terms of race. They therefore see people as being "black" people, "white" people, "yellow" people, and so on. They are racialists.

The people who I consider to be culture people are the Latin people of the world: the French people, the Italian people, the Spanish and their progeny and the Portuguese and their progeny. These people have culture -- culture most succinctly defined here as the possession of an ineffable joie de vivre. Life, with such people, is considered a verb, to be appreciated and contemplated in its most profound sense; to be continuously experienced and celebrated; to be an instinctive raison d'etre in its people. This joie de vivre is expressed through the refinement of cuisine, the movement of dance, the gaiety of music, the appreciation of wine: in short, an emphasis on and celebration of the less tangible things and qualities in life. The Italians have succeeded in putting it simply: "la dolce vita". It is a lifestyle, an intangible lifestyle, a lifestyle whose fundament is Dionysiac. And it is this intangible lifestyle, this exercise of culture, which represents the acme of civilisation. Without it, technical advancement is not, as is thought by many, synonymous with civilisation. It is instead just plain, prosaic technical advancement; leaving the people who have attained it merely technically advanced barbarians. Advanced, but barbarians nevertheless.

Thus, from that you will realise that I don't have the same understanding of the word culture that many do. Indeed you may have noticed that I have hitherto tried to accompany the word culture, when speaking of the United States, with the word "popular". I make a distinction between culture properly speaking (culture as defined above) with this "popular culture" business. Being a leader in information technology has nothing to do with culture. It has everything to do with free enterprise and innovation and other such contributing factors. Having the world's most powerful military has nothing to do with culture. It has everything to do with having a massive, advanced industry. Possessing the most enlightened system of government and also demonstrating a superior understanding of fundamental principles has nothing to do with culture. It has everything to do with providence. So a distinction must be made between these aspects of United States influence and her influence in popular culture. Although the spread of her popular culture is dependant on such things as the wealth of the nation, it is still distinct from the wealth. A nation can have culture -- real culture -- but lack wealth. And a nation can have wealth but lack an ounce of culture. But for a nation to be hegemonic in terms of culture, then it must have not only culture but the wealth with which to support its culture and with which to bolster its credentials.

But the United States is an Anglo-Saxon nation. It lacks culture. And it is here where the so-called African Americans come in. It is their ebullience which provides the only semblence of culture the United States possesses. And it is this ebullience which provides an apposite complement to the great wealth produced by the "white" segment of the population. Without this population -- essentially a nation within a nation -- the influence of the United States would be solely inanimate and practical: producing computers which assist in the processing of information; demonstrating better methods of efficiency; producing faster fast-food franchises; producing more types of franchises; producing more Protestant denominations; showing innovation; in short, influencing in every way but culture. All these things are great, don't get me wrong. It's just that they have nothing to do with culture; culture properly speaking.

And Hollywood? Hollywood presents a slightly larger-than-life representation of American culture. And what segment of the population gives this culture substance? The African Americans. Music is its most obvious manifestation, but much of it is subtle and much more pervasive than is apparent. For example, I didn't know that the ultimate reason why we all wear sneakers as casual wear is because of the African Americans. You see, because of their comparative poverty, they used to have to wear sneakers to school because they couldn't afford proper leather shoes. Hitherto, sneakers were solely for sport and not for general wear. But -- and this is the critical question -- why did those who could afford to wear proper shoes start to wear sneakers for reasons other than sport? Because the African Americans are cool, that's why. Because the African Americans are ebullient, that's why. Because the African Americans possess some semblance of culture, that's why. And this the comparatively privileged "whites" could sense. And they immitated it. The general society's music is now wholly African American (except classical), and their dress is generally influenced by African Americans (note the general baggynisation of clothes, even with suits. Now many view with excrutiation the tightness of the jeans people wore in the eighties, so firmly established and normal is the baggy look now.) Some areas of African Americans' influence is not so obvious, like with Hollywood; but in all manifestations of culture, their imprimatur is palpable.

I didn't know what to say to your observations on AIDS -- stumped me a bit. The impression I got from my visit to the South American countries is that infidelity is the norm. So I assumed the spread of AIDS would be higher there. If its extent is not more, statistically, than other industrialised countries, then I don't know why. Perhaps most people who carry AIDS in many of the Latin countries don't know yet that they do so (I think I caught somewhere in this magazine that four out of the five carriers of the AIDS virus in Brazil aren't aware of their infection). And with the AIDS drug -- I think I understand it as being something which fights the debilitating effects of full-blown AIDS and does not cure it as such. Besides, if a cure was found for AIDS it wouldn't really ultimately help much; it would only provide a momentary reprieve. You see, back in the Sixties or Seventies a cure was found for a pervasive venereal disease (I can't remember what it was -- I think perhaps syphilis). The libertines raised their hands up in the air and shouted, "Yipee!". But what happened ten years later? A far worse venereal disease appeared: AIDS. And what would happen ten years after a cure has been found for the AIDS disease? Perhaps the appearance of a venereal disease far worse. You see, venereal diseases are behavioral diseases. Like lung cancer they are determined by behaviour. Not everyone is prone to suffering from it for not everyone displays the same behaviour. So if a cure is found for a venereal disease but the behaviour which is the cause of it does not change, then we would only be experiencing a momentary reprieve: the calm before the storm.

And to your salient observations as to the areas of fastest growth with this disease? Good point. But you have to realise (and I only realised this after a bit of reflection) that those societies do not have a heritage of chivalry. Remember what I said about the massively differing levels of testosterone between males and females? Well what is it that keeps this bubbling testosterone in check? (for we all know the extent to which our thoughts have been able to take concerning the gentler sex since hitting puberty? Well what keeps this bubbling testosterone in check for most people in the world -- and thus protects women from the depredations of men -- are two things: religion and social norms (the latter is essentially the practical extension of religion). So what happens when the norms that the historic religion has created are swept away? If the women are those of an Anglo-Saxon or Teotonic society, then they have an extra check on this bubbling testosterone: chivalry. This is something that has been inheritated in these societies' "cultures" (corpus of customs and traditions) from the mythologies of Prince Arthur and the knights of the round table (I need to do more research to confirm this). But what if the women in whose society the old social norms have been swept away do not come from a people with a heritage of chivalry? They're stuffed And in the old-fashioned sense of the word, too! With nothing to hold the bubbling testosterone in these societies, the men, their intincts unfettered, will act accordingly. And AIDS will spread like wildfire in these countries. But with Anglo-Saxons this is impossible, for the women enjoy the protection of the reserve parachute of chivalry -- where their men will still be gentlemen, even if they don't open doors or tip their caps anymore.

So how did you like my dishes? Pretty clean, huh? Clean enough to eat off, mate!


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Getwell Soon
On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 07:53:13

Message:

I divide the world into two types myself: "blather people" and "other idiots." I suggest you return your vocabulary to the thesaurus from which you took it before you injure your reason even more severely. Your prejudices are deep, and they are showing.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Brasileira
On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 10:15:22

Message:
El Hombre said:

"Perhaps most people who carry AIDS in many of the Latin countries don't know yet that they do so (I think I caught somewhere in this magazine that four out of the five carriers of the AIDS virus in Brazil aren't aware of their infection)."


MY GOD!!! 4 OUT OF FIVE!!! Are you crazy??!! Where in this magazine did you get this information?

If that were true, Brazil won´t reach "global cultural dominance" (gee, this is so silly. It looks like something from that cartoon ´The Pink and the Brain`, dominate the world...hehehe), we are going to die before it.





RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 20:10:17

Message:
Read carefully: four out of five of the CARRIERS of the AIDS virus, mate. Be attentive or shut up!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 20:34:31

Message:
To the first guy: Aaah shurrup!

To the second: read carefully. I said four out of five CARRIERS of the AIDS virus. If you don't intend to pay attention, shurrup as well!

And if y'all haven't gotta a vocabulary -- stick to Little Red Riding Hood!

And if you're a barbarian -- I guess I can understand why you'd be a little peeved. If it really bothers you that much, become Latin! Culture, you see, unlike race, is far from immutable. That's why we Latin people don't have race problems. Why? Because we don't have race! Duh. Civilise or Perish!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 22:41:52

Message:

Gee, Mr. Hombre, you seem to have a rather thin skin for an "ebullient" Latin full of . . . "joie de vivre." Unless that means "cow pie del toro."



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick of America
On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 22:43:10

Message:
I cannot believe someone compared public nudity to genocide. What an outrageous analogy. Exactly who is harmed by public nudity? Other than no one, ever. Now it is safe to say that since mankind stood upright the lower half has been clothed simply for reasons of hygiene. Think about it, would you want to sit in a chair previously occupied by a nude person? As far as breasts, at some point certain cultures (read: christianity and muslim) decided this was obscene and unnecessarily titilated men (no pun intended, well ok, it was intended). But it harms no one, except religious sensibilities. Genocide, on the other hand, harms people always. The two are not analagous.

How funny that someone who rails against moral relativism practices something similar and just as insidious...defining words and/or terms to suit his needs. Such as that comical definition of culture. How a country manufactures, produces, markets, trades, advances technology, innovates, ad nauseum has nothing to do with shaping culture? Hello? How do you think those African American musicians, the fathers of rock n' roll so to speak, were able to produce the music they did? Well, most of them played guitars, as an example. And what is a guitar? A technological innovation. It's true. These things just don't appear out of thin air. Do you honestly think that without all the US technology and innovations African Americans would have been able to influence the culture so much? I think not. So all that stuff you dismiss as not being culture actually drives culture. However, I agree with you in many ways, African Americans (but really, don't forget the other ethnicities that shape US culture) have had and continue to have huge influence upon American culture. Most Americans are proud of this, which you never seem to acknowledge. However, white people do not wear sneakers because blacks did, wherever you read that it is false or just wishful thinking. You speak as if there were never or aren't dirt poor white people in America. How do you know they weren't wearing sneakers first? The more likely explanation would be Converse devising a mass marketing campaign to sell sneakers for every day wear, affordable to everyone. Everyone used to wear canvas converse, hell, it was the only sneaker around practically.

Also, the United States does not lack culture. We embrace every culture in the world, how could we lack it. We simply do not have a distinct culture. Well that isn't true, we do have a distinct culture, it's all cultures. Maybe that lends to our success in exporting American culture (cultural imperialism some call it). We are a little bit of everything.

As far as the AIDS thing, that 4 out of 5 number is merely a guesstimate...and probably blown out of proportion to instill fear. AIDS is a politicized disease and propaganda is rampant. I recommend a Time magazine article that was published last US summer I believe, around June or July. It is about the AIDS epidemic in Africa. It is quite a read. It will make you fear for the future of Africa.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 23:10:26

Message:
Cool. Thanks for your contribution, mate.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 23:44:02

Message:
First, O Homem, I'M the El Hombre here! This forum ain't big enough for more than one El Hombres, yuh hear? And although I do have thin skin, my response was very much in humour -- toungue-in-cheek. I guess the exclamation marks can give an impression of anger and shouting.

But I'm not sure what being Latin and having thick skin have to do with each other. And to "cow pie del toro", I'm not certain one hundred percent that I can translate that except enough to know that it might have something to do with the expression "bulls--t". And I'm not sure whether you're trying to insult me or are just playin' with me. If you're tryna insult me, remember -- I'm thin-skinned!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Dirndl
On Saturday, February 23, 2002 at 00:22:00

Message:
Meat pies? Bull what? Ah, yes, this discussion has finally risen to a level to which I can now hope to descend.

Mr. Da’ Man,

You’ve been too subtle for the others, but I have caught on, thanks to the revelation of where you park your tongue. Your posts in general seem to be larded with things you think you "have caught from magazines." In addition, they exemplify thinking tormented by language in preference to language powered by thought. But despite their seeming authenticity, they misunderstand too much, too profoundly, to be for real. You pretend to have no grounding in history whatever, and no comprehension of cultural development at all. It seems quite like you’re actually allowing purely sentimental fantasies to lead you to absurd surmises and ludicrous non sequiturs. You put me in mind of that acme of Anglo-Saxon vivacity, George Orwell, who mightily observed that some ideas are too ridiculous for even an intellectual to believe. For you to be real, Orwell is wrong. I have therefore concluded that you are not a genuine idiot but an artful caricaturist having us on. Good job! Congratulations! A masterly parody of a thoroughgoing fool!

Yours in ebullient admiration,
Dirndl Nadelstich


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, February 23, 2002 at 01:24:53

Message:
I am NOT a fool! No fair! I DO mean what I say and it IS (I believe) an example of perspicacity par exellence. Waaaaaaaaaa :'-(

Tell me: why are there in America (United States) still "black" and "white" people despite having lived together for over four hundred years and not a composite moreno people as is the case in much of the rest of America? Is it because, perchance, the North Americans lack culture and so base their identity on some factitious distinction called race? If these North Americans had culture, would not most of the population be of a composite moreno appearance? But this is not the case. The North Americans, being barbarians, base their sense of identity on something called race. Thus, if a "white" person married a "black" person, despite the fact that they both speak the same language and share the same basic "culture", it would be considered in that society intermarriage. Why? Because barbarians make distinctions between people on the basis of something they call race. Race is immutable. And intermarriage by definition is unnatural. If we thought it to be natural, we would just call it "marriage", eliminating the prefix "inter". Intermarriage on a large scale is impossible, because it is unnatural (though not wrong, of course!). Intermarriage to racial people is interracial, whereas to cultural people it is of coarse inter-cultural. Either way, large-scale intermarriage is impossible and has never been attempted by any people.

If lack of culture is not the explanation for the dichotomous physical appearance of North Americans, then what, pray tell, is its explanation? Surely you're not suggesting that North Americans are bad people, that they possess an irrational hatred of "difference", difference as understood by them? Surely it's not the case that they have hitherto been evil people only up till the Sixties? I, for one, definitely don't think they've ever been bad people. I just think they've always lacked culture -- culture properly speaking; culture not to be confused with mere customs and traditions, mind you.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Dirndl
On Saturday, February 23, 2002 at 08:28:56

Message:
>I DO mean what I say and it IS (I believe) an example of perspicacity par exellence. Waaaaaaaaaa :'-(

Oh, well, please accept my congratulations on your masterful self-parody then – and my condolences.

One must marvel at a fellow who has to have it all ways. I suppose it seems convenient to you to define words as you need them to be, especially such terms as would normally be considered honorific, such as "culture" and "civilisation." – and then apply them to your viewpoint only. It does make it difficult to carry a point though, if one’s correspondent only appears to be speaking the same language when in fact that language is factitious. But then that describes a great part of the convenience – and almost all of your "thesis."

It is true that great latitude in definition is customarily allowed to great minds when reformulation is essential to illumination. Oswald Spengler, for example, can be said to have played fast and loose with "culture" and "civilisation" (He appears to have believed that the one led to the decline of the other.) On the other hand, his was, as I said, a *great* mind whose conjectures were rooted in something truly alien to you: knowledge.

"Barbarians," by the way, have been notoriously successful at "intermarriage." On the other hand, so have the relatively "civilised." Why Brazil itself has in the past been the beneficiary of a miscegenation project which they openly called "Aryanization," though I doubt if its tenets would please you. And most American blacks are really already mulattos, according to Stanley Crouch.

As to racial distinctions being factitious, one does wonder if you believe it. If there are no races, there can be no intermarriage. Perhaps white Americans see this more clearly than you and therefore do not share your sense of urgency when it comes to a call to engage in a made-up process to remedy a merely semantic distinction. Or perhaps they are in possession of the instinctive suspicion that "Aryanization" can only benefit one race. But unless you, too, believe in the distinction, why would you care.

Dirndl
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Saturday, February 23, 2002 at 08:32:49

Message:
El Hombre:

Have you ever been to Santa Catarina?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Saturday, February 23, 2002 at 16:08:59

Message:
That sneaker thing was funny. They were "gym shoes" and "tennies" for a long time before they became objects of pagan worship. This guy reminds me of the Soviet Commies when they used to take credit for every invention, only now it’s the happy, cheerful USA blacks. He should be around here when one of them murders another one just to get his sneakers. Ebullience has its downside, Bub, and lots of it.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, February 23, 2002 at 19:42:04

Message:
I don't know how much further I can condescend to try and explain things to y'all. You obviously don't place a premium on thinking. You don't seem to show any willingness to follow what one is saying. And therefore I presume y'all fall into that category of people who are more contented to cruise through life on neutral only responding to their instincts (me feel hungry, me want sex etc). Zombies, in other words.

But I'm an optimistic sorta guy, and I'll perhaps have another go. I was reading in the Spectator of London some time back an article on the French government or something (if I only remember parts of articles, it is because it was those parts that stood out to me) and the writer gave an example of French arrogance by giving a quotation of the French Foreign Minister (I think) where he says something about France's exploits and contributions to the world in certain areas and adding, under his breath but enough for all the media to hear, "and the sole possessor of culture and civilisation". I thought about this (if y'all are familiar with such a concept) and wondered why on earth he would say something like that. Surely he wasn't suggesting that the Germans next door, with their veritable technical advancement, and the British, who had recently ruled a quarter of the globe -- surely he wasn't saying that such people where somehow less "civilised" than the French? The Germans and the Japanese, for example, would have the edge over the French in terms of technical advancement, I thought to myself. I thought about this (there you go again, fellas, that word: might do y'all some good sometime in your lives to put the concept to use), but to no avail.

And I also wondered why the French supported the government that carried out the genocide in Rwanda right up until the end -- all because that government was francophonie and the attacking rebels, who were solely responsible for putting the genocide to a stop, came from neighbouring Uganda and so their language of education had been English. For this the French were prepared to support right up to the end a genocidal regime and were even at the point of fighting on their side themselves. All this for the sake of the eternal war against "les Anglais" (albeit in this case by proxy). And I was shocked to hear from the French conspiracy view of the whole Rwanda thing that they considered the president of Uganda, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, who assisted the rebels clandestinely quite a bit, to be an "Anglo-Saxon"! Now that didn't make any sense to me. A "black" man an Anglo-Saxon? Moreover, a "black" man who was an African and had never lived overseas an Anglo-Saxon? Nonsense!

And when McDonald's stores start to pop up all around Paris, to the French ruling elite it is of coarse an Anglo-Saxon conspiracy to undermine superior French culture and civilisation by going right for the heart: French cuisine. NATO, of coarse to the French, was never an alliance to deter the spread of communism -- that was its ostensible reason -- no, it was rather a conspiracy, naturally, by "les Anglais" to dominate the world. Such thinking, believe it or not, dominates the French ruling elite's mindset -- the media, intellectuals, government, etc. I had to make a decision: either the French were mad, or they had a different understanding of things and words than we did. I concluded they were mad.

Then I noticed another thing (see, I'm always noticing things; y'all oughta give that a try also someday). The French decided to update their nuclear-weapons armament by carrying out tests in "our region" of the world, the Pacific. The New Zealanders went ballistic, for much of the New Zealand population are Pacific Islanders, and anyhow, such occurrence don't play well with the exceptional committment to the concept of fairness we in the antipodes possess. Since New Zealand is a little brother to Australia, the Australians were dutybound to join in the chorus. And since I hated the French at the time, 'cos they were gonocidal maniacs, I thought this was great -- stuff the frogs! The antipodes led the charge against this testing and world condemnation grew. We Aussies at the time liked to point to the injustice of the fact that the French were chosing to test their bombs thousands of kilometres away from France in some colony they've still got not caring about the native inhabitants. The response in street interviews of French people by Australian television was one of bafflement. To the question on why the French didn't test the bombs in France instead of Muroroa Attol, they all responded, quite surprised at the question: "But that IS France!" Needless to say, this confused us. France was France; and this little colony was this little colony. Australians being flexible, the question was soon revised to, Why isn't the testing carried out in METROPOLITAN France? But this was an interesting revelation. To the French mind, thousands of kilometres away in some Pacific island, those were French people, and that WAS France. Now the reason we in Australia had not expected this genuine answer from the French was because those who lived in those islands simply didn't "look" French. French people are "white" people.

But is this how the French people think? When on my way to South America in '98 we landed in Tahiti, another far-off French possession. Stepping out of the plane I was surprised to see on the tarmac "white" French police officers in French police uniform. No this wasn't native police officers employing the laws and justice system of France; these were actual police officers from "metropolitan" France. Tahiti, for the French is seems, IS France.

I also learnt that the French never had a colour-bar during colonial times, unlike the English. It wasn't because the French were any nicer than the English, for the English tended to treat those under their subjection somewhat better than did the French. But the Frenchman thinks in terms of culture, you see. And culture is not immutable. Thus, if the native could learn to speak French as well as the Frenchman, eat and appreciate French cuisine, drink wine and become "civilised", as far as the French were concerned and for all intents and purposes, this native had become French! Whereas the English are racial people. And race (insofar as there is such a thing) is immutable. Thus, if the native learnt to speak English as well as his colonial master, read Shakespeare and Wordsworth, became an English gentleman -- despite all this, he still could never truly become English. English people, after all, are "white"; and these people were "black". They were DIFFERENT -- immutably so. I remind: the English generally treated those in their colonies BETTER than did the French, and definitely better than the Belgians. It wasn't that the French were somehow nicer than the English or morally superior to them. It was just that the French obviously thought somewhat differently to the English.

And I also learnt that in the fast-moving politics of the Fifth Republic, many of the cabinet ministers in the French government were Africans! I'll say this again: many of the CABINET MINISTERS in the Fifties' French government were Africans from their colonies. Well, strictly speaking, they were African only in terms of origin, but as far as the French were concerned they were fellow Frenchmen! Now I certainly couldn't imagine that happening in 1950s Britain -- people who were foreigners being cabinet ministers! Obviously the French thougth differently.

Then I was reading a book for uni (university) by that African Marxist Professor Ali Mazrui, and he mentioned in passing the reason for the difference in physical appearance between Anglo-Saxon Americans and Latin Americans. The reason was -- he only mentioned this very much in passing -- that the Anglo-Saxons emphasised race in identity while the Latins emphasised culture. Now why would these people think in such differing ways, I wondered.

And finally, I was browsing through back issues of Harpers magazine (I think) at uni when I was bored and got to a debate conducted back in 1993 between two academics representing the two major minorities in the United States -- the "blacks and the browns", it was entitled. On the "black" corner was one of those vociferous African-American academics who headed one of those important departments like African Studies. The other was a Hispanic academic. A "white" Anglo-Saxon introduced both parties and asked the starting questions, which were basically ones broaching a union of effort between the "blacks" and "browns" out of a common interest. The African-American radical rambled in latter-day Black Panther speak, while the Hispanic calmly listened on. The "white" asked if the African-American was "black". This set the African-American off, raving about this and that and God knows what else. When asked the same question the Hispanic calmly answered: "he is Anglo". The African-American "Anglo" was nonplussed. This set him off on another orgy of grandiloquent babbling, and he was completely at a loss as to what De Klor Silva (I think that was the Hispanic's name) was saying. The "white" said nothing. Sr Silva calmly continued, explaining that to the latinos "blacks" in the United States are considered to be Anglos. The African-American throughout the debate simply could not understant how on earth HE could be considered an Anglo-Saxon. The debate ended on this note.

I wondered at that for a while and finally came to the conclusion that the Latin people of the world think quite differently to the non-Latin people. They all, for example, place more of an emphasis on language than do non-Latins, the French being the most obvious example. For example, when Latins immigrate to other non-Latin countries, they seem to hold onto their language a lot longer than, say, Germans or Dutch etc. And their identity has never been immutable. It has never required "tolerance" on their part for other people to be assimilated and considered part of them, eveb people who are considered in many parts of the world "racially different". Pan Africanism always hits a snag when it encounters the former French colonies, because its inhabitant quite often feel a closer kinship to their "white" French former masters than to their "black brothers"! And although the Italians fought on the same side as the Germans during the Second World War, they couldn't understand for the life of them why they should harm their Jewish community. The Italian Jewish community was Italian to the core -- they spoke Italian as fluently as the Italians and shared the same culture as the Italians. Identity to the Italians was cultural and not biological, and they just couldn't fathom how anyone could think otherwise. Naturally such thinking came quite easily to the racialistic Germans. Although the French were not quite so clean as the Italians, less Jews were killed pro rata in France than in anywher else in Nazi-occupied Europe.

See these conclusions of mine weren't just picked out of thin air. I don't know whether y'all have ever wondered at the dramatically differing physical appearance of Anglo-Saxon Americans when compared to Latin Americans. Why was there never any Jim Crow in Latin America? Why isn't the Anglo-Saxon American population mostly of a composite moreno appearance today, as would be expected after four hundred years? Now such questions are going to require y'all to think, and I make no apology for bringing this upon you. If it makes you uncomfortable -- too bad! What happens in YOUR society ends up indirectly affecting me, even if I'm on the other side of the world. And I'm sick of it. You Anglo-Saxon Americans can't go on living with your head in the sand forever. There are consequences to ignorance. And there certainly are consequences to wilful ignorance. Sure, you've got your act together concerning most things, but y'all are lacking severely in crucial areas -- like with your perennial "race problem". And that problem won't go away by just ignoring it, or resorting to a spurious "tolerance", or agitating for bigger government to enforce this "tolerance".

So am I merely changing the meaning of words to suit my own purposes? Or am I merely alerting y'all to the fact that many in the world think differently to y'all and having different understandings of some of the words you use? Haven't y'all heard some Latin people talk of youse lacking culture, especially the French? I'm certainly not the first. And before I understood what they were talking about, I often wondered at this too. I remember in uni an Aussie girl who had been to Argentina and was going back there to study complaining at the fact that there was "no culture" in Australia and what an embarrassment this was when people who had culture came to countries like Australia and noticed this lamentable fact. Since nobody understood what she was saying, nobody responded, or even gave it any thought, because it didn't make any sense. No, this is all quite a common refrain amongst the Latin people themselves and those who understand them. And this different way of thinking and different understanding of words by different people results in different realities, some for the better, some for the worse -- wouldn't y'all agree?
RE: El Hombre verbose/obtuse?
Posted by O Homem
On Sunday, February 24, 2002 at 00:24:06

Message:
H’mmn. Interesting. In one post you assign to the blacks -- or should I say, the Anglo-African-Saxon-Americans -- a disproportionate share of the credit for the cultural dominance of America world wide. In another post you say we have no culture. Are you more than one person or just more than one personality? It seems like even you can’t follow you now.
RE: El Hombre verbosest/obtusest?
Posted by O Homem
On Sunday, February 24, 2002 at 00:38:17

Message:
And aren’t you going to answer that poor guy who asked if you’ve been to Santa Catarina? He didn’t seem to mean any harm.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Sunday, February 24, 2002 at 04:10:58

Message:
I'll answer him when he answers me. Why are there in America still distinctly "black" people and "white" people instead of the composite moreno people which is generally the case in the rest of America? Can any of you Americans answer that? I'll keep things simple now, for it's obvious that you're not following what I'm saying (Everyone else I've talked to in Australia about this has had NO trouble understanding me. I am yet to find an American who even understands a little of what I'm saying). We'll just stick to this simple question, okay? If you can answer that, then we may (just possibly) move onto the next stage. And I suppose you're thinking this silly question about Santa Catarina is going to prove me resoundingly wrong. I suppose in Santa Cantarina Randy knows someone whom his aunty has told him about who's an Anglo-Saxon whose third cousin (a German-Dutch non-Latin) actually married a "black" person and nobody objected to this even though they were all non-Latin and they have lots of mulatto children whom Stanley Crouch has confirmed as being so who are set to have more kids of their own who will no doubt have a trace of "black" blood in them and this no one will mind and therefore all this nonsense about culture and lack of it and all that rubish, despite all that talk about the French and the Italians and their stupid colonies, is really a bunch of hogwash and the only reason I like Brazil is because it's the only place I can get some so there! Deep breath.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick of America
On Sunday, February 24, 2002 at 04:38:55

Message:
In the US, slavery was justified on racist grounds. Blacks were considered inferior therefore slavery was acceptable. So interbreeding was strongly frowned upon, to put it mildly. When slavery ended, this mindset was perpetuated through Jim Crow laws in the South. The races remained segregated. That is why there are distinctly black people in America and why we have, as you said, "perennial race problems".







RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by oh come on
On Sunday, February 24, 2002 at 06:16:29

Message:
everyone knows that there are race problems in brazil- not the same as the USA, but just as deeply ingrained and pernicious. It's hard to tell from a distance, but it looks to me like the problem is the same as it was when I lived there in the seventies - blacks are treated as fun loving and friendly, but who has ALL the best jobs, ALL the decent jobs even, ALL the political positions, etc? White men, that's who.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Sunday, February 24, 2002 at 07:56:06

Message:

Impossible! We have it on the authority of El Hombre that everybody in the Americas outside of the United States is a gloriously blended moreno. Therefore, there can not be white men in positions of power outside of the United States.

Although you happen to be quite right, Oh come on. Brazilian racism is quite deep, though quite "laid-back" as well.

El Hombre,

I disagree with you on Randy's hidden agenda, but I'm happy to see you provide the simplest example yet of your paranoid ability to read into things, things which are not there.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Sunday, February 24, 2002 at 08:25:49

Message:
You never asked me anything, The reason why I asked you if you have ever been to Santa Catarina is because this state in southern Brazil is populated largely by German immigrants and their descendants. Indeed, a couple good friends of ours (my Brazilian wife and me) are from Santa Catarina and have the German surnames of Endler and Zimmermann. They, by the way, credit their gaining racial tolerance with their time spent in New York, as they had been told growing up that dark-skinned people were never to be trusted..

Recently, the governments of Santa Catarina and some of the other states of southern Brazil have made efforts to keep Nordestinos from trying to settle in their states. Do you want to hazard a guess as to why that may be?

Every time I have met someone from the south of Brazil visiting here in New York and I strike up a conversation about my numerous trips to Brazil, when they ask me which state I liked the most, I always say Bahia. They then acknowledge that the state is beautiful, but always comment that the people are lazy and wicked. Do you want to hazard a guess why?

Indeed, throughout much of the South and Southeast of Brazil, the term "Baiano" is a real insult. Do you want to hazard a guess why?

During my visits to Brazil I have seen supposedly educated white people refer to Afro-Brazilians as "crioulos" and call their servants "neguinha" to their face, I cannot help but think how I would be ostracized socially if I were to do that here, not that I ever would say such things.

As far as Dr. Mazrui's generalization that latin emphasizing culture over race, what utter nonsense. Does he (and do you, for that matter) not know that the majority ethnic group in Guatemala are the descendants of the Maya who have faced nothing but the harshest racism from the mestizo and european descended Guatemalans. Why are the Mapuche in Chile fighting for the maintenance of their traditional ways? Why are the descendants of the Incas fighting for their very existence much of the time in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru? Why are there no Afro-Argentinians? There were slaves brought over, after all. According to an Argentinian friend of mine, the effort was made to eradicate blacks from Argentina. It certainly appears to have succeeded. Why was Brazil, with the largest African population outside of Africa the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery? Why has Mexico with a huge Indian population had only one Indian president (Benito Juarez)?

I have heard educated latins recoil in horror when I referred to someone as being black. No I was corrected. He's not black, he's mulato. I have traveled extensively in Latin America. I lived in Miami - probably the most thoroughly Latin city in the US - for eleven years. It is also probably one of the most thoroughly segregated and racist. I have never heard any Cuban or Colombian I met in Miami over the course of these eleven referring to an African-American using any term other than nigger.

I'll recommend a couple of sources for further reading on this subject: "The Idea of Race in latin America, 1870-1940" edited by Richard Graham or "Cafe Con Leche: Race, Class and National Image in Venezuela." In addition, the chapter that Peter Winn devotes to race his book "Americas" is also very valuable.

I enjoy my trips to Brazil and enjoy the culture there. I also have no illusions about it. You'd be well advised to consider that. I also have no illusions about the USA.

Finally, while I agree with the depth of your analysis on the French and English in Africa, you have really let the Belgians and Portuguese off the hook.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Sunday, February 24, 2002 at 08:49:00

Message:
El Hombre wrote:

"The Italian Jewish community was Italian to the core -- they spoke Italian as fluently as the Italians and shared the same culture as the Italians. Identity to the Italians was cultural and not biological, and they just couldn't fathom how anyone could think otherwise."

Where do you think the word ghetto came from?

"Although the French were not quite so clean as the Italians, less Jews were killed pro rata in France than in anywher else in Nazi-occupied Europe."

I think that the Danish may hold this claim, not the French. The efforts of the Danish in general to protect the jews living in Denmark is truly remarkable. In any case, this is a disingenuous comment, as the French merely shipped the jews to concentration camps in Germany and what is now Poland. There were no concentration camps in France of which I am aware.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Sunday, February 24, 2002 at 10:54:37

Message:

The apparent testiness of our thin-skinned El Hombre seems to belie the old saying that ignorance is bliss. In any case, his discomfort is of no interest except as it provides clues to his motives. But does one really need any more clues. There is a strain of thinking in the Africanoid intelligenstia, especially prevalent in the United States, that erroneously concludes that the black man is incapable of racism. He may make all manner of reckless generalisation, apply, or re-apply, old stereotypes, and hate with a sense of abandon known only to a lemming in free fall; but he is not a racist. Of course, all language is his to define in the ways that comfort him most, in the ways that provide him the most cover for his prejudices, and in the ways that justify his continued receipt of foundation grants, in many cases.

This is the internet. I still suspect Hombre of a masterly caricature. We have only his word that he is an African-Latin-Australian; but I am willing to accept his definition, for the moment, that he represents the thinking of a *cultural* black, because I have seen it before.

If there is one thing consistent in his entire harangue, it is that good things are black and bad things are white, culturally or otherwise. And where bad things appear to be black, Aha! Oh no! Genocidal Africans are not Tutsis and Hutus engaged in an age-old tribal conflict; they are closet Frenchmen and Englishmen engaged in an age-old struggle to wipe each other off the face of the earth. Body-snatchers, if you will, who have taken possession of black bodies and confused them into perpetrating what could only, ever, be white deeds.

Have you any idea the state of African affairs when the white man landed his ships there, mate? As an East African, you must have heard tales of the benevolent Zulu empire that once held sway in the south. Pray tell, how did those blacks treat blacks? Or were they cultural whites, too?

As to "racialistic" Germans, the myth of German racial superiority was concocted by a philosopher named Fichte during the Napoleonic expansion (French, by the way) into Germany. The Prussians needed a way to instill in the Germans the sense of pride and confidence they were lacking in their fight against the invader, so they had Fichte cook this up in the same way Ron Karenga cooked up Kwanzaa. It was strictly a political convenience at the beginning. And so you see, by your own reasoning, Nazism was actually French, not German. At least, the French "made" the Germans do it.

It was good of you, Hombre, to bring up your understanding of the Italian attitude toward the Jews during WWII. Will you now be so kind as to explain why there was a rabbinical ban placed on Hispanic Spain lasting several centuries? Or how it was that the Jewish Khazars were selling Russian Slavs to the "moreno" Muslims seven hundred years before a black ever hit the shores of the Americas? How do the Chinese fit into your scheme? Are they a non-"racialistic" people? Perhaps you ought to withdraw your head from where you have it and place it in the sand as "we" do. It is, at the very least, more hygienic.

Nadelstich

P.S. I believe it was the Danish king who was to be seen everywhere proudly sporting the star of David on his jacket, while he peddled his bicycle through the streets of Copenhagen during the Nazi occupation.



RE: El Hombre Windy?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Sunday, February 24, 2002 at 15:38:06

Message:
Nadelstich:

I'm actually beginning to suspect that El Hombre is a member of the Australia First Party who just likes hip-hop music :-)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, February 25, 2002 at 06:29:12

Message:
There's light at the end of the tunnel! I think I can begin to see a glimmer of hope breaking through the dark, brooding clouds! I may have finally managed to get y'all to realise that people THINK differently, and therefore how they think might determine the different realities they experience. Mr Sick of America has finally stepped up and bravely answered my question. In giving an answer, he's summurised my whole position quite well: the Americans are racialists, and this has determined the way they have thought of themselves, defined themselves, related to each other, and has therefore determined their resulting physical appearance.

Gee, you Americans seem very averse to any criticism. Touchy! By the way, I was NEVER criticizing America or the American people as such. I have in fact more than once mentioned, or made allusions to, how much I respect those of the United States and their laudable achievements. After all, how on earth could I be a right-wing nut if it wasn't for the Americans? (Australia is a humanist stronghold and thus no right-wing nuts are allowed to exist here) No, what I was actually doing was alerting y'all to the fact that you may have some particular problems, problems which may have negative effects which end up affecting people even on the other side of the world. One can't help on looking at the American people but to notice that they have been historically made up of people who look distinct from each other, who base a significant part of their identity on something called race, and because of this have lived seperate lives, and, despite speaking the same language, speak differently and even walk differently! It is apparent that North Americas think of some of their fellow Americans as being different from themselves, so much so that marriage between them would constitute "intermarriage". And it is apparent that they base this distinction between each other on something called race. This is all immediately apparent on looking at America.

Does this make Americans or "whites" bad people? Goodness me, no! I don't know where I ever said that. I think y'all are jumping to wild, unwarranted conclusions. All I'm saying is that the way y'all think, the way y'all view people and the world, may result in certain negative consequences. Unless you look at Jim Crow, the LA riots, gang violence, blind allegiance to the Democratic Party and all such banes as being positive, you may very well agree with me that y'all are experiencing some negative consequences due to the way y'all think. And these negative consequences have repurcussions which resonate all over the world. Say if a certain segment of the American community is somewhat bitter and twisted because of their treatment throughout history; and say if that same people suddenly exerts great influence on the popular culture. Then the effects of their bitter, self-destructive personalities may be transferred to those who are recipients of this influence all around the globe. And, moreover, if it is only natural for these two apparently "different" people to remain separate and segregated, then any attempt at changing this natural state of affairs may doom the whole society. If the circumstance of that society are such that it influences the behaviour of much of the world, then its degradation may mean the degradation of much of the rest of the world with it. If I'm sounding full of doom and gloom, than answer me a few questions. Before desegregation and all that wonderful, balming stuff, were there the Bloods and the Crips marking their territory in LA? Was one able to walk the streets in relative safety? Was the "black" family quite intact and indeed very strong? Were 90% of the "black" kids in Washington, DC, born out of wedlock? Were one in three "black" males in jail before integration? Were the "black" women "bitches" and "hos" before y'all started your project on creating a colour-blind society? Four hundred years, man, four hundred! If you couldn't do it in four hundred, why do you think that a bit of Great Society socialistic big government would change that? You're obviously different from each other; at least you're of the unshakeble view that you're different. You're obviously IMMUTABLY different (according to the way you think). How can y'all be colour-blind if you're colour-conscious? If someone is "black", then he is not "white". If this is the case, then he is different from the "white" man. Therefore, the two men are not the same. So why pretend otherwise? If this results in problems, then how can you solve them? Well, the way y'all think might be a good place to start. Hopefully I've demonstrated to y'all in my previous posts that there are millions of people around the world who think differently from you all, who have different understandings to such words as culture and civilisation. And they put their money where there thinking is: they walk the walk. And the way they look, the way they behave -- in contrast to you guys -- is testament to this different way of thinking. They're not good people, or bad poeple, or better people, or worse people; they just think differently from y'all. And this different way of thinking means that they don't experience some of the problems y'all experience. They've got problems too, sure, but not the SAME problems. That's all I was saying.

Sorry about misunderstanding your question, Randy; it's just that these blighters are attacking me left, right and centre. I merely assumed you were like them: mean, merciless, cruel and verbally bashing poor old me. But I'm not sure if you're corraborating what I'm saying with your references to Santa Catarina and the thinking of its people, because what you said could definitely confirm what I'm saying. Those could well be racialistic Germans who have not fully become Latin in their thinking, who still tend to base their identity on race. They could base their comparative wealth and advancement compared to the rest of Brazil on biology: if one has the wrong genes, then one is basically stuffed, they may think. And, no, I unfortunately haven't been to Santa Catarina. We stayed in a hostel in Foz do Iguaçu for a few days and, as you may imagine, seven days is not enough to gauge the mindset of the people. But then again, in saying all that, the views of those of Santa Catarina may not be as racialistic as it may appear. What they say about the nordestinos may in fact be quite justified (I don't know): they very well may by comparatively lazy, untrustworthy or even "wicked". This is all quite possible. And this may go some way into explaining the comparative poverty of the North-East. It might be quite justified and fair as long such traits as are being critisized are not attributed to biology and are instead blamed on habit and customs.

And to Ali Mazrui's "generalisations"? I think you misunderstood, Mr Paul. I have always maintained that the mindset of the Latins does not predispose them to making distinctions on the basis of race, and therefore such people avoid the resulting racialism. But is that to say that Latins don't discriminate at all? Far from it! They probably discriminate to a far greater degree than do many non-Latins? Discrimination against those whom one considers to be different from oneself is universal. What is different around the world is the basis by which people will make distinctions between each other. Some make distinctions on the basis of race, while others make it on the basis of culture. The ones who make distinctions on the basis of race do so because they are racial people, and that is their lot; and those who make distinctions on the basis of culture do so because they are cultural people, they have been blessed with culture. Which is better? Or rather, which has less negative consequences? I would argue extremely strongly that a culturalist world view is much better for everyone than is a racialist world view. Why? Because difference can eventually be eliminated with culturalists because culture is transmutable. Race, on the other hand, is immutable, and therefore the differences apparently existent can never be eliminated. The Africans and Indians in Latin America were considered by the Latins to be inferior barbarians. Inferior in what sense? Inferior in terms of culture -- in what other sense could there be with the Latins? So once the Indians and Africans civilised and became Latin, their difference, the sourse of their inferiority, had been eliminated. The problem was in effect solved gradually. That's why such a process could be looked upon and described in an apparently oxymoronic way as being "Aryanisation", but the difference here being Aryanisation in the transmutable CULTURAL sense rather than in the immutable racial sense. You see, race is immutable. So when the Anglo-Saxon Americans had their Africans and Indians, there was really no hope for redemption for the downtrodden. They were, at first, immutably inferior, and only later were they elevated to being equal but nevertheless immutably different. The crucial issue here, you see, is the basis by which one determines another people or group to be different. Is it on the basis of culture, and therefore transmutable? Or is it on the basis of race, and therefore immutable? If the Indians are still discriminated against in Latin America, it is because they are transmutable CULTURAL Indians and not because they are IMMUTABLE racial Indians. If they become Latin, they will cease to be Indian. The extent and duration of the discrimination those Indians are experiencing is largely in their own hands: it will be determined by their own level of intransigence and recalcitrance (lack of culture is nothing to be proud of). But with race, those who are discriminated against can do nothing about the situation. The basis on which they are being discriminated against -- race -- is immutable. Therefore, the problem is perennial and insurmountable. The difference, then, must be "accepted" and "tolerated". But of coarse this is untenable, as events since the Sixties have demonstrated. With the toleration of this undeniable difference follows logically the toleration of ALL sorts of differences, whether good or bad, legitimate or manufactured -- all culminating in the untenable and self-destructive Pluralism being promoted today.

Mr Paul, with those Cubans and Colombians in Miami -- would they be so derogatory with their own Cuban and Colombian "blacks"? I think the reality of their physical appearance and their history militates very much against such a possibility.

The Danes? What on earth did they possibly have to fear from the National Socialists? They were worshiped by the Germans as being Aryans par excellence. They could thus afford the luxury of dabbling in such beau geste, fearing nothing from their fawning occupiers. Tell me: were these beau idéal Aryans punished severely for their seditious actions by the venerating Germans? Gee, they really did put their necks on the line, these self-sacrificing Danes. Did the king receive a German bayonet while riding on his merry little bicycle? Probably nothing more dangerous than a swift salute from them!

And now to my bestest buddy in the whole wide world, Nadelstich. Nadelstich, Nadelstich, Nadelstich... Why can't you be nice like Randy is, huh? "Africanoid intelligentsia", you say? Goodness me! I never knew that a right-wing nut and the word "intelligence" could ever be brought within close proximity of each other! But, hey, I'm open to flattery. Thanks, mate! But Nadelstich, mate, who is this apocryphal "black" man you keep seeing lurking under every bed? You know, you really are sounding to me like an unrepentant racialist: you have a rigid black-and-white view of the world -- literally. I just don't know what you're talking about. I myself don't see any "blacks" floating around; nor do I see any "whites". If I did, I wouldn't keep putting those words (more appropriate for describing the colours of the rainbow) in quotation marks. And how can I be racist if I am culturist? How can I be racist if I don't see race and only see culture? But, hey, listen: since I have lived for most of my life as a racialist myself, I can understand what you're saying. I will therefore condescend to adopt your unfortunate way of looking at things; but only, take note, in the same way that a law-abiding cop who's going undercover might feel it necessary to smoke cocaine for the purposes of allaying suspicion. Okay, I assume by "black" man you mean the African (I find it difficult to understand how anyone can be a colour) and those whose origin from there is apparent. But, no, I don't think the African is racist or that he has ever been, just as I do not think the Latin capable of racism (or if he has ever been guilty of this condition, which is unnatural to him, then he is incapable of prolonged racism). Although I don't subscribe to the concept of racial clasification, let me, as our "undercover cop", condescend to do this for the purposes of repulsing your sallies.

Although not being inviolate saints themselves, wherever the African races have come together, they have readily mixed with each other, becoming a melange of their different origins. My own people migrated southwards over generations from Abyssinia. Racially we fell under the classification of Hamite, and were thus, according to the Social Darwinists of the nineteenth century, "absolutely distinct...from the negroe" whom they considered as "belonging to an absolutely inferior order". Gradually, different groups dropped off and settled along the route of our migration, and our origins can be easily traced this way, by the similarity in culture and race of the people along the route. Our group went the furthest, however, finally settling in the area surrounding the source of the River Nile. Like all the groups who stopped and settled along the way, what did we "racist" Africans do? We conquered the less organised natives and -- what? -- adopted their Bantu language and readily intermarried with them. All this with people who were racialy different from us! At the time we arrived where we settled, one found there the pygmy, a "[m]ember of a worn out and quickly disappearing race...a monkey-like flat face and a huge nose, he is quite similar to the apes whom he chases in the forest". Then one found the group largest in number, the negroe, "displaying typical Bantu features: generally short and thick-set with a big head, a jovial expression, a wide nose and enormous lips. They are extroverts who like to laugh and lead a simple life." Then was found us, whom the racialists were smitten with:"...of good race...nothing of the negroe, apart from his colour...very tall...very thin...high brow, thin nose and fine lips framing beautiful shining teeth...[g]ifted with a vivacious intelligence...displays a refinement of feelings which is rare among primitive people. He is a natural-born leader, capable of extreme self-control and of calculated goodwill". And despite our evident "superiority", what did we Africans do? We condescended to intermarry with these "inferior" races! And as proof of our "racism", I myself am a veritable mongrel: I have the nose and lips of a negroe, the teeth and hairline (which appears receding) of a "superior" Mututsi, nothing (that I know of) of the pygmy, and the general physique of my main race: slim, short abdomen, long, thin legs, long arms, long, thin fingers. And this same racial mixing has been going on quite happily in the rest of Africa. The Southern Africans, for example, are a mixture of negroe and Hottentot (the Dutch and Anglo-Saxons, who are racialists, are incapable, ipso facto, of participating), and the Tanzanians of the coast are a mixture of Nilotics and Arabs (Professor Ali Mazrui, as the Arabic name may suggest, is one of those). So much for the "racist" Africans. Although most of them are now racialist (that is, they see race and base their identity on race) they have never actually been racist (racism, which is actually discrimination, emanates from racialism, which is making distinctions on the basis of race) as is evident from their mixed-race appearances. Although we routinely kill and fight each other, we are not and have never been racist. Any racism existent was introduced from without, such as with Rwanda, where the genocide wasn't carried out against a different tribe (for the Hutu and Tutsi are not different tribes, as they share the same Bantu language, live side by without any "Hutuland" or "Tutsiland" and often intermarry) but a different race, the Tutsi. And where did the Rwandans get such racial distinctions from? From the nineteenth-century Europeans, of whom, unfortunately, the culturalist French and Belgiuns were part, having been seduced into such racialism (and by extension, racism) by the overwhelming scientific evidence of the time (principally Darwin's "Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection", with -- bena note -- its subtitle, "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

So there you go, Nadelstich. Where you got the idea that I thought anything "black" (as you like to put it) is inviolate and saintly, I have no idea. But I will say this: Africans have never been racist (although most have now been forced to become racialist). If they were true racialists then they wouldn't possess the semblence of culture they have. And if the situation had been reversed and the Africans had been the masters in North America and the Anglo-Saxons the slaves, I can guarantee you, from the historical evidence of Africa itself, that the American population today would be mostly moreno. So, no, Nadelstich, racialism (and its all-too-often accompanying racism) is common around the globe but, like with the Latin people, it is not common to Africa.

Being a racialist does not make one bad or morally compromised. It is just that racialist societies are prone to racism. And racism (as is almost universally agreed) is particularly unfair on those who are being discriminated against. But the problem is, discrimination against (or at least separation from) those who are considered different from oneself in only natural. Thus, quixotic attempts at trying to fix this problem without properly fixing its root causes are doomed. Why? Because racism comes from racialism. So if you can get rid of racialism (seeing racial distinctions), racism, ipso facto, is extinguished. But bena note: discrimination is not exclusive to racialists; it is universal and, moreover, natural. It's just that some forms of discrimination, by their nature, are perennial, while others only exist for as long as some recalcitrant barbarians invite it on themselves by petulantly refusing to accept culture and civilisation.

Australia First Party, Randy? You might mean the One Australia Party. There is a nationalist New Zealand First Party, though.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by oh come on
On Monday, February 25, 2002 at 06:44:38

Message:
better ease off the caffeine there Hombre-boy! Or is it something stronger?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Monday, February 25, 2002 at 08:19:23

Message:
Regarding the Australia First Party, I know what I mean. They certainly exist and here is their website: http://www.australiafirstparty.com.au/

On the other hand, maybe you are Pauline Hanson's hip-hop loving son :-)

Regarding the bigoted attitudes of the Cubans and Colombians I encountered in Miami, they most certainly were derogatory toward their (whatever that means, assuming you mean the ones who lived there) Afro-Cubans and Afro-Colombians. Race and class are inextricably tied throughout Latin America, which is why, for example someone like Benedita da Silva is such a rarity.

Your comment about the Danes reveals the intellectual dishonesty of your arguments. Rather than address the history and facts of Danish protection of Jews, and avoiding the rank colloboration of France with Nazi Germany, you inject your own preconceptions masquerading as fact to bolster your argument. What a shame.

If you don't believe that "the mindset of the Latins does not predispose them to making distinctions on the basis of race" then you haven't spent much time in Latin America. I certainly have and I can tell you that history and the facts contradict your presumption.

As for the rest of your argument, I'll respond when I can find my shovel and boots :-)



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Monday, February 25, 2002 at 16:17:04

Message:
That makes it cow pie del Hombre then, not cow pie del toro. I apologize to any toros I've inadvertently offended.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Monday, February 25, 2002 at 17:32:14

Message:
"I have always maintained that the mindset of the Latins does not predispose them to making distinctions on the basis of race, and therefore such people avoid the resulting racialism."

No one's mindset predisposes them to racism. Their value system, the way they react to the world and how they were raised does or doesn't. For example, I was raised White Anglo-Saxon Protestant in the Deep South of the US and have never felt any racist tendencies. By your twisted and simplistic views, I should be a KKK member.

You also never responded to my question as to the origin of the word ghetto, nor did you address the role of Portuguese colonialism in Africa.

Your style of discourse is bizarre: you posit opinion as fact, dismiss the arguments of others while avoiding the substance of their argument and fashion yourself as an expert on Latin Culture because you've spent a short time in Brazil? In Brazil you are the sort of person who would be referred to as an "intelectual de botequim", full of show and flowery talk, but ultimately lacking in substance.

"What they say about the nordestinos may in fact be quite justified (I DON'T KNOW): they very well may by comparatively lazy, untrustworthy or even 'wicked.'" [my emphasis]

Indeed, you don't know and you revel in demonstrating as much. Goodbye, you bore me.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Monday, February 25, 2002 at 18:06:30

Message:

>Nadelstich. Nadelstich, Nadelstich, Nadelstich...

You seem to have developed a certain obsession with me. I would be flattered except I have considered the source. I can also assure you that chanting my name like a mantra will prove quite ineffective, much like your thinking. You see, you have to want to change for me to be able to help you. *What* you think is quite mutable, but *why* you think it, is not. Therefore, I have no prospect of succeeding in your rehabilitation, despite your touching invocations.

Both the length of your posts and the opacity of their content put me in mind of a certain class of mollusk, that when poked with a stick eject a cloud of "black" ink, thus obscuring everything. Others here seem to have a similar opinion, though they don’t seem to think that it’s ink. Sorry for resorting to imagery, but words are of no help to you. Facts, still less.

And I apologise to any mollusks whom I have inadvertently offended, save one. :-)

Nadelstich

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick of America
On Monday, February 25, 2002 at 19:14:54

Message:
Hombre, I don't like how you twisted the answer I gave to your question. I was answering your question in a very simple manner, I was trying to facilitate the discussion. It is much more complex than whether or not Anglos are racialists. Slavery was justified by Southerners in a racist manner, and the morality of slavery was a great debate in the US. And that mindset of the Southerners, I chose that word carefully, carried over to reconstruction. As you know, the Northern states were free states and slavery was an underlying cause to the US Civil War (not THE cause so let's not argue that). So, did that make the Northerners culturalists, if not, then what were they? Feel free to adjust your definitions of culturalist and racialist to suit your needs.

Again, I recall you railing against moral relativism and the need for common moral standards. Yet, all your definitions of these terms you use are done in a relativistic manner and your excuse is that people think differently in other societies and cultures. No shit. No one ever said they did not. Your new one is "intermarriage" and how culturalists just love to do so. Yes they do love "intermarriage" especially when they are bent on destroying a native culture, just like the Spanish and Portuguese did to South America. Taking the continent was their plan and one effective method of conquering any group of people is to kill the men and marry the women. This used to be known as murder and rape. I guess it is now genocide (which can be compared to nudity) and intermarriage. Unless, and I truly wonder if this may be the case, you really believe these native women were so touched by the brutal murder of their men that they couldn't help but be smitten with their conquerers. Those ebullient Latin devils! So, to be honest, culturalists sound a tad more vicious than racialists, relatively speaking. At least racialists allow a group of people to maintain their identity to a degree, even though it might only be their skin color. So I am going to take your advice and wonder a bit here, do the non-anglo South Africans feel hurt or disappointed that their conquerers didn't intermarry with them? I mean intermarriage sounds, as you describe it, like such a natural and good thing. So, I assume those non-anglo South Africans, them being culturalists and all, must be wondering what they did to offend their invaders, no?

Also, ask your French culturalist friends what they think of your definition of culture. I am willing to bet they won't agree, but they will still contend that French culture is superior for other reasons. Like the Japanese contend, and the Chinese, (you never include Asian nations in your discourse, you wouldn't be a racialist would you?) the Italians, the Russians, etc. etc. And speaking of France, why is it Haiti is still distinctly black? And until very recently that nation (if you can call it that) was ruled solely by whites or light skinned blacks...mulatos or morenos or whatever the term may be, but clearly the minority. Would that have anything to do with race? It is also funny how culturalist France is always culturalist except when they colonize in Africa and the Caribbean, how does that happen?

Where is your evidence that these conquering culturalists destroy native culture solely for culturalist reasons? How can race or ethnicity not play a role in that? How can a culturalist deem another culture inferior and destroy it? That doesn't sound very cultured to me. Are the Serbs culturalists or racialists? The Bosnians share the same race as the Serbs, afterall. Maybe a new term is needed, ethnicists? Theocratists?

It is clear you see the world in black and white, especially since you apparently can't even bring yourself to include Asians in this discussion. How ironic you lob that accusation our way when you brought all this stuff up, not us.

So, do what I do, don't wonder why Brasil (or all of South America for that matter) is the way it is. Just dig it.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, February 25, 2002 at 20:46:58

Message:
Y'all are acting as if I presented this as some sort of panacea to all problems the in the world! Man, I just pointed out an aspect of difference between people, which results in their experiencing different realities, some for the better some for the worse -- and you guys blow your top! Other people to whom I've told about this here have regarded it as interesting observation. But you guys...!

Fine, wallow in your present condition. I give up!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Monday, February 25, 2002 at 21:47:09

Message:
Ya’ll aren’t for real anyway -- merely a provocateur. I think they call them "trolls.":)

But you were right, Bub: "This forum ain't big enough for more than one El Hombres. . ."

Hehehe!

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 at 13:40:31

Message:
El Hombre:

Actually we just find your style of discourse rooted more in sophistry and riddled with glittering generalities. You refuse to address the substance of the arguments of those who disagree with you (e.g. Denmark) and you mistake flatulent long-windedness for substance.

I'm sure you're familiar with this saying:

Opinião e cu; cade um tem um.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by oh come on
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 at 16:27:42

Message:
in regards to el hombre's caffeine/coke/crystal meth/or who know's what-fueled diatribes, I'll paraphrase Truman Capote, who said of someone "That's not writing, that's typing!"


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 at 17:55:39

Message:
he actually said it about Jack Kerouac when he said it in response to the fact that Kerouac wrote "On the Road" on a continuous spool of typing paper.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 03:08:11

Message:
"It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to dogs."

Also looks like some dogs always return to their vomit.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by oh come on
On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 06:00:33

Message:
sit!, hombre, sit!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 06:14:07

Message:
El Hombre, you are the prime example . . .
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 09:56:43

Message:

Let no one feign surprise -- It has long been El Hombre’s prerogative to be oblivious to irony and unconscious of his hypocrisy. He is spent and gone (ie., the Immodium has taken effect). Or so he once promised. May he dream the gentle dreams of the hopelessly deluded. :-)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, March 07, 2002 at 02:00:28

Message:
Funny how all the criticism is coming from the barbarians. Where are all the Latins? I can't waste my time trying to help y'all if you're incorrigible. Too bad. Racialism ain't all that.

Tchau ;-)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Thursday, March 07, 2002 at 05:28:28

Message:
You don't know me well enough to call me a barbarian. I'm married to a latina who thinks that you are utterly clueless as do her and my many latin friends. Believe me, the only one who needs any help here is you. You forgot the cardinal rule: better to keep quiet and let others think that you are a moron than open your mouth (or in this case put finger to keyboard) and remove all doubt.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Thursday, March 07, 2002 at 09:37:50

Message:

>Funny how all the criticism is coming from the barbarians. Where are all the Latins?

Oh Hombre, Oh great, civilized Hombre! But here is your response to the only Latin who attempted to post on this thread:

>"If you don't intend to pay attention, shurrup as well!"

>"And if y'all haven't gotta a vocabulary -- stick to Little Red Riding Hood!"

Maybe the rest of the Latins have "shurrup" because they "don’t intend to pay attention" – because they’re laughing too hard. :-)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, March 07, 2002 at 20:29:33

Message:
Blame the French. That's where I got all these ideas from. I'd have never thought of you guys as barbarians if it wasn't for them. And I've heard the same thing from other Latins; they contaminated me with those ideas. I GOT THIS FROM OTHER PEOPLE -- LATIN PEOPLE. Y'all should travel more; I know that Americans know notoriously little about much of the world (though the laudable right-wing nuts among them might have good reason to).

By the way, are you ever gonna have an answer to that perennial question? Why aren't y'all after four hundred years morenos? Can you possibly have an answer to that one, o ye of little culture? I'm not saying it's good to be a composite moreno population or not, I'm just asking why that's the case with the Anglos and not the Latins.

Not all Latins will necessarilly understand what I'm saying. There are clueless people in those lands as well, you know. Personally, all the Latins I've told this to over here haven't had any trouble understanding and accepting these observations. And this has been the case with non-Latins as well. But remember -- ANSWER THE QUESTION!

By the way -- and this is no excuse to avoid answering the main question --, is your wife German or Latin? Just wonderin'.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick of America
On Thursday, March 07, 2002 at 22:00:10

Message:
Your question has been answered several times. But one last time, simply put, the Latins used murder and rape to destroy the indigenous culture. I doubt they had much of a different attitude toward women of African descent held as slaves. Viola!! Morenos!

I have read verbatim some of the things you have written on here, to a Brasilian and to a Chilean, they laughed even harder than I did. You should be careful who you surround yourself with, your friends are doing you no good.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Thursday, March 07, 2002 at 22:11:59

Message:
>Personally, all the Latins I've told this to over here haven't had any trouble understanding and accepting these observations. And this has been the case with non-Latins as well.

Personally, I believe the persons you’re referring to are either imaginary or are humoring you.

Hombre asks: " . . . is your wife German or Latin?"

Even though Randy already said: "I'm married to a >>latina<< who thinks that you are utterly clueless as do her and my many latin friends."

Do you suffer from attention deficit disorder, Hombre, or just from many deficits.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, March 07, 2002 at 23:36:09

Message:
Sicko, quit embarrasing yourself and shutup! I'm already feeling too embarrassed for ya, mate (remember that "genocide" comment). So I guess the reason why the American population is not a composite moreno population today is because the Americans have historically been more morally upright than the Latins -- no raping and murdering poor African and Indian women. So, is the massive moreno population of Latin America the result of rape? All of them? Up till today? They're still happily "morenoing" today, you know. Thanks for your answer anyhow, mate; I'll wait for the responses of the others now, if you don't mind.

O Homem...so...you gonna answer the question? It's an interesting question, I reckon... It'd be nice to give us your thoughts on what the answer may be... Whadaya reckon, mate -- wanna have a go? Go on...can't be too hard...

Also, to all of you: what are all those Latin people talking about when they talk of non-Latins like Americans lacking culture? Do they mean lacking customs and traditions? Or lacking technical advancement? What the hell are they talking about? If you've never heard such talk, especially from the French, then y'all ought to travel a bit more -- "expand your horizons", as they say.

About the "is she German/Latin" thing...O Homen, I have to tell you something. I don't actually believe in intelligence. I actually consider it a load of Darwinian superstition (the completion of the human genome project is sure to put such superstitious nonsense to sleep in the near future). And I guess this explains why I've been so patient with you all. A lot of people, you see, consider Americans to be stupid (again, y'all aren't renown for your wonderlust and might therefore be blissfully unaware of this). I myself don't -- 'cos I don't believe in intelligence in the first place. Indeed, if I showed all that's been written on this subject to friends here, they'd just dismiss your intransigence as evidence of American stupity. Before I became a right-wing nut, I thought the same (as do most of the other people in the developed world) about Americans. So all in all I don't believe in intelligence -- even despite your idiotic answer regarding that German/Latin question, O Homem! Could you ever fathom why I was even asking that, you imbecile? (imbecile in the wilful sense rather than in the innate sense, of course) Duh! If you're not gonna switch on then don't bother contributing, mate. Do you COMPREHEND that?

But I must say, for you guys to be running around sharing this information with others I must have made somewhat of an impact! I'm flattered. But I might have to be careful and restrict sharing these observations with astute people in the future (astuteness not being innate, of coarse).
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick of America
On Friday, March 08, 2002 at 01:35:20

Message:
You shouldn't be flattered, unless you think being laughed at is flattering. And trust me, no one here will disagree with your lack of belief in intelligence, it has definitely escaped you. I am sorry that you cannot comprehend the differences in how North and South America were colonized and conquered, maybe if you attempted to learn something about it you might understand. However, that may lead to intelligence, and you wouldn't want to violate your belief system, I have no doubt.

But now, you are down to name calling. It seems you have run out of discussion. Anyone who disagrees with your hilarious points of view is lacking comprehension and should just "shut up". How quaint. Another testament to your disbelief in intelligence.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 08, 2002 at 02:31:34

Message:
Name calling? Ha! Like y'all have done anything else from the beginning. Fine -- continue to embarrass yourself. Don't say I didn't warn you.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Friday, March 08, 2002 at 08:15:41

Message:
My wife is Brazilian of Portuguese ancestry and she thinks that you're utterly clueless.

You're the only one embarassing yourself here.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Friday, March 08, 2002 at 12:49:54

Message:

I am tempted to say, "as usual" in my preface, but this would be misleading. You aren’t usually so precise as to construct a question precisely backward of what it ought to be. Your question, El Hombre, if ever intermarried to a fact, can not properly be one of why the United States is not moreno, but why it is not entirely bereft of Negroes altogether. Given the historical population ratios between whites and blacks that prevailed in that fair land, complete miscegenation over the course of 400 years indeed would have resulted in the obliteration of all Negroid genetic traits from the face of the continent. Kindly rephrase your question to reflect reality -- of some kind -- if it’s possible this late in your development.

>But I must say, for you guys to be running around sharing this information with others I must have made somewhat of an impact! I'm flattered.

This of course is the key to Hombre’s presence here, to have an impact of any kind. It does not matter whether it is negative or positive, so long as it is evidence of his existence, a condition of which he must be in continuous doubt to be driven to these extremes of buffoonery

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Friday, March 08, 2002 at 19:02:21

Message:
>This of course is the key to Hombre?s presence here, to have an impact of any kind. It does not matter whether it is negative or positive, so long as it is evidence of his existence, a condition of which he must be in continuous doubt to be driven to these extremes of buffoonery.

You're absolutely right nadelstich. It's kind of like a fart in a crowded room: contributing nothing but bound to offend.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 08, 2002 at 19:36:57

Message:
Now, now, Nadelstich, steady on, boy! Go easy on the grandiloquence, mate! I'm having a negative impact, am I? How so -- just by asking interesting, pertinent questions? Admittedly, if all this made you uncomfortable -- good. But I have to confess, I didn't forsee all you guys; absentmindedly (there's something for you guys to jump on) I just assumed I'd be conversing with Pork Chop. Silly me. Otherwise I might have withheld the "barbarian" designation till later. Oh well.

But I must congratulate you nevertheless, Nadelstich, on making an attempt -- well done! But...nice try, no cigar. Okay, perhaps I should, as you so kindly advise, rephrase my question. Why, then, in places like the Southern states, where in some places the European and African population was half-half, does not today's population not consist of a predominantly mestizo population as it would definitely have been had it been a Latin population under the same circumstances?

By the way, I'm not saying that lack of "morenoing" is bad. It certainly doesn't make the people who find that unnatural bad or anything like that. What's interesting is the different way of thinking that makes one people designate such marriage patterns as being "intermarriage" while others treat it as being completely normal.

I think this was from Ali Mazrui as well, but I learnt that the version of racial supremacists the Hispanics have, cultural supremacists, back in Spain, for example, do not look superciliously on the Mexican population because their skin has darkened but because they have allowed inferior Indian culture to seep into superior Spanish culture. There concern is certainly not with "race"; their concern is with culture. They are culturalists, you see.

The interesting thing is why Latins think differently to, say, Anglos. Is their different way of thinking the reason behind their different physical appearances, their differing marriage patterns, their differing worldview?

Surely the populations of those Southern states then, Nadelstich, would physically reflect the different origins of its peoples if they weren't racialists. Why doesn't the population of Alabama exhibit a mostly (or even partly) moreno Anglo-Saxon poplulation? I'm not saying it's a bad thing that this is not the case, I'm just asking why it is the case. Why, Nadelstich, why? Have another go, mate.

I thought your wife was of German ancestry; I thought that's what you said before. She thinks I'm clueless? I'm sure she loves you very much, Mr Paul. Hey, by the way -- why don't you too have a go at answering the question? The more the merrier, hey? Perhaps ask your wife also, sir...
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Friday, March 08, 2002 at 22:11:01

Message:

If I thought you were an honest man, I would advise you to read slowly.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 08, 2002 at 23:53:51

Message:
Come on, mate...now you're not a wimp...you can answer the question. Look, Nadelstich, I KNOW that you know what I'm talking about -- so quit being evasive! It won't do to just churn out ad hominem. How about some substance for a change? Surely you won't deny the fact that historically speaking the marriage patterns of the Latin and Anglo-Saxon Americans have been dramatically different, with one demonstrating racialism and studiously marrying along racial lines, and the other marrying on a cultural basis and thereby demonstrating a culturalist mindset. Surely you cannot deny the existence of mestizos aplenty in Latin America and the diametrically contrasting case in Anglo-Saxon America -- this after hundreds of years of Afro-European cohabitation in those fair lands. Does this make Latins somehow better than non-Latins? Of coarse not (unless one means in the cultural sense). Does it make non-Latins such as Anglo-Saxons evil or immoral? That's ridiculous! In fact, the United States has historically exercised an unparalleled moral superiority over other nations and societies -- the "city on a hill". But that's all beside the point. What I'm interested in is the explanation for the contrasting physical appearance, the thinking behind the different behaviour (and thus marriage) patterns.

Answer the question, Nadelstich! If you can't, then devote your time instead to the pursuit of merely "digging" Brazil and quit your sledging. By the way -- just in case any of you hadn't realised -- making a response is not mandatory. If I myself thought I was dealing with a loony, I wouldn't even think of engaging in dialogue with him; I would be dignifying his nonsense with a response. You guys, on the one hand, maintain that I'm mad but at the same time insist on taking me seriously. Schitzophreniacs. If you don't get it, Nadelstich, then go and do something else; go and contribute to the how-to-score-in-Brazil threads. Otherwise -- ANSWER THE QUESTION!
RE: Add Homem, subtract Hombre
Posted by O Homem
On Saturday, March 09, 2002 at 08:15:12

Message:

>. . . ad hominem

You mean "add Homem," don’t you? Well, if you insist.

Hombre posts longer and longer and gets more and more desperate. The rest of the posters make their replies shorter and shorter. It’s like that scene in the "Caine Mutiny," where poor old nut case, Captain Queeg, is sitting in the witness chair, ranting and twirling the little steel balls in his hand that he always carries for comfort. Suddenly, Queeg notices the faces of the hearing officers, wide-eyed and appalled at what they see. Queeg shuts up. Nobody knows what to say. That’s how the scene ends. The only thing left is the sound of the little steel balls clicking in the silence. Aye, too bad Hombre doesn’t have Queeg’s good sense or little steel balls. What a scene! Take heart, Hombre! The psychiatrist in the film testified that paranoia is not a disabling condition. : )

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Saturday, March 09, 2002 at 14:48:18

Message:
>Surely the populations of those Southern states then, Nadelstich, would physically reflect the different origins of its peoples if they weren't racialists. Why doesn't the population of Alabama exhibit a mostly (or even partly) moreno Anglo-Saxon poplulation? I'm not saying it's a bad thing that this is not the case, I'm just asking why it is the case. Why, Nadelstich, why? Have another go, mate.

I lived in Alabama for seven years and much of my family still lives there. My oldest niece is blond , green eyed with an olive skin complexion. She has a son with her boyfriend. The boyfriend is black, with a skin tone a little lighter than mahogany. Their child (now 4) has sandy hair, skin lighter than his mother and green eyes. My wife has a mulato cousin named Getúlio. His father's skin tone is a little darker than mahogany and his eyes are dark. Getúlio has a skin tone about the shade of teak. His eyes are hazel colored. Adriana, Getúlio's wife is blonde with fair skin. All three of their sons are very fair, with light eyes and straight hair.

My wife's brother-in-law, Lúcio, traces his family in Brazil back to the 16th century. His forebears came from Portugal and Spain. He has blue eyes. His parents, aunts, cousins, brother, sister-in-law, and nephew all have skin fairer than mine and many of them have blue eyes.

My own ethnic background is Russian Jew on my father's side (and from whom I got my blue eyes, freckles and fair skin. Indeed my wife's family calls both Lúcio - he and his family are from Minas Gerais - and me branquelo). On my mother's side it is a mixture of Irish, Scottish, English, Dutch, Welsh and French. My sister closely resembles my mother's side. She has black hair, dark eyes and high cheekbones.

I can trace my French ancestors (they were Huguenots) back to the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. The rest of the ancestors I can trace back to about a hundred years after the Portestant Reformation.

The point being made here is that your presumptions about race and ethnicity - which frankly border on Nazi-inspired eugenics more than anything else - have absolutely no grounding in any empirical evidence. They are just hollow opinions that you present as fact simply because they issue from your keyboard and the dank recesses of your mind.

>I think this was from Ali Mazrui as well, but I learnt that the version of racial supremacists the Hispanics have, cultural supremacists, back in Spain, for example, do not look superciliously on the Mexican population because their skin has darkened but because they have allowed inferior Indian culture to seep into superior Spanish culture. There concern is certainly not with "race"; their concern is with culture. They are culturalists, you see.

If you truly believe that the racist treatment of indigeneous peoples by the Spanish, Portuguese and French has nothing to do with race, then you have offered not one scintilla of evidence to support this. The Captain Queeg analogy is apt, O Homem. The next thing we know he's going to start raving about the strawberry incident. In any case the nickname "Old Yellowstain" is apt.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, March 09, 2002 at 22:33:27

Message:
Is that it??? Is that your answer??? Both of you??? How did you guys pass high school??? Someone asks you a question and you off on a wild tangent. You fully know what I mean and are completely bankrupt. Face it, you can't answer the question. Just go and contribute -- except you, Paul, who I know is married -- to the how-to-get-laid-in-Brazil threads. How dishonest can you guys get??? In all seriousness, don't contribute if you can't find an answer. Pathetic!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Sunday, March 10, 2002 at 08:33:07

Message:
God are you a cretin. Grow up little boy.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Sunday, March 10, 2002 at 08:38:49

Message:
Coming from someone who doesn't have the strength of character to use his own name, your criticisms are petulant and silly.

Se eu quiser bosta de você, esprimiria sua cabeça.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by beach bum
On Sunday, March 10, 2002 at 21:50:13

Message:
O Homem;

To my knowledge, the only person possessing steel balls.... is Superman. El Hombre will have to make do with what he has.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by beach bum
On Sunday, March 10, 2002 at 21:50:28

Message:
O Homem;

To my knowledge, the only person possessing steel balls.... is Superman. El Hombre will have to make do with what he has.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Sunday, March 10, 2002 at 22:49:02

Message:

I have to agree with the earlier assessment that Hombre is a "troll." Ironically, his puerile attempts at subcutaneous irritation have succeeded only in getting under his own skin, while everyone else seems to be having a good time. I believe this is what they call the boomerang effect. What more could you expect from down under.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, March 11, 2002 at 20:22:26

Message:
Is that your answer? Y'all are just stuck, aren't you? Believe me, I'm having a good time, too -- seeing you guys looking more and more pathetic in trying not to answer a very simple question. And the fact that you have been willing to use your own name, RANDY PAUL, is something I've long envied and admired in you, sir. You de man! Maybe some day I'll grow up to be just like you -- with a Brazilian babe 'n' all! One can only wish.

Just tell me: are you gonna answer the question or not? Simple question, isn't it? Try answering it, people!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by beach bum
On Monday, March 11, 2002 at 22:25:52

Message:
Excuse me, what was the question? I keep falling asleep on those really long posts.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, March 11, 2002 at 22:35:01

Message:
They're not long anymore. I wrote them that length thinking that by doing so I'd make myself better understood. But I wasn't aware of the calibre of people I was dealing with. So they're short now; short, simple and palatable. Wanna have a go answering it? If you don't know what the question is, read back a bit. If you can't think of an answer -- don't worry about. Go back to doing whatever you were doing before.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick of America
On Monday, March 11, 2002 at 23:01:14

Message:
I have answered your question. I guess I must answer it again. The Southern states using racism to justify slavery gives no credence to your theory that "racialism" is an inherent characteristic of Anglos. It is a characteristic that was inherent in "Southern culture", not Anglo culture. You, on the other hand, offer no proof that Latins inherently see life through a cultural prism. Feelings are not facts, dear Hombre.

I have this interesting book, "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen. His point being to set Americans straight about their mythical past, however, I think it may assist you as well. You won't listen to us, maybe you will listen to published scholars. Here are a few select quotes from that book, and a history book, regarding Christopher Columbus who was employed by and did his dirty work for the "culturalist" Latins.

One of Columbus' first actions upon arriving to the so-called new world was to enslave every native he met. The slaves did more than just work, however, "As soon as the 1493 expedition (his second voyage) got to the Carribean, before it even reached Haiti, Columbus was rewarding his lieutenants with native women to rape." This practice continued throughout the conquest of South and Central America. Thus the marjority of mixed or "moreno" population. After most of the Indian slaves died, they imported millions of African slaves, and the aforementioned practice did not cease. Another quote from a different book, "The Penguin History of Latin America," "In the sixteenth century, miscegenation occurred predominantly between Spaniards and Indians, and their offspring were known as "mestizos". These unions were mostly irregular, since the dominant position of Spanish males in the period after the Conquest enabled them to take indigenous women as partners outside wedlock. The arrival of African women slaves in the latter part of the century multiplied the opportunities for such liasons, and the issue of these unions were known as "mulatos"."

I imagine you sitting there and thinking this has nothing to do with race, think again. In regards to social and racial status, The Penguin History notes, "Unquestionably, pure Spaniards were regarded as socially and ethnically supreme, and provided the standard by which the status of other groups was evaluated. Indians were at the bottom of the social scale, and yet their color and physical characteristics were deemed to be closer to those of Spaniards, and so the mestizos enjoyed the highest status of the mixed bloods. Black creoles were socially more familiar to Spaniards than Indians, but racially more alien (culturally familiar, racially alien...surely this cannot be!), and so mulattos ranked below mestizos. By this logic the "zambos" - black-indian mixtures - were both socially and racially inferior to the other groups." This social class system, based on RACE, has blurred because of the degree of mixture, however, it still tends to be divided along racial lines, just ask any Latin American.

I am sure you still don't get it, so I will try to sum up, in the US, segregation of the races was the law in Southern states and the mixing of races was specifically outlawed. The laws are gone, but stigmas still remain. The Latins, on the other hand, feeling culturally AND racially superior, watered down the indigenous populations (the ones that survived anyway) and the African slaves that followed.

Now I will be the first to admit that the Anglos did not behave in any way better or with higher morals than the Latins. Who acted worse? Flip a coin. But that isn't the point, the point is that both the Anglos and the Latins behaved in racist manners. Both considered their RACE and CULTURE to be superior and viewed it through both prisms.

Oh... one last point about US segregation. Remember, well this may be new to you, that the US is a multi-cultural society. It always has been, from day one. Even more so than South America. So, for your enjoyment, I will now quote Thomas Sowell. He is a fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford, an African-American, and some consider a member of the "right wing nut" faction that you are so proud to be a part. In his book "Ethnic America" under the chapter entitled "The Blacks", Sowell notes, "Among themselves, slaves had to evolve some pattern for living. Racial solidarity was basic and betrayal to whites unforgiveable...The black world was ultimately the only world in which the slaves could find emotional fulfillment and close attachments, and to become a pariah there meant personal devastation." So you see, dear Hombre, in a multi-cultural society the ethnicities tend to stick together. The same is basically true for all the other ethnicities that live in the States, even the white ones. Intermarriage here is a relatively new phenomenon, again, even amongst white ethnicities. You even noted in a previous post that the Latins are particularly reticent to assimilation. Your fellow "right wing nut" Mr. Sowell would agree with you on that point.

I hope you understand now as to why the US has not be "morenoed" to the extent of Latin America, but for some reason, I doubt that you do.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick of America
On Monday, March 11, 2002 at 23:08:14

Message:
I have answered your question. I guess I must answer it again. The Southern states using racism to justify slavery gives no credence to your theory that "racialism" is an inherent characteristic of Anglos. It is a characteristic that was inherent in "Southern culture", not Anglo culture. You, on the other hand, offer no proof that Latins inherently see life through a cultural prism. Feelings are not facts, dear Hombre.

I have this interesting book, "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen. His point being to set Americans straight about their mythical past, however, I think it may assist you as well. You won't listen to us, maybe you will listen to published scholars. Here are a few select quotes from that book, and a history book, regarding Christopher Columbus who was employed by and did his dirty work for the "culturalist" Latins.

One of Columbus' first actions upon arriving to the so-called new world was to enslave every native he met. The slaves did more than just work, however, "As soon as the 1493 expedition (his second voyage) got to the Carribean, before it even reached Haiti, Columbus was rewarding his lieutenants with native women to rape." This practice continued throughout the conquest of South and Central America. Thus the marjority of mixed or "moreno" population. After most of the Indian slaves died, they imported millions of African slaves, and the aforementioned practice did not cease. Another quote from a different book, "The Penguin History of Latin America," "In the sixteenth century, miscegenation occurred predominantly between Spaniards and Indians, and their offspring were known as "mestizos". These unions were mostly irregular, since the dominant position of Spanish males in the period after the Conquest enabled them to take indigenous women as partners outside wedlock. The arrival of African women slaves in the latter part of the century multiplied the opportunities for such liasons, and the issue of these unions were known as "mulatos"."

I imagine you sitting there and thinking this has nothing to do with race, think again. In regards to social and racial status, The Penguin History notes, "Unquestionably, pure Spaniards were regarded as socially and ethnically supreme, and provided the standard by which the status of other groups was evaluated. Indians were at the bottom of the social scale, and yet their color and physical characteristics were deemed to be closer to those of Spaniards, and so the mestizos enjoyed the highest status of the mixed bloods. Black creoles were socially more familiar to Spaniards than Indians, but racially more alien (culturally familiar, racially alien...surely this cannot be!), and so mulattos ranked below mestizos. By this logic the "zambos" - black-indian mixtures - were both socially and racially inferior to the other groups." This social class system, based on RACE, has blurred because of the degree of mixture, however, it still tends to be divided along racial lines, just ask any Latin American.

I am sure you still don't get it, so I will try to sum up, in the US, segregation of the races was the law in Southern states and the mixing of races was specifically outlawed. The laws are gone, but stigmas still remain. The Latins, on the other hand, feeling culturally AND racially superior, watered down the indigenous populations (the ones that survived anyway) and the African slaves that followed.

Now I will be the first to admit that the Anglos did not behave in any way better or with higher morals than the Latins. Who acted worse? Flip a coin. But that isn't the point, the point is that both the Anglos and the Latins behaved in racist manners. Both considered their RACE and CULTURE to be superior and viewed it through both prisms.

Oh... one last point about US segregation. Remember, well this may be new to you, that the US is a multi-cultural society. It always has been, from day one. Even more so than South America. So, for your enjoyment, I will now quote Thomas Sowell. He is a fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford, an African-American, and some consider a member of the "right wing nut" faction that you are so proud to be a part. In his book "Ethnic America" under the chapter entitled "The Blacks", Sowell notes, "Among themselves, slaves had to evolve some pattern for living. Racial solidarity was basic and betrayal to whites unforgiveable...The black world was ultimately the only world in which the slaves could find emotional fulfillment and close attachments, and to become a pariah there meant personal devastation." So you see, dear Hombre, in a multi-cultural society the ethnicities tend to stick together. The same is basically true for all the other ethnicities that live in the States, even the white ones. Intermarriage here is a relatively new phenomenon, again, even amongst white ethnicities. You even noted in a previous post that the Latins are particularly reticent to assimilation. Your fellow "right wing nut" Mr. Sowell would agree with you on that point.

I hope you understand now as to why the US has not be "morenoed" to the extent of Latin America, but for some reason, I doubt that you do.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 00:23:28

Message:
Bravo, Sicko, well done!!! Couldn't be prouder of you, mate! At least you're making an attempt and have always demonstrated a willingness to "have a go" -- a valued Australian characteristic. I shall from now on never include you in the "wimp" category. Good attempt, mate -- well done. But despite its cogency...nice try, no cigar.

You see, the main problem with that thesis is this quotation of yours, mate:

"...in the US, segregation of the races was the law in Southern states and the mixing of races was specifically outlawed. The laws are gone, but stigmas still remain. The Latins, on the other hand, feeling culturally AND racially superior, watered down the indigenous populations (the ones that survived anyway) and the African slaves that followed."

Now why, Sicko, were the laws like this in Anglo-Saxon America and never the case in the whole of Latin America? And if the Latins believed that they were "racially superior", do you think that they reasoned they would "water down the indigenous populations...and the African slaves that followed" by watering their own race down? Either you're saying they're monumentally stupid or you still just don't get it. Otherwise they were the weirdest racial supremacists you've ever heard about ("keep our 'superior' race 'pure' by mixing with 'inferior' races") or they think in a different way to non-Latins.

Once again -- congrats on your characteristic attempt at having a go. But I'm afraid it's back to square one for you, mate ;-)

Now why can't y'all be like Sicko here, now? Guy's got GUTS!

PS: By the way, Sicko, it seems you keep trying to single out the Southerners as if they're some kind of different species of Anglo-Saxon. But the reason, Sicko, that the Southerners acted in the way most of them are probably not so proud of today is because they had a whole lot more "blacks" to deal with than the North ever had. This massive number of "different" people living amongst them represented to these racialists a clear and present danger to their ethnic integrity, the source of their identity necessarily being racial by default. Their pure, uncontaminated existence therefore had to be insured and perpetuated by dealing the "foreigners" in their midst a severe hand -- and quite understandably so, it is unfortunate to say. Similarly, the Latins have always tried to protect their ethnic integrity, but the difference being that their ethnic identity is not and has never been biological, as the evidence written on their faces clearly testifies to.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 06:30:20

Message:
>Similarly, the Latins have always tried to protect their ethnic integrity, but the difference being that their ethnic identity is not and has never been biological, as the evidence written on their faces clearly testifies to.

This is exactly what I mean when I accuse you of having opinion masquerading as fact. All that statement is is your flatulent opinion and nothing more. You offer no empirical evidence to back up your claims, then, like the petulant little boy that you appear to be, accuse those who disagree with you of being wrong.

Similarly as I pointed out with empirical evidence (something consistently lacking in your posts) from my wife's and my family, racial mixing does not always result in a combination of features from both ethnic groups. In the case of my wife's cousin sons and my niece's son, the caucasian parent's features dominate their mixed race child's features.

Your claims that people don't answer your questions ring hollow when weighed against the fact that you never answered my question as to why their are apparently no Afro-Argentinians.

>Maybe some day I'll grow up to be just like you -- with a Brazilian babe 'n' all! One can only wish.

You should just focus all of your energy on growing up.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 10:42:58

Message:

It should be apparent what we are dealing with when Hombre sets himself up to be the arbiter of proper race-mixing world-wide. He can tell from looking at you if you are just right, of course. Apparently American blacks, or whites – it is hard to be sure which now – fall short in his scheme of amalgamation aesthetics, despite the fact that there are few blacks left in the USA. They are, as has been said, mulattos. So it is not that the Americans have not been trying. It is merely that they need Hombrian guidance to achieve his rigorous racial objectives. One short trip to Niteroi has convinced him the Brasileiros are of the proper proportions and that they have therefore done it right.

>And if the Latins believed that they were "racially superior", do you think that they reasoned they would "water down the indigenous populations...and the African slaves that followed" by watering their own race down?

Yes, they did. But they believed explicitly in "the superior absorbtive power of the white race." This was the basis of "Aryanisation." Thus they believed not that they were "watering their own race down" but uplifting a race that was otherwise incapable of uplift on its own. Sound good to you, Hombre?

Just think how much grief the world would have been spared if there had been an internet in the early twenties, and Hitler had spent his time trolling. Therefore, I believe we should do as much as we can to keep Hombre tied to this thread, at least until he passes his prime, if he should ever have one.



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick of Hombre
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 11:29:00

Message:
*sigh*


It seems Hombre thinks the African slaves were immigrants invading the South for better paying jobs and a better life and the Southerners had to resort to their Anglo-racialist-recessive gene in hopes of keeping them separate. I guess the Latin American class system based on race is a mere coincidence. Now you have a go at explaining why this is an Anglo specific trait, and please include facts in your explanation, not just what you wish to be so.

"If" the Latins believed they were racially superior? There is no "if". Again, feelings are not facts. And speaking of facts, where are yours, again? The answer to your question is yes. The Latins used rape as a method of conquering and controlling. Invading hordes have historically done this, even the Anglos. History eludes you. The circumstances and intentions differed between the Anglos and the Latins in regards to the "new world", more facts you conveniently overlook. Your racialist and culturalist theories never seem to fit these facts. I see why you disregard them now.

What an interesting flip-flop in your P.S. On the one hand, you claim that Latins certainly cannot be racialists because no racialist in his right mind would water down his own race, yet, on the other hand the racialist Anglo Southerners continued to import millions of threats to their ethnic identity, thus being forced to enact laws to protect it. What racialist in his right mind would do this? Was Hitler importing Jews and other non-aryans to live and work amongst the Germans? Not exactly. Again, you fail to comprehend history.

Now, explain the reasons why the culturalist Latins enslaved Natives and Africans. If it wasn't because of racially superior claims, then what could it be? Because they were culturally inferior? If so, then why didn't the Latins just enslave the Anglos who you claim have no culture? Why go to Africa and the Americas for slaves when they just could have gone next door and plucked out all the uncultured drones they would ever need? Why don't you answer Randy Paul's prescient question concerning Argentina? He has posed it twice now. Is this yet another example of facts not fitting with your theories?

I have had to wonder why someone would be so intent in the pursuit of such theories, in lieu of facts. In this case, it appears to be personal. I think what lies at the heart of Hombre's lies, I mean theories, is an intense desire for the affection of women. He has alluded to it before, several times, and I don't think he was kidding, Randy Paul, when he said he wants to grow up to be just like you and have a Brasilian babe as a wife. It all makes sense now. It seems he blames the "racialist" Anglos of North America for the cold and ambiguous nature of his fellow Anglo-female-Australians. This may explain his near hysterics in a post condemning America's racial problems, as if Latin America doesn't have racial problems, and how Americans should be aware of how we affect people even on the other side of the planet. American-Anglo racialism apparently is an obstacle to him finding dates, or so Hombre dreams. His so-called theory seems to have developed after his trip to South America where he noted that Brasilian women continued to give him the eye even AFTER he removed his knee brace, and despite a noticeable hobble. In his eyes, only a "culturalist" could be attracted to a man of African descent with a hobble, not the fact they most likely could tell he was foreign. But it is obvious Hombre has never given much credence to facts.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 12:51:57

Message:
To say nothing of his ignoring my question as to the origin of the word ghetto, Portugal's brutal history in Africa, his historically inaccurate comments regarding French treatment of the Jews and unfounded criticism of the Danes during WW II.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 13:13:47

Message:

> But it is obvious Hombre has never given much credence to facts.

And this is the story, both simple and clear, of why no one gives credence to Hombre here.

"Strawberries, anyone?"

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 21:30:48

Message:
Ha-ha... Youse are funny. Facts! Facts! You silly people. Do you think I should don my white lab coat, go into a scientific laboratary, with my test tubes and bunsen burner, and not come out until I've EMPIRICALLY "proved" my observations to be true? Silly people. We're not talking about the boiling point of water or whatever, here, fellas. And about facts -- the facts are plain for everyone to see! It's just a matter of interpreting correctly the facts -- a posteriori reasoning, you nincompoops! (in the wilful sense, of coarse)

And about women??? Mate, obviously you've never been to Australia. The "cold and ambiguous nature of his fellow Anglo-female-Australians" has nothing to do with North Americans. It has everything to do with not being in posession of a deluxe feminity, of which Latin women seem to be in posession. To Australian women, the negrito represents the beau ideal of the male sex -- so I just don't think, mate, that I'd have any trouble finding any "dates" over here in the antipodes. Maybe that'd be the case in your apparently mestizo-inundated society, but not over here, buddy. So pull the other one. And, no, that doesn't disprove any of my observations ,'cos it doesn't have anything to do with what we've been talking about.

Now am I expected to answer all your questions? Because if I do, you'll dismiss me as being "verbose" again. What to do...? And besides, I'm wondering what the point would be: you clearly understand what am saying, it's just that you don't like what you're hearing.

I guess I'll risk being "verbose" and answer just a few. Man, I suppose the existence of Randy Paul's niece's son means I might have well built my observations from the same mud-bricks as the wall of Jericho. If only I'd gone to America and seen Mr Paul's niece's third-cousin's distant uncles step son, then I wouldn't have come to such wild and unfounded conclusions.

And I suppose, Mr Paul, that there are not Afro-Argentinians for the same reason that there are no Afro-Scandinavians. Duh! (with all due respect).

"Therefore, I believe we should do as much as we can to keep Hombre tied to this thread, at least until he passes his prime, if he should ever have one." Man, I knew that deep down in your heart of hearts y'all really love me. Now don't be shy, Nadelstich, you don't have to disguise it that way. Just say you want me to stay forever -- go on! :-) It gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling, believe me...

In all seriosness, I think we've all gone way off coarse here. I just meant to talk of Brazil's potential in terms of cultural influence. You're treating it as if I'm on some sort of jihad against America. You think that I'm saying morenosisation is, ipso facto, good. And you seem to think I'm saying that lack of this in America makes Americans, ipso facto, evil. You therefore point out the atrocities Portugal or the French committed. But I'm not saying that. I'm not saying Americans are bad people or that Latins are morally superior or whatever. I have consistently denied this. Yet you guys insist of looking at it in this manner and being very defensive. My primary concern is with Brazil's future cultural influence and not so much with America. Get back on track, people.

One last answer: "Thus they believed not that they were "watering their own race down" but uplifting a race that was otherwise incapable of uplift on its own. Sound good to you, Hombre?" Sounds culturalist to me, actually. It's not a matter of good or bad, but culturalist or racialist.

But congratulations to you all for being more prepared to make an attempt at answering the question. Give yourselves a pat on the back.



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 22:26:48

Message:
>"then why didn't the Latins just enslave the Anglos who you claim have no culture? Why go to Africa and the Americas for slaves when they just could have gone next door and plucked out all the uncultured drones they would ever need?"

They would have if they could have, but the couldn't so they didn't.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 22:43:19

Message:

>"I have . . . nothing (that I know of) of the pygmy"

You are mistaken.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 23:00:29

Message:
Is that meant to be offensive? Is there something wrong with pygmies? Hmmm. Besides, I don't know of many six-foot-tall pygmies...(actually, five feet and eleven inches -- but who's counting!)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 03:25:27

Message:
I'll make myself clear.

What I started off talking about was the matter of cultural influence. I referred to America because that country at the moment determines and dispenses the global culture. I gave my reasons for why I believe this to be the case: the existence of the so-called African-American population together with the massive wealth of the nation. Japan's cultural influence, for example, is not commensurate with her wealth because she does not posess an ounce of ebullience, joie de vivre, culture, whatever you wanna call it, and therefore her cultural attraction is very limited. I therefore surmised that the qualities that made the so-called African-Americans crucial in making American culture attractive are in abundant existence in Brazil. Brazil not only has the vigorous ebullience of their African population but the joie de vivre of the Latin population to complement this, resulting in what is, to say the least, a potent mix. All that is missing in the equation is the second contributing factor to cultural hegemony: massive wealth. This is sure to come in time. My problem, then, is the concern over the manner this influence might take -- whether it will be an edifying influence or whether it will be a degrading one.

I wasn't out to condemn America. I wasn't out to present non-Latins as morally inferior -- culturally inferior, yes, but morally inferior, definitely not! Pointing out Portuguese atrocities or whatever is therefore extraneous. I was just interested in the future of Brazil and therefore, by extention, the future affecting me and future generations. Chill.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 06:44:46

Message:

>I'll make myself clear.

I'll bet a quart of strawberries that your problems here have less to do with your clarity than they have to do with your transparency.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 07:00:39

Message:
>And I suppose, Mr Paul, that there are not Afro-Argentinians for the same reason that there are no Afro-Scandinavians. Duh! (with all due respect).

Wrong yet again. There is a significant Afro-Uruguayan population. There were also black slaves in Argentina.

In "The Idea of Race in Latin America" (edited by Richard Graham there is an article by Dr. Aline Helg (an expert on race relations in Latin America - something you consistently demonstrate that you are not). Here is what she wrote about Afro-Argentinians:

"The blacks, centered in Buenos Aires had composed 25 percent of the capital's population in 1838, but had dropped to 2 percent by 1887."

To my knowledge, Afro-Scandinavians never comprised 25% of Stockholm's population. If you have any independent evidence to the contrary, please present it. If not, kindly acknowledge your arrogant and presumptuous mistake.

She goes on to write:

"Reduced to an invisible minority, blacks were further pushed aside by newcomers ready to start their upward mobility from lower urban positions. Afro-Argentinians remained in professios requiring Argentinian citizenship, such as the armed forces and lower-level civil service, or as washerwomen and musicians. They were discriminated against, but no specific policy was designed for this end."

So much for race not entering into the Latin social mentality. Come back when you want to debate with the adults and can actually back up your claims for a change.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 13:05:30

Message:
>And I suppose, Mr Paul, that there are not Afro-Argentinians for the same reason that there are no Afro-Scandinavians. Duh! (with all due respect).

What I also find so revealing about that statement is the fact that, like so much of what you write, it is based on your own perceptions and not one shred of evidence.

>And about facts -- the facts are plain for everyone to see! It's just a matter of interpreting correctly the facts -- a posteriori reasoning, you nincompoops! (in the wilful sense, of coarse)

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Carolina
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 19:51:03

Message:
I just think I should add my comment here. I am Brazilian and must admit that I get very embarrassed just by thinking that other countries will see mine as a place where women walk and live on their daily lives naked or half-naked. I have a lot of Brazilian friends who think the same way, and we all discuss how distorted the vision can become, due to how the media presents Carnival to other countries. It is important to mention that there are many Brazilians who dislike this type of hedonistic behavior. We really live in a tropical country where people feel "more free" regarding sexuality, ways of wearing (depending on the region, mind you. The South is much more conservative in this regard). But that does not mean that there are Brazilians who wish Carnival was not shown as "the sex paradise."
I agree that women here are very beautiful. I am very young and could perfectly show my body in Carnival parades, as well as many of my friends in college. Instead, we enjoy Carnival holiday as much as everybody else, but we do not see the point in doing so by getting naked.

It is also important to mention that here in Brazil many girls see their being naked in parades as a way of getting famous, becoming actresses... there are lot of interests in this kind of Carnival, and that is why it is not going to change.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Carolina
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 19:51:42

Message:
I just think I should add my comment here. I am Brazilian and must admit that I get very embarrassed just by thinking that other countries will see mine as a place where women walk and live on their daily lives naked or half-naked. I have a lot of Brazilian friends who think the same way, and we all discuss how distorted the vision can become, due to how the media presents Carnival to other countries. It is important to mention that there are many Brazilians who dislike this type of hedonistic behavior. We really live in a tropical country where people feel "more free" regarding sexuality, ways of wearing (depending on the region, mind you. The South is much more conservative in this regard). But that does not mean that there are Brazilians who wish Carnival was not shown as "the sex paradise."
I agree that women here are very beautiful. I am very young and could perfectly show my body in Carnival parades, as well as many of my friends in college. Instead, we enjoy Carnival holiday as much as everybody else, but we do not see the point in doing so by getting naked.

It is also important to mention that here in Brazil many girls see their being naked in parades as a way of getting famous, becoming actresses... there are lot of interests in this kind of Carnival, and that is why it is not going to change.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Carolina
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 19:52:58

Message:
I just think I should add my comment here. I am Brazilian and must admit that I get very embarrassed just by thinking that other countries will see mine as a place where women walk and live on their daily lives naked or half-naked. I have a lot of Brazilian friends who think the same way, and we all discuss how distorted the vision can become, due to how the media presents Carnival to other countries. It is important to mention that there are many Brazilians who dislike this type of hedonistic behavior. We really live in a tropical country where people feel "more free" regarding sexuality, ways of wearing (depending on the region, mind you. The South is much more conservative in this regard). But that does not mean that there are Brazilians who wish Carnival was not shown as "the sex paradise."
I agree that women here are very beautiful. I am very young and could perfectly show my body in Carnival parades, as well as many of my friends in college. Instead, we enjoy Carnival holiday as much as everybody else, but we do not see the point in doing so by getting naked.

It is also important to mention that here in Brazil many girls see their being naked in parades as a way of getting famous, becoming actresses... there are lot of interests in this kind of Carnival, and that is why it is not going to change.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 21:28:42

Message:
Thankyou for your helfpful comment, Carolina; and I'm glad to hear that what appears to be the debauchery of carnaval might not be the universal case in Brazil. But I wonder if you can help me: I'm being overrun here by the barbarian hordes. What do you think, Carolina, is the reason why the physical composition of Brazilians, and indeed many Latin Americans, is the way it is -- that is, mainly a mixture of African, Indian and European -- and the opposite is the case in the United States where, after having lived together for hundreds of years like the Latins, a composite Anglo-Saxon moreno population is nowhere to be seen (except for Randy Paul's niece's son). I'd like the opinion of an actual Latin, for a change.

A significant Afro-Uruguayan population? What -- one percent? Mr Paul, you may present, to disprove me, the "facts" of Argentina, but I can riposte with the blatant facts of Mexico, Gaetemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama, Venzuela, Colombia, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Chile... Get the idea? You can continue clutching at straws, Mr Paul, or you can recognise that I'm right (as you all are uncomfortably aware of I know) and continue doing whatever you were doing beforehand. Racialism -- at least this is what I believe -- ain't all that, anyway. I personally wouldn't fight for it.

"The Idea of Race in Latin America"? And who wrote these books -- Latins? If they understood Latin culture, would they still remain non-Latin? Personally, I don't respect the opinions of unqualified poeple. Look instead to the likes of Gilberto Freyre et.al. rather than to the racialists -- unless, of coarse, one doesn't want to be challenged and prefers instead only to receive a panegyric to one's racialistic presuppositions and nothing else. Just because something's published in some leftist book doesn't mean that it's true or accurate. If we were to regard the opinions of some obscure humanities academics with elbow patches as representing gospel truth -- then we'd be in a whole lot of bother!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 23:19:22

Message:

>a composite Anglo-Saxon moreno population is nowhere to be seen.

Oh, yes it is. It is to be seen everywhere in the mulattos of the United States -- quadroons, octoroons, etc...

By the way, Hombre, would you care to enlighten your readers as to the derivation of the "Anglo-Saxon" term "quadroon?" For that matter, give a go to "mulatto" while you're at it.

If you're able to handle that, climb the highest mountain. Explain why "culturalist" peoples find a need for such a precision of "racialist" expression.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 23:55:28

Message:
Give it a break, Nadelstich! You fully know what I mean so quit prevaricating already!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick of Hombre
On Thursday, March 14, 2002 at 00:16:00

Message:
"Racialism -- at least this is what I believe -- ain't all that, anyway. I personally wouldn't fight for it."

Haha. This is YOUR term, not ours. YOU are the only one fighting for it and defending it. The rest of us do not believe in it. We have all argued that racism is inherent in ALL cultures, not just the ones we don't like.

"Personally, I don't respect the opinions of unqualified poeple."

You really said a mouthful there. Apparently, you clearly understand why you are "being overrun here by the barbarian hordes", as you put it. You also must understand how we feel about you. We don't respect you for the very reason you cited above. And that is, you have proven to us, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are unqualified to speak competently on these issues, let alone any issue.

"...unless, of coarse, one doesn't want to be challenged and prefers instead only to receive a panegyric to one's racialistic presuppositions and nothing else."

You truly are funny. Substitute "culturalistic" for "racialistic" and you will see what you practice with every post.

"Just because something's published in some leftist book doesn't mean that it's true or accurate."

Funny you say that, here is a statement of yours from a February 23rd post:

"Then I was reading a book for uni (university) by that African Marxist Professor Ali Mazrui, and he mentioned in passing the reason for the difference in physical appearance between Anglo-Saxon Americans and Latin Americans. The reason was -- he only mentioned this very much in passing -- that the Anglo-Saxons emphasised race in identity while the Latins emphasised culture. Now why would these people think in such differing ways, I wondered."

In your world, which I believe you comprise the entire population, are Marxists no longer considered to be on the left wing of the political spectrum? However, I can't blame you for not taking your own advice, I would never consider it either.



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, March 14, 2002 at 01:26:42

Message:
Sicko, old buddy, old mate! Good to see you back! Always in the thick of things, eh? I'd expect someone like you to be with the special forces over in Afghanistan or something, not wasting your time here with the other wimps on the forum (they haven't called the Military Police yet so that's my excuse). So what have you got for me today, eh?

>We have all argued that racism is inherent in ALL cultures, not just the ones we don't like.

I have been careful throughout to distinguish between racism and racialism. Obviously you haven't been paying attention, Sicko. Probably explains why y'all have been so philippic in your contributions. Australians, for example, are racialists but are not really a racist people. Feel better now?

>that you are unqualified to speak competently on these issues, let alone any issue.

Fair dinkum??? You know, I'm PRETTY sure that y'all grab the gist of what I'm saying and know me to be right. You just, for some inexplicable reason, don't like being disabused and would rather hang on to your chimerical world view.

>Funny you say that, here is a statement of yours from a February 23rd post:

Mate, if a Marxist told me that the president of the United States is George W. Bush, I wouldn't treat that information as apocryphal. If a Marxist said that Brasilia is the capital of Brazil, again, I wouldn't reject that. Not everything that issues out of a Marxist's mouth (or pen) is, ipso facto, incorrect. It's just when they start giving opinions built on Marxist presuppositions, such as the Marxist interpretation of history, their interpretation of ontology, metaphysics or economics etc. that you know to take with a pinch of salt the pronouncements of these godless materialists. Race (insofar as there is such a think) is just another cog in the Marxist world view which apparently confirms their dialectic of perpetual and inevitable class (or in this case, race) warfare, until, that is, history reaches its inevitable crescendo and the blood of the bourgeois oppressors (or "white" oppressors, whatever the case may be) are overthrown and...you know the rest. So I don't take too kindly to the obscure books of tenured academics who have a generally left-wing view of the world, which means, by defintion, a world view which represents a tenuous grip on reality (turn that around all you like, you imaginative things). I believed Ali Mazrui because he was correct; and the fact that he is a Marxist was immaterial in this case. Mazrui also maintains that Nairobi is the capital of his homeland Kenya. I believe him.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick of Hombre
On Thursday, March 14, 2002 at 03:20:03

Message:
Mate, if a Hombreist told me that the president of the United States is George W. Bush, I wouldn't treat that information as apocryphal. If a Hombreist said that Brasilia is the capital of Brazil, again, I wouldn't reject that. Not everything that issues out of a Hombreist's mouth (or computer keyboard) is, ipso facto, incorrect. It's just when they start giving opinions built on Hombreist presuppositions, such as the Hombreist interpretation of history, their interpretation of chickology, racialistics or morenonomics etc. that you know to take with a pinch of salt the pronouncements of these mindless right wing nuts who quote Marxists on things said in passing. Race (insofar as there is such a think) is just another cog in the Hombreist world view which apparently confirms their dialectic of perpetual and inevitable circular arguments (or in this case, ignorance) warfare, until, that is, history reaches its inevitable crescendo and the blood of the racialist oppressors (or "those lacking joie de vivre", whatever the case may be) are overthrown and...you know the rest. So I don't take too kindly to the obscure comments of self-annointed condescending asses who have a generally unrealistic view of the world, which means, by defintion, a world view which represents a tenuous grip on reality [Amen!](turn that around all you like, you imaginative things [I just did.]). I believed El Hombre because he was correct in not rooting any of his arguments in reality; and the fact that he is a Hombreist was immaterial in this case. El Hombre also maintains that there should be standardized moral values, lest the world succumb to the moral relativists, yet, at the same time acknowleding that people around the world think differently (he may have actually stated a fact in this instance) thus allowing He, El Hombre, to interpret words, concepts and history to suit his own needs, and we all must follow in lock step, because He, El Hombre, is a Hombreist. I believe him.

That was so easy. I did digress at the end though for a reason.

"I have been careful throughout to distinguish between racism and racialism."

That my friend, is what is known as a distinction without a difference. Yet another convenient use of language to give credence to fantasies.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, March 14, 2002 at 03:28:45

Message:
I appreciate wit -- that was very good. The English disparagement of the American sense of humour is evidently unfounded.

Here's some more material for you to work with:

Because I think so little of Marxist thinking, I don't waste my time reading their material.

;-)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Thursday, March 14, 2002 at 06:47:38

Message:

William Jennings Bryan: I don’t think about things I don’t think about.

Clarence Darrow: Do you think about the things you DO think about?

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Thursday, March 14, 2002 at 08:58:30

Message:
>I have been careful throughout to distinguish between racism and racialism.

Every dictionary I have consulted (Cambridge, OED, Websters Collegiate) states that racialism means racism so this distinction apparently only exists in your mind.

>, but I can riposte with the blatant facts of Mexico, Gaetemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama, Venzuela, Colombia, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Chile...

En sus sueños, em seus sonhos! What “facts?” You present only your opinion as fact. The fact that there are mestizo and other mixed race populations in this countries does not prove that racism is not part of the Latin mindset. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard “Indio estupido” in countries like Guatamela, Mexico and Venezuela. I cannot tell you how many times in Brazil and in the Cuban/Colombian community I grew up in Miami how many times I have heard racial epithets for Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Cubans and Afro-Colombians by their own countrymen.

Do you know what they call an Indian in Guatemala who has attempted to assimilate?

>"The Idea of Race in Latin America"? And who wrote these books -- Latins? If they understood Latin culture, would they still remain non-Latin? Personally, I don't respect the opinions of unqualified poeple.

Yet you refer to Ali Mazrui, an African as the source for your initial views as to racism and Latins. I can smell your hypocrisy all the way here in New York. By your very statement as a non-Latin you are “unqualified.”

The people who wrote those books are scholars who have devoted their lives to research in the history and culture of Latin America and have probably forgotten more than you will ever know on the subject of race in Latin America. They have also spent more than six weeks in latin America.

Grow up.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Thursday, March 14, 2002 at 09:00:32

Message:
By the way, Carolina, you are absolutely right about carnival. My wife is from Minas Gerais, which is also a fairly conservative state.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Thursday, March 14, 2002 at 22:59:24

Message:

Below is an excerpt of a 1991 article by Lourdes Teodoro. It has something of an anti-Hombresque tint to it, but I trust he will find a way to rationalise it to support his theory of non-racialistic, happy moreno-harmony in the ebullient lands of the "burnt white" and "cinnamon" Latins.

"This ‘whiter than white’ ideology is all pervasive. For example, the 1980 census required blacks to fit themselves into one of 136 colour categories - including ‘burnt white’, ‘toasted’ and ‘cinnamon’. There has been some progress in the last decade. The 1991 census reduced the options to five - white, black, pardo (mixed race), Asiatic or Indian. Brazil’s black movement (which has been growing since the independence of African countries in the 1960s and 70s) played a vanguard role in suggesting that anyone with black genes should identify themselves as black. Mulato voce e’ negro - ‘if you are mulatto, you are black’ was their slogan."

It is clear that the question of racism in Brazil is at least as simple as 136 shades of grey.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by braslvr
On Friday, March 15, 2002 at 07:46:23

Message:
"PS: By the way, Sicko, it seems you keep trying to single out the Southerners as if they're some kind of different
species of Anglo-Saxon."

My God. If you don't think they are, then you have absolutely no clue about America, and this one statement by you reduces your credibility to 0.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by braslvr
On Friday, March 15, 2002 at 07:46:35

Message:
"PS: By the way, Sicko, it seems you keep trying to single out the Southerners as if they're some kind of different
species of Anglo-Saxon."

My God. If you don't think they are, then you have absolutely no clue about America, and this one statement by you reduces your credibility to 0.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 15, 2002 at 22:23:23

Message:
>Every dictionary I have consulted (Cambridge, OED, Websters Collegiate) states that racialism means racism so this distinction apparently only exists in your mind.

Language is evolving, my dear fellow. Consult a dictionary of the 1940s, for example, and you'll find that all the definitions of the word "gay" have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality. How did that happen? Besides, I first heard that word racialism used to convey a meaning distinct from racism from Enoch Powell, a well known British politician of the post-war years, when he was referring to his famous (or infamous) "rivers of blood" speech. But here's the Oxford Concise English Dictionary defintion of "racial": "1 of or relating to a race. 2 (of a person) relating to relations or differences between races". Now if a multi-racial (insofar as such classifications are valid) society evidences marriage patterns that occur assiduosly along racial lines, then isn't it reasonable to classify such a people as being "racial" in their outlook, since they seem to emphasise in their relations between each other "differences between races"? And isn't a derivative of the word racial "racialist", for what would you call a person who is racial? And wouldn't the contrasting marriage patterns of the Latin people evidence at least a less racial (or racialistic) world view than that of, say, the Anglo Saxons? If it makes you feel any better, instead of classifying y'all "racialists", I can call you "racial people". Don't make no difference to me, but. By the way, I'm sure you'll also find in the English dictionaries the word neologism.

>Yet you refer to Ali Mazrui, an African as the source for your initial views as to racism and Latins. I can smell your hypocrisy all the way here in New York.

The dramatic difference in physical composition between the Anglo-Saxon and Latin American had always been a question that had been in the back of my mind; not as a burning question but simply something that I fleetingly wondered about once in a while. Ali Mazrui alerted me to the possibility of the existence of a culturalist/racialist dichotomy to explain this conundrum, and this was later confirmed by other Latins themselves, such as that Hispanic academic Klor de Silva whom I mentioned earlier. It made sense; and that is why I took the ball, as it were, and run with it. You see, without this appreciation of the culturalist mindset, I would have simply assumed such people as the Southerners in the United States to be historically bad people. But now I realised that they were not bad at all but simply a people who have been stuck between a rock and a hard place -- like the Dutch and Anglo-Saxons in South Africa.

>By your very statement as a non-Latin you are “unqualified.”

But I AM Latin, Mr Paul.

>The people who wrote those books are scholars who have devoted their lives to research in the history and culture of Latin America and have probably forgotten more than you will ever know on the subject of race in Latin America.

So it's not a matter of "facts" but THEIR opinions over my opinions, Mr Paul? Is that the case? Are you talking, by the way, about empiricism in the strictly scientific sense, where one engages in controlled experiments in a laboratary, experiments which are repeatable and whose methods are documented for peer review and corraboration? Should I first get my bunsen burner, gauze, test tubes and lab coat, Mr Paul, before I offer my comments? The people you cite are socialogists; and socialigy, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge, is not an exact science, to say the least. You present the opinions of some socialogist as (one assumes) empirical fact, while at the same time you reject my observations as opinion. You're getting mighty confused, if I may say so, Mr Paul. Perhaps it's because I don't wear elbow patches that you're having trouble accepting what I say. Throughout this I've presented my observations and my reasoning a posteriori. Why you insist on thinking that the requirements of scientific empirism should apply in this case, I don't know. Darwin's "Origin of Species", for example, has nothing to do with scientific empiricism. Nothing Darwin says can be observed or repeated in a controlled situation, it cannot be proved empirically. What he does is build conjecture upon conjecture. And I'm sure you don't reject his theory, Mr Paul, just because it is not empirical. Whereas me, what I say is plain for everyone to see, and I give reasons, a posteriori, as to why I believe things are the way they are. You just don't like what you're hearing, that's all.

But what is YOUR explanation, Mr Paul, for the dramatically different physical composition of Latin Americans as opposed to Anglo-Saxon Americans? You can digress all you like and talk about "racism" till the cows come home, but that doesn't give an explanation for what is blatantly clear for all to see. Surely you'll acknowledge this palpable contrast in physical appearance, Mr Paul, surely. Can you offer an explanation for this, sir?

>My God. If you don't think they are, then you have absolutely no clue about America, and this one statement by you reduces your credibility to

So what are you saying about Mr Randy Paul -- is he that different from you? Does he have a tail or an extra eye or something?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Saturday, March 16, 2002 at 07:53:27

Message:

Language "evolves" every time Hombre gets caught misusing a word. But if Hombre can arrogate to himself the right to evolve a word whenever he has a need to dodge its meaning, do we not, fellow posters, have just as much right to change it back? It is apparent that Hombre is not a Latin after all. He can not fit into any of the 136 color categories with any consistency. Like the chameleon, he changes his colors to suit his arguments. Like the troll, he IS a troll. : )

However, there is a silver lining. His presence here affords us a certain rhetorical convenience, and fine fodder for the joyous irreverence of mischievous quipsters. Enjoy! : )

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick of Hombre
On Saturday, March 16, 2002 at 08:05:39

Message:
Again, we have given you our facts, which are duly documented, as to the development of the racial make up of North and South America. (By the way, these two continents developed quite differently for many different reasons, more key facts you seem to not be able to consider.) Facts based on primary sources, as they are called, ship logs, eyewitness accounts, documented laws, etc. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing, except comments that have been made in passing and such. Nothing you have said counters our facts. Nothing you have said gives an ounce of credence to your contention that Latins are culturalist and not racialist, to use your terms. Our facts prove otherwise.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick of Hombre
On Saturday, March 16, 2002 at 08:56:28

Message:
O Homem, I couldn't agree more. This is all becoming redundant. I say we move on to other topics until Hombre states his case in a more cogent form. I will not hold my breath.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Saturday, March 16, 2002 at 12:20:54

Message:
> Now if a multi-racial (insofar as such classifications are valid) society evidences marriage patterns that occur assiduosly along racial lines, then isn't it reasonable to classify such a people as being "racial" in their outlook, since they seem to emphasise in their relations between each other "differences between races"? >And isn't a derivative of the word racial "racialist", for what would you call a person who is racial? And wouldn't the contrasting marriage patterns of the Latin people evidence at least a less racial (or racialistic) world view than that of, say, the Anglo Saxons? If it makes you feel any better, instead of classifying y'all "racialists", I can call you "racial people". Don't make no difference to me, but. By the way, I'm sure you'll also find in the English dictionaries the word neologism.

Again the distinction between racialism and racism exists only in your mind. Of course language is evolving; what you are trying to do is deform it. I know what a neologism is. All you are trying to do is create one. Good luck, you're going to need it.

>Australians, for example, are racialists but are not really a racist people. Feel better now?

Try telling that to the Aborigine children torn from their parents years ago to be raised by whites. For what it's worth, I do not believe that any one ethnic group is racist or racialist. Whether you are racist or not usually depends on your upbringing and your level of exposure to other races.

For example, I grew up in Alabama, Florida, georgia and Tennessee. The first integrated public school I attended in the USA was in the eighth grade in Alabama. My family, going back several generations, was not racist. Indeed, we formed our opinions about people on a number of criteria and ethnic physical characteristics never entered into it.

I have lived in New York for 22 years and I would make the argument that I have seen more racism in the northeast US than I ever saw in the southern US. I also acknowledge that a great deal of racism exists in the southern US nonetheless. I would also make the argument that Boston may be one of the cities with the greatest problems regarding race in the US.

In my opinion, (please note that unlike you I qualify my statements) the change that has taken place in the south and the problems that exist in a number of cities such as Boston and Chicago is the fact that whether a white person in the south liked or detested African-American people as a group, they encountered them on a daily basis. As my generation started to go to school with African-Americans once the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education became the law of the land, and inter-racial socialization became the norm, tolerance and acceptance grew. Boston is still a city divided strongly along ethnic lines: predominantly Italian-American neighborhoods, Irish-American neighborhoods and African-American neighborhoods. A quarter century ago major riots took place over busing to achieve integration in Boston.

What I have found so absolutely asinine (and in fact, racist and racialist) about your argument is that you seem to base your entire argument on skin color of latins as a determinant. You ignore social class which is an equally important factor in Latin American society.

Let me give you a concrete example. My Brazilian sister-in-law's Brazilian husband, Lúcio (his family is thoroughly Brazilian back to the 16th century) is racist. His parents live in a small town in Minas Gerais called Santa Bárbara. One of the most successful residents of Santa Bárbara is an Afro-Brazilian attorney who owns a beautiful hotel, a lucrative law practice and a couple of small businesses in the city. When I spent time in the town and was advised as to his story, I expressed admiration for his success. I was cautioned by virtually everyone I encountered (white and moreno) that he was a thief and corrupt. I asked what he done wrong and was told that the fact that he was black and successful as he was, could not have been achieved without dishonesty. If that is not racist, I do not know what is. So even though this person financially has ascended to the peaks of society, his race has made others suspicious.

By the way, I did several searches with Google and Alta Vista for this De Klor Silva person and got zero hits. Does he exist?

It has often been believed (whether it is true or not is another matter) that due to the paucity of female settlers in the white settlement of South Africa, that many descendants of these settlers have varying levels of indigenous African ancestry. If this were the case, why is Eugene Ter Blanche such a racist? Would he be different if his name were Eugénio Terra Branca?

>But I AM Latin, Mr Paul.

Then explain this:

>Originally hailing from East Africa,

Do you need a geography lesson. What nationality is the surname Gashumba, oh great man of mystery?

>But what is YOUR explanation, Mr Paul, for the dramatically different physical composition of Latin Americans as opposed to Anglo-Saxon Americans? You can digress all you like and talk about "racism" till the cows come home, but that doesn't give an explanation for what is blatantly clear for all to see. Surely you'll acknowledge this palpable contrast in physical appearance, Mr Paul, surely. Can you offer an explanation for this, sir?

You love to generalize. I'll try typing slowly so that you understand. I have seen plenty of blond blue-eyed Latinos. One, in fact, lives next door to me here in Jackson Heights, NY. She is Colmbian and her surname is Ulloa. I have seen blonde blue-eyed Latinos in Venezuela, Guatemala, Mexico, and Brazil. I'm sure that I would see even more if I went to Argentina.

Those scholars yuo impugn, by the way, are historians. They look at a society in all its facets over the span of a number of years, not just the color of the skin of its inhabitants. They also form their conclusions after sifting through the evidence before them. It certainly appears that you form your conclusions first and grasp for evidence - however flimsy, faulty or self-serving - to support your conclusions

Indeed, as I mentioned before, the fact of intermarriage does not mean that "mindset of the Latins does not predispose them to making distinctions on the basis of race." Your illogic is as fallacious as this faulty syllogism:

"Cats have hair. My brother has hair, therefore my brother is a cat."

Since you ignored this question: "Do you know what they call an Indian in Guatemala who has attempted to assimilate?", I will answer it for you. They call them ladino. Why, because he has turned his back on his Indian society, yet he will never be accepted by the Creole (European and mestizo) society precisely because he is Indian. of course you would think that this has nothing to do with race and only with culture, when common sense would tell you it has everything to do with both.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Saturday, March 16, 2002 at 12:23:30

Message:
O Homem and Sick of Hombre:

I think that we have been misinterpreting El Hombre. When he writes about "morenoing", I think that what he actually means is "moroning", making everyone else's discourse as thoroughly moronic as his.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Saturday, March 16, 2002 at 22:21:04

Message:

With his disdain for history, Hombre is doomed to repeat it. Perhaps, even as a purported African, Hombre thinks himself an "honorary Latin" in the same way the noted "culturalist," Adolf Hitler, considered his Japanese allies "honorary Aryans."

Indeed, one can hope this thread turns into a "neologistic" free-for-all. I should like to submit my own candidate: "Hombrearrhea," a condition which is amply defined by the nature of Hombre’s own posts.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002 at 01:17:34

Message:
For someone who's so "Sick of Hombre", you hang around quite a bit. Maybe you should change your name to "Can't Get Enough of Hombre".

>O Homem, I couldn't agree more. This is all becoming redundant. I say we move on to other topics until Hombre states his case in a more cogent form. I will not hold my breath.

Fellas, be my guests -- leave and explore "other topics". You don't have to believe me. You don't have to be here. I'm sure there's plenty of other interesting, long threads on this forum to which you can contribute. Don't let me hold you back, guys... Bye-bye.

>I do not believe that any one ethnic group is racist or racialist.

Okay, do you believe that some groups base their sense of identity more on race than do other groups? Let's get away from this "racist" stuff if we can. And moreover, could an "upbringing, as you say, in Puerto Rico, for example, determine a different outlook to that of someone brought up in, say, Alabama? Also, do you believe that the Germans and Austrians were more anti-Semitic (or anti-Jewish) than, say, your beloved Danes?

>My family, going back several generations, was not racist. Indeed, we formed our opinions about people on a number of criteria and ethnic physical characteristics never entered into it.

Were they race-concious in their marriage patterns? The point being, it is not a bad thing that they did discriminate in their marriage patterns but that they did discriminate along such lines in the first place. This would indicate a racial (or more racial or race-based) outlook than that of, say, Colombians. Discrimination, by the way, isn't in and of itself a bad thing, for we all do it 24/7. It is, rather, unfair discrimination which we all find rather disagreeble, wouldn't you agree?

>You ignore social class which is an equally important factor in Latin American society.

Relevance? I was merely speaking of the future cultural influence of Brazil and by way of explanation mentioned that a less race-conscious mindset is an indication of culture while a race-obsessed mindset evidences lack of culture. I never talked about class and I'm not sure what it has to do with anything.

>Let me give you a concrete example. My Brazilian sister-in-law's Brazilian husband, Lúcio (his family is thoroughly Brazilian back to the 16th century) is racist. His parents live in a small town in Minas Gerais called Santa Bárbara. One of the most successful residents of Santa Bárbara is an Afro-Brazilian attorney who owns a beautiful hotel, a lucrative law practice and a couple of small businesses in the city. When I spent time in the town and was advised as to his story, I expressed admiration for his success. I was cautioned by virtually everyone I encountered (white and moreno) that he was a thief and corrupt. I asked what he done wrong and was told that the fact that he was black and successful as he was, could not have been achieved without dishonesty. If that is not racist, I do not know what is. So even though this person financially has ascended to the peaks of society, his race has made others suspicious.

First of all let me tell you that to me, actions speak louder than words. Much louder. Always. So if a society is predominantly moreno, where much or most of its population has a mixture of Indian, African and European physical charachteristics, then all these anecdotes of yours become a bit redundant. If I say that I am a pacifist to the extreme extent and could not harm a fly, but while I'm saying this I am dressed in combat fatigues, with massive combat boots, an AK-47 slung across my back, and am in the process of hacking open the stomach of a pregnant woman to reveal the foetus with a machete and deriving enjoyment from my actions -- would my words be carrying any weight. Of course not. I would be talking the talk but not walking the walk, right? How seriously do you, Mr Paul, take people who talk the talk but don't walk the walk? They're hardly believable are they? You see, you and your people walk the walk of people who base their sense of identity on race but seemingly try to talk the talk of people who don't. Let's forget about this whole "racism"/"racialism" thing and concentrate on race-based identity, as was the original intent. The vast majority of people in places like Brazil not only talk the talk but walk the walk of people who base their sense of identity on culture and are therefore not as race-conscious as your people. Assuming you've interpreted his actions and comments correctly, how does Lucio reconcile his comments with the physical reality of the majority of his countrymen if his comments do not represent an aberration? I say "interpreted correctly" because I've seen countless examples of just that type of mistake here. If you asked an average Aussie whether there is much discrimination here, they'd reply quite emphatically in the affirmative. But what will not be established, of course, is that it'a all quite relative: "compared to whom?" should be the question. I knew this girl who was from Ghana but had grown up here in Australia and was of the opinion that racial discrimination against her was almost normal and everyday. But since she hadn't lived in any other country before coming from Ghana to Australia, she had no way of comparing this apparent racism with that of other places. The reality, which I of coarse realised, is that there is little to no chance of her experiencing any racial discrimination here in Australia because, one, she constitutes too small a minority to even matter and, two, Aussies aren't really the discriminating type anyway, as they exercise (together with the Kiwis, of course) an unnaturally strong commitment to the concept of fairness. The point is, misunderstandings can occur over the import of words and meanings conveyed. For example, calling someone a "negrito" in Latin America is a term of endearment, whereas the same word taken and translated to English is more often than not considered derogatory. Try going around in your country, Mr Paul, and referring to your fellow countrymen using that word translated into English. It immediately carries a totally different meaning and will evoke a totally different response, right? Now I wonder why that might be the case...?

>I expressed admiration for his success.

Why?

>If that is not racist, I do not know what is.

Well what if it was true, Mr Paul. What if it was true that he was a crook and that that was generally the case for people like him? But I think, Mr Paul, that you're missing the point. The issue with me has always been racial identity as oppossed to a cultural identity. The moreno physical composition of many people in Latin countries, very often in the majority, testifies to their subsciption to a cultural sense of identity.

>By the way, I did several searches with Google and Alta Vista for this De Klor Silva person and got zero hits. Does he exist?

Yes he does. When I wanted to learn more about him, I tried doing the same thing but found nothing. Perhaps I've got his name wrong. So I had to have a look again when I was next at uni. I seem to remember it being in one of those magazine like Harpers, or quite possibly New Republic, but I'm pretty sure it's Harpers. It was in an issue in 1993 (this wasn't in the individual magazines themselves but in a big, encyclopedia-type book that had all the issues of that year). I wanted to photocopy it but my card had run out. Perhaps you can go to your library and look at 1993 issues of Harpers. It's just that my alma mater is quite some way out. I'll have a look on the Internet.

>Do you need a geography lesson. What nationality is the surname Gashumba, oh great man of mystery?

Man, seems like only Nady and O Homem got it. Sorry to say, but it doesn't seem like you've been paying attention, Mr Paul. Also, I didn't know I was dealing with Sherlock Holmes here!

>They look at a society in all its facets over the span of a number of years

So let me get this straight: the truthfulness of something is determined not on the basis of its own merit but by the period of time it took to reach it, is that it? By the way, ever heard of the expression "thinking out of the box"?

>Indeed, as I mentioned before, the fact of intermarriage does not mean that "mindset of the Latins does not predispose them to making distinctions on the basis of race."

Then what DOES it mean? Do you mean, by the way, "morenoing" or just marriage? Large-scale intermarriage, after all, is impossible and the fact that you called it that indicates your mindset.

>You love to generalize. I'll try typing slowly so that you understand. I have seen plenty of blond blue-eyed Latinos.

But that's not the issue, Mr Paul. The question is, Why is a significant part of the population, if not the majority of the population, of many Latin countries moreno? And why is this not the case in the United States, which has historically possessed much of the same ethnic groups as many of the Latin countries. You see, the thing is, Mr Paul, if those states you grew up in -- Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee -- had been Latin states, most of the population would be moreno today because of the large African populations in those states. The fact that this is not the case over there is not a good or bad thing. It just indicates a race-based sense of identity and therefore a lack of culture.

>"Do you know what they call an Indian in Guatemala who has attempted to assimilate?", I will answer it for you. They call them ladino. Why, because he has turned his back on his Indian society, yet he will never be accepted by the Creole (European and mestizo) society precisely because he is Indian. of course you would think that this has nothing to do with race and only with culture, when common sense would tell you it has everything to do with both.

Actions speak louder than words, Mr Paul -- much louder. I will always listen to people who walk the walk over people who talk the talk -- always. You can't parry a charging elephant with a toothpick. You can't overcome Latins' actions with your words, sir, you can't. But I guess if you were really skillfull and had good aim, you could, just maybe, throw your toothpick and hit the elephant in the eye...you just could...it could be possible, you know... Maybe.

>And if y'all haven't gotta a vocabulary -- stick to Little Red Riding Hood!

I'd just like to clarify that this little comment of mine towards the beginning was NOT directed at the Brazilians or people for whom English is a second and fledgling language, as someone seemed to suggest earlier. No, it was directed at that "thesaurus"-comment guy. I don't have a thesaurus. And the only one I ever used was the one on Microsoft Windows, which can't be used on the Internet. And I haven't used that one for probably over two years. I therefore suggested that he should stick to something not so overwhelming for him. I really don't care what your English is like, provided that you're understood.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002 at 02:08:41

Message:
This might be the guy, Mr Paul! Mighta gotten the name wrong, obviously, but it does sound very much like the guy. While on the note of making mistakes, it was the fast-moving politics of the Fourth Republic, not the Fifth Republic, where some -- not many -- Africans where cabinet ministers and where it was many who where elected to parliament.

Jorge Klor de Alva is Professor of Ethnic Studies and Anthropology at UC Berkeley. His interests include cultural anthropology, historical ethnography, and cultural and interpretive theory and criticism; his geographical focus is Mexico, Central America, and the Southwestern U.S. Professor Klor de Alva received his J.D. from UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law (focusing on legal theory and the history of law) and his Ph.D. from UC Santa Cruz in the interdisciplinary program on History of Consciousness. In addition to a series of textbooks for elementary school students, Professor Klor de Alva's English-language publications include Aztec Confessions: On the Invention of Colonialism, Anthropology, and Modernity (New York: Routledge Press, forthcoming), Interethnic Encounters: Discourse and Practice in the New World (coedited; Albany, NY: SUNY Press and Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, Fall 1993), and Interethnic Images: Discourse and Practice in the New World (coedited, from the same series; Fall 1993).

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002 at 02:45:16

Message:
"Latinos are homologous with the totality of the United States. That is, Latinos can be of any race. What distinguishes them from all other Americans is culture, not race."

Jorge Klor de Alva, 1996

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by oh my god!
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002 at 04:52:15

Message:
good lord, you wankers have posted more words in this thread than a short novel, but there ain't one cogent, coherent, interesting thought anywhere to be found...

you're almost making me miss those idiots who used to post Xuxa nonsense on this forum...

almost...
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002 at 09:44:24

Message:

O Homem: "Like the troll, he IS a troll."

Nadelstich: "‘Hombrearrhea,’ a condition which is amply defined by the nature of Hombre’s own posts."

El Hombre: "Man, seems like only Nady and O Homem got it."


The nice thing about a sloppy troll is that it really doesn’t take much editing to make him make sense.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002 at 20:12:59

Message:
>Okay, do you believe that some groups base their sense of identity more on race than do other groups?

Only windy dilettantes.

>Let's get away from this "racist" stuff if we can. And moreover, could an "upbringing, as you say, in Puerto Rico, for example, determine a different outlook to that of someone brought up in, say, Alabama?

Everything is possible, but again it depends on the values one's parents imbues one with. They are, after all, one's single biggest influence growing up.

>Were they [my family] race-concious in their marriage patterns?

I don't think that entered into their thinking one way or another. One of my sisters had a black boyfriend for a while in college. About 13 years ago I dated a terrific black woman from Belize who
remains one of my best friends. Who knows where things would have gone had she not moved to Ohio for law school. In neither case was anyone in my family bothered by these relationships.

>Also, do you believe that the Germans and Austrians were more anti-Semitic (or anti-Jewish) than, say, your beloved Danes?
I'll leave the generalizing up to you. It's the best sign of your intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

I wrote:

>You ignore social class which is an equally important factor in Latin American society.

To which you replied:

>Relevance? I was merely speaking of the future cultural influence of Brazil and by way of explanation mentioned that a less race-conscious mindset is an indication of culture while a race-obsessed mindset evidences lack of culture. I never talked about class and I'm not sure what it has to do with anything.
There's where you ignore reality. One factor that may (again, notice I qualify my statement) have influenced racial mixing is the number of black and white members of Brazilian society (for example) on the lowest rungs of the social ladder. You tend to see more racial mixing in terms of marriage, etc. in Brazil among the poor and lower to moderate middle class. In my and my wife's experience, you see very little among the upper class.

And this statement:

>I was merely speaking of the future cultural influence of Brazil and by way of explanation mentioned that a less race-conscious mindset is an indication of culture while a race-obsessed mindset evidences lack of culture.

is just silly. Every society has a culture. It may not appeal to you, but it is a culture.

>But that's not the issue, Mr Paul. The question is, Why is a significant part of the population, if not the majority of the population, of many Latin countries moreno? And why is this not the case in the United States, which has historically possessed much of the same ethnic groups as many of the Latin countries. You see, the thing is, Mr Paul, if those states you grew up in -- Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee -- had been Latin states, most of the population would be moreno today because of the large African populations in those states.

What are you psychic or psychotic? Do you know how many people are "moreno" through intermarrying and how many are moreno because they had ancestors raped by white slaveowners? Your thoughts are just a presumption looking for validation. It proves nothing. BTW, the states I grew up in have black populations that are significantly less than those of Brazil, so your argument on it's face doesn't hold up. In fact according to the 2000 Census African-Americans make up 12% of the population here; significantly
less than Brazil.

>The fact that this is not the case over there is not a good or bad thing. It just indicates a race-based sense of identity and therefore a lack of culture.

Now you're just being silly.

>How seriously do you, Mr Paul, take people who talk the talk but don't walk the walk?

About as seriously as I take you.

That lawyer I referenced, by the way I admire his success, because of his hard work. No one presented a scintilla of evidence that he had done anything dishonest. It was just the color of his skin that led them to that conclusion.

I don't expect intellectual honesty from you Mr. Gashumba. You have obviously lied about being Latin and don't have the stones to acknowledge it.

>So let me get this straight: the truthfulness of something is determined not on the basis of its own merit but by the period of time it took to reach it, is that it?

Are you sure you know how to read?

>By the way, ever heard of the expression "thinking out of the box"?

You obviously think it means writing fiction.

I wrote:

>Indeed, as I mentioned before, the fact of intermarriage does not mean that "mindset of the Latins does not predispose them to making distinctions on the basis of race."

To which you replied:

>Then what DOES it mean? Do you mean, by the way, "morenoing" or just marriage? Large-scale intermarriage, after all, is impossible and the fact that you called it that indicates your mindset.

I didn't say large-scale intermarriage. When you are grasping at straws, don't put words in my mouth.

In any case, you bore me and I refuse to indulge you any more. I have a life. I urge you to get one, oh man of mystery.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 00:36:01

Message:
>good lord, you wankers have posted more words in this thread than a short novel, but there ain't one cogent, coherent, interesting thought anywhere to be found...

May I remind everybody that it is neither obligatory to read nor respond to anything I have written here. I'm sure there's plenty of other interesting things one can devote their precious time to in this world other than respond to my posts if they are found to be too disagreeble.

>Every society has a culture. It may not appeal to you, but it is a culture.

Customs and traditions, yes, culture, no. Culture properly speaking, that is. Why don't y'all go and talk to the French, for example?

>In fact according to the 2000 Census African-Americans make up 12% of the population here

What -- even in the states like Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee?

>Now you're just being silly.

Again, go and talk to the "silly" French, Mr Paul.

>You have obviously lied about being Latin and don't have the stones to acknowledge it.

Man, just didn't get it, did you?

>I didn't say large-scale intermarriage.

As I said before, the word "intermarriage" is loaded and carries a lot of meaning, as I explained before. Why add the prefix "inter" if one doesn't view that particular example of marriage as unnatural? I thing that what you said, unbeknownst to you, vindicates my whole position, Mr Paul.

>In any case, you bore me and I refuse to indulge you any more. I have a life. I urge you to get one, oh man of mystery.

Now why don't y'all follow the example of Mr Paul, here, the man after Sherlock Holmes's heart? I wonder why he didn't say anything about Sr Klor de Alva? Hmmmm...interesting.

By the way, did you manage to pierce the eye, Mr Paul? Well, I suppose it was a bit of a longshot, eh? I guess you were cleaned out by the charging elephant, then. Coulda just stepped aside, you know. Poor thing. Oh well. See ya!

Next!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 02:43:35

Message:
For what it's worth, this is the article I was talking about where I first came across Sr Klor de Alva.

The article is on page 55, consisting of nine pages, in the April 1996 issue of Harpers, which featured a discussion between Earl Shorris (the "white"), Jorge Klor de Alva (the "brown") and Cornell West (the vociferous "black"). The form of the article was a colloquy which was titled: "Our Next Race Question".
El Hombre is an ass
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 14:02:19

Message:
I have been lurking here, because the whole discussion especially from El Hombre's side is masturbatory.

One comment is in order, however:

>Again, go and talk to the "silly" French

The people who gave Jerry Lewis their highest civilian honor.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 20:03:01

Message:
>First of all let me tell you that to me, actions speak louder than words. Much louder. Always. So if a society is predominantly moreno, where much or most of its population has a mixture of Indian, African and European physical charachteristics, then all these anecdotes of yours become a bit redundant. If I say that I am a pacifist to the extreme extent and could not harm a fly, but while I'm saying this I am dressed in combat fatigues, with massive combat boots, an AK-47 slung across my back, and am in the process of hacking open the stomach of a pregnant woman to reveal the foetus with a machete and deriving enjoyment from my actions -- would my words be carrying any weight. Of course not. I would be talking the talk but not walking the walk, right? How seriously do you, Mr Paul, take people who talk the talk but don't walk the walk? They're hardly believable are they? You see, you and your people walk the walk of people who base their sense of identity on race but seemingly try to talk the talk of people who don't. Let's forget about this whole "racism"/"racialism" thing and concentrate on race-based identity, as was the original intent. The vast majority of people in places like Brazil not only talk the talk but walk the walk of people who base their sense of identity on culture and are therefore not as race-conscious as your people. Assuming you've interpreted his actions and comments correctly, how does Lucio reconcile his comments with the physical reality of the majority of his countrymen if his comments do not represent an aberration? I say "interpreted correctly" because I've seen countless examples of just that type of mistake here. If you asked an average Aussie whether there is much discrimination here, they'd reply quite emphatically in the affirmative. But what will not be established, of course, is that it'a all quite relative: "compared to whom?" should be the question. I knew this girl who was from Ghana but had grown up here in Australia and was of the opinion that racial discrimination against her was almost normal and everyday. But since she hadn't lived in any other country before coming from Ghana to Australia, she had no way of comparing this apparent racism with that of other places. The reality, which I of coarse realised, is that there is little to no chance of her experiencing any racial discrimination here in Australia because, one, she constitutes too small a minority to even matter and, two, Aussies aren't really the discriminating type anyway, as they exercise (together with the Kiwis, of course) an unnaturally strong commitment to the concept of fairness. The point is, misunderstandings can occur over the import of words and meanings conveyed. For example, calling someone a "negrito" in Latin America is a term of endearment, whereas the same word taken and translated to English is more often than not considered derogatory. Try going around in your country, Mr Paul, and referring to your fellow countrymen using that word translated into English. It immediately carries a totally different meaning and will evoke a totally different response, right? Now I wonder why that might be the case...?

[BIG YAWN]
RE: Dictionary vs El Hombre
Posted by El Webster
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 20:43:32

Message:
>For example, calling someone a "negrito" in Latin America is a term of endearment, whereas the same word taken and translated to English is more often than not considered derogatory.


There is no translation of "negrito" into English. It IS the English, borrowed from the Spanish, designating "a member of any of various groups of dwarfish Negroid peoples living in the East Indies, the Phillipines, and Africa."

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 21:07:08

Message:
>[BIG YAWN]

May I remind everybody that it is neither obligatory to read nor respond to anything I have written here. I'm sure there's plenty of other interesting things to which one can devote one's precious time in this world other than respond to my posts if they are found to be too disagreeble.

>There is no translation of "negrito" into English. It IS the English, borrowed from the Spanish, designating "a member of any of various groups of dwarfish Negroid peoples living in the East Indies, the Phillipines, and Africa."

I translate "negrito" to mean "blacky" in English.

Man, I'm on the second page now and youse are STILL following me!


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Troll-la-la
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 21:52:32

Message:

Well, see, nobody actually followed you down here. We’re the trolls of the second page. We live under the first page and wait for wankers like you to fall off. We ain’t so civilized as them guys from upstairs what flushed you down here to be with us. Welcome, bro troll! You’ll fit right in.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 23:08:07

Message:
My, my....language! I'd hate to hear how the "trolls" on page 25 speak!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Troll-la-la
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 23:36:59

Message:

>You’ll fit right in.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 23:57:19

Message:
How do you mean? When have I used such language? Barbarian is not a swear word.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Thursday, March 21, 2002 at 06:18:49

Message:
>May I remind everybody that it is neither obligatory to read nor respond to anything I have written here. I'm sure there's plenty of other interesting things to which one can devote one's precious time in this world other than respond to my posts if they are found to be too disagreeble.

[REALLY BIG YAWN}
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Ambrose Bierce
On Thursday, March 21, 2002 at 09:44:53

Message:

EL HOMBRE n. a troll, formerly of the first page, now deposed to the second, whose "bobagem" is intended to provoke, incite, annoy and embroil, thereby bringing discredit upon all his purported conditions: right-wing, Latin, African, Australian, slender Mututsi, and nut; the last being the only case for which there is direct evidence. SYN. - see WANKER.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, March 23, 2002 at 22:18:17

Message:
>intended to provoke, incite, annoy and embroil...

And if this is the case, you barbarians took the bait hook, line and sinker -- and keep coming back for more! Admit it, you losers are addicted to me! Get over it, people... Go and do something else. Do you expect me to keep on casting pearls before swine endlessly, much as y'all might secretly love it? Barbarians! Why don't y'all go get some culture or something?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Tee-Hee
On Saturday, March 23, 2002 at 22:37:33

Message:

>see WANKER.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, March 23, 2002 at 23:00:58

Message:
Surely you can do better than that. It's probably Nady and O Homem feeding their addictions under pseudonyms...
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Tee-Hee
On Sunday, March 24, 2002 at 01:04:33

Message:

Wanker.

Signed,

Nady and O Homem (Tee-Hee)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Sunday, March 24, 2002 at 01:17:46

Message:
Go to sleep, loser
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Duck
On Sunday, March 24, 2002 at 08:49:21

Message:

Quack, quack, wanker, quack, wanker, quack, quack!


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Sunday, March 24, 2002 at 13:09:49

Message:
>And if this is the case, you barbarians took the bait hook, line and sinker -- and keep coming back for more! Admit it, you losers are addicted to me! Get over it, people... Go and do something else. Do you expect me to keep on casting pearls before swine endlessly, much as y'all might secretly love it? Barbarians! Why don't y'all go get some culture or something?

[GARGANTUAN YAWN

Va chupar prego! Va pentear macacos! Va plantar batatas no asfalto! Va caçar serviço!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, March 25, 2002 at 20:38:53

Message:
Yaaa
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, March 25, 2002 at 20:56:27

Message:
Eu nao falo portuguese. Mas (o mais?) meu espagnol e melhor e meu ingles e muito ben. Querro fala tudo as idiomas latin en o futuro -- en dois anos.

Yaaa
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, March 25, 2002 at 23:10:55

Message:
In his writings on multiculturalism, Mr. de Alva is a vociferous opponent of simplistic identity politics, but far from a cultural conservative. His best-known sound bite came in a discussion on black-Latino relations with Cornel West, the Harvard University religion professor, published in Harper's in 1996. Mr. de Alva stressed the parochialism, in an increasingly transnational world, of discussing groups using an America-centric vocabulary: "black," "white," "Hispanic." Mr. West insisted that minority groups had these identities thrust upon them; Mr. de Alva countered that members of minority groups were complicit in their construction.

When the moderator asked Mr. West whether he considered himself a black man, he responded, "Hell, yes."

"Jorge, is he a black man?" the moderator continued. "Of course not," Mr. de Alva said.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, March 25, 2002 at 23:43:44

Message:
I should add that Professor de Alva gave his answer to the question as being: 'Mr West is not "black" but Anglo-Saxon' -- or words to that effect. And needless to say, as I mentioned much earlier, Mr West, a person who bases his identity on something called race, just could not understand this.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 02:21:02

Message:
"Both men agree that the topic is complex and that there is no simple solution. Perhaps because of the different viewpoints that each possess the argument became heated at times. One example of this is when Klor De Alva said that blacks were "Anglos". This seemed to upset West, and the argument seemed to escalate after this point.

"The moderator seemed to be trying to steer the debate several times when Klor De Alva and West spent too much time on one facet of the argument. The moderator's presence made the article seem like an excerpt from a longer interview. It seemed nearly episodic to me because of the headings. However, I was unable to locate the moderator on either side of the debate, which added to the overall credibility of the article in my eyes."


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 06:06:44

Message:
>I should add that Professor de Alva gave his answer to the question as being: 'Mr West is not "black" but Anglo-Saxon' -- or words to that effect. And needless to say, as I mentioned much earlier, Mr West, a person who bases his identity on something called race, just could not understand this.

Todo mundo está bocejando.

Caça serviço, burrão!!!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 20:27:40

Message:
>Todo mundo está bocejando.

>Caça serviço, burrão!!!

Eu nao falo portugues. Mas (o mais?) meu espagnol e melhor e meu ingles e muito ben. Querro fala tudo as idiomas latin en o futuro -- en dois anos.




RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Pato
On Wednesday, March 27, 2002 at 21:35:45

Message:

Klor De Alva: Parecer sem fato, como El Wanker.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, March 27, 2002 at 22:40:15

Message:
And to Ali Mazrui's "generalisations"? I think you misunderstood, Mr Paul. I have always maintained that the mindset of the Latins does not predispose them to making distinctions on the basis of race, and therefore such people avoid the resulting racialism. But is that to say that Latins don't discriminate at all? Far from it! They probably discriminate to a far greater degree than do many non-Latins? Discrimination against those whom one considers to be different from oneself is universal. What is different around the world is the basis by which people will make distinctions between each other. Some make distinctions on the basis of race, while others make it on the basis of culture. The ones who make distinctions on the basis of race do so because they are racial people, and that is their lot; and those who make distinctions on the basis of culture do so because they are cultural people, they have been blessed with culture. Which is better? Or rather, which has less negative consequences? I would argue extremely strongly that a culturalist world view is much better for everyone than is a racialist world view. Why? Because difference can eventually be eliminated with culturalists because culture is transmutable. Race, on the other hand, is immutable, and therefore the differences apparently existent can never be eliminated. The Africans and Indians in Latin America were considered by the Latins to be inferior barbarians. Inferior in what sense? Inferior in terms of culture -- in what other sense could there be with the Latins? So once the Indians and Africans civilised and became Latin, their difference, the sourse of their inferiority, had been eliminated. The problem was in effect solved gradually. That's why such a process could be looked upon and described in an apparently oxymoronic way as being "Aryanisation", but the difference here being Aryanisation in the transmutable CULTURAL sense rather than in the immutable racial sense. You see, race is immutable. So when the Anglo-Saxon Americans had their Africans and Indians, there was really no hope for redemption for the downtrodden. They were, at first, immutably inferior, and only later were they elevated to being equal but nevertheless immutably different. The crucial issue here, you see, is the basis by which one determines another people or group to be different. Is it on the basis of culture, and therefore transmutable? Or is it on the basis of race, and therefore immutable? If the Indians are still discriminated against in Latin America, it is because they are transmutable CULTURAL Indians and not because they are IMMUTABLE racial Indians. If they become Latin, they will cease to be Indian. The extent and duration of the discrimination those Indians are experiencing is largely in their own hands: it will be determined by their own level of intransigence and recalcitrance (lack of culture is nothing to be proud of). But with race, those who are discriminated against can do nothing about the situation. The basis on which they are being discriminated against -- race -- is immutable. Therefore, the problem is perennial and insurmountable. The difference, then, must be "accepted" and "tolerated". But of coarse this is untenable, as events since the Sixties have demonstrated. With the toleration of this undeniable difference follows logically the toleration of ALL sorts of differences, whether good or bad, legitimate or manufactured -- all culminating in the untenable and self-destructive Pluralism being promoted today.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, March 27, 2002 at 23:01:36

Message:
Jorge Klor de Alva is Professor of Ethnic Studies and Anthropology at UC Berkeley. His interests include cultural anthropology, historical ethnography, and cultural and interpretive theory and criticism; his geographical focus is Mexico, Central America, and the Southwestern U.S. Professor Klor de Alva received his J.D. from UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law (focusing on legal theory and the history of law) and his Ph.D. from UC Santa Cruz in the interdisciplinary program on History of Consciousness. In addition to a series of textbooks for elementary school students, Professor Klor de Alva's English-language publications include Aztec Confessions: On the Invention of Colonialism, Anthropology, and Modernity (New York: Routledge Press, forthcoming), Interethnic Encounters: Discourse and Practice in the New World (coedited; Albany, NY: SUNY Press and Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, Fall 1993), and Interethnic Images: Discourse and Practice in the New World (coedited, from the same series; Fall 1993).


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Thursday, March 28, 2002 at 06:19:52

Message:
>And to Ali Mazrui's "generalisations"? I think you misunderstood, Mr Paul. I have always maintained that the mindset of the Latins does not predispose them to making distinctions on the basis of race, and therefore such people avoid the resulting racialism. But is that to say that Latins don't discriminate at all? Far from it! They probably discriminate to a far greater degree than do many non-Latins? Discrimination against those whom one considers to be different from oneself is universal. What is different around the world is the basis by which people will make distinctions between each other. Some make distinctions on the basis of race, while others make it on the basis of culture. The ones who make distinctions on the basis of race do so because they are racial people, and that is their lot; and those who make distinctions on the basis of culture do so because they are cultural people, they have been blessed with culture. Which is better? Or rather, which has less negative consequences? I would argue extremely strongly that a culturalist world view is much better for everyone than is a racialist world view. Why? Because difference can eventually be eliminated with culturalists because culture is transmutable. Race, on the other hand, is immutable, and therefore the differences apparently existent can never be eliminated. The Africans and Indians in Latin America were considered by the Latins to be inferior barbarians. Inferior in what sense? Inferior in terms of culture -- in what other sense could there be with the Latins? So once the Indians and Africans civilised and became Latin, their difference, the sourse of their inferiority, had been eliminated. The problem was in effect solved gradually. That's why such a process could be looked upon and described in an apparently oxymoronic way as being "Aryanisation", but the difference here being Aryanisation in the transmutable CULTURAL sense rather than in the immutable racial sense. You see, race is immutable. So when the Anglo-Saxon Americans had their Africans and Indians, there was really no hope for redemption for the downtrodden. They were, at first, immutably inferior, and only later were they elevated to being equal but nevertheless immutably different. The crucial issue here, you see, is the basis by which one determines another people or group to be different. Is it on the basis of culture, and therefore transmutable? Or is it on the basis of race, and therefore immutable? If the Indians are still discriminated against in Latin America, it is because they are transmutable CULTURAL Indians and not because they are IMMUTABLE racial Indians. If they become Latin, they will cease to be Indian. The extent and duration of the discrimination those Indians are experiencing is largely in their own hands: it will be determined by their own level of intransigence and recalcitrance (lack of culture is nothing to be proud of). But with race, those who are discriminated against can do nothing about the situation. The basis on which they are being discriminated against -- race -- is immutable. Therefore, the problem is perennial and insurmountable. The difference, then, must be "accepted" and "tolerated". But of coarse this is untenable, as events since the Sixties have demonstrated. With the toleration of this undeniable difference follows logically the toleration of ALL sorts of differences, whether good or bad, legitimate or manufactured -- all culminating in the untenable and self-destructive Pluralism being promoted today.

[BOCEJÃO]

Fica masturbando Zé Burrão!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Hombre's Daddy
On Thursday, March 28, 2002 at 07:40:09

Message:
Here's some interesting reading in regards to your theory that Anglos are racialist and Latins

are culturalists. The author is referring to how and why Columbus coined the term "Indians" for the native populations of the "New World"...

THE INVENTION OF RACE: THE COLUMBIAN TURN IN MODERN CONSCIOUSNESS
--Allen A. Huemer, 1986, 1998: Agathon Books

"In fact, all of the key words of the "race" idea originated in the Iberian peninsula in the

late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries.(91) These words, so familiar to all of us today,

are: "mestizo," "mulatto," "negro," "Indian," "caste," and "race," the latter word being

introduced into the dictionaries of five Modern languages (Spanish, Italian, Portuguese,

English, and French) in 1513.(92) The word "mulatto," which is derived from the Spanish word

for mule(93) gives a clear indication of the dehumanizing intent behind placing a "racial"

classification upon people. Up until the nineteenth century, "half-breeds" were popularly

considered to be reproductively sterile, as are mules.(94) This division of "races" from the

human species shows one of the major purposes for the rhetorical instrument known as the "race"

idea: the destruction of humanity's Ancient sibling relationship."

"...the Spanish concern for the Christian purity of Spain--and with it a concern over the

purity of bloodlines of descent--continued along with the flow of the "race" idea's

development. In 1502, a decree was enacted in Spain banishing all Moors from the country, just

as Jews had been 'lawfully' expelled ten years earlier. At about the same time, the Dominican

Order of Rome--customarily in charge of such matters--once again stoked up the fires of the

Pontifical Inquisition in Spain. This time the problem to be "inquired" into was that of the

conversos, recent Jewish and Islamic converts to Catholicism, who were also known as "Marranos"

(Spanish for "vile," "dirty," or "swine") and "Moriscos." The difficulty with these New

Christians was that since they definitely were not descended from Japheth, their blood was

corrupted by their descent from persons whose ancestors had "denied" Christ. (Notice here, that

with the application of the new "race" idea, the Ancient tradition of adopting converts and

immigrants into the 'bloodline'--as, for example, the Franks had been--was abandoned entirely.)

As the flames of the Auto de fé raged, and the secrets of the torture chamber multiplied,

Spain--ever mindful of the profession of lawyers--enacted the first "blood quantum" law in

human history. The new Decrees of Purity of Blood relegated conversos to the bottom of Spain's

social scale.(96)

The legal clarification of the "race" idea proceeded further in 1512, with Spain's promulgation

of the Laws of Burgos, which were designed for application in Spain's American colonies. Law 24

of this code declared that: "no one may beat or whip or call an Indian dog or any other name

unless it is his proper name."(97) In grammatical usage, a proper name--in the only senses

which could be applied to Law 24--is either the name of a specific person, or the name of a

"race" of people. It would be absurd to assume that the intent of Law 24 was to compel

Spaniards in the Americas--ruthless conquerors who destroyed millions of human beings--to call

each of their victims by a proper personal name. Clearly, Law 24 was the first "racial"

classification legislation in human experience. From the day it was enacted, all Spaniards in

the Americas were commanded to call the native human population thereof by the "racial" name

"Indians.""

Ohhhhh feel the ebullience.

>The ones who make distinctions on the basis of race do so because they are racial people, and that is their lot; and those who make distinctions on the basis of culture do so because they are cultural people, they have been blessed with culture. Which is better? Or rather, which has less negative consequences?

Racialism no doubt has more negative consequences and it appears we can thank the racialist Latins.

>The Africans and Indians in Latin America were considered by the Latins to be inferior barbarians. Inferior in what sense? Inferior in terms of culture -- in what other sense could there be with the Latins?

Uh, race.

>So when the Anglo-Saxon Americans had their Africans and Indians, there was really no hope for redemption for the downtrodden. They were, at first, immutably inferior, and only later were they elevated to being equal but nevertheless immutably different.

Just like the Latins. They taught the Anglos well.

>The extent and duration of the discrimination those Indians are experiencing is largely in their own hands: it will be determined by their own level of intransigence and recalcitrance (lack of culture is nothing to be proud of). But with race, those who are discriminated against can do nothing about the situation.

This is possibly the most sickening statement I have ever read. It is beyond ignorant.

Hombre, I think you should be honest with us now. You really mean that Americans, not Anglos, are racialists. In that sense, you would be closer to the truth, but not completely there, yet. So, racialist and culturalist are improper terms for what you really mean. I think you mean "monoculturalists" vs. "polyculturalists". YOU are the former. In your world, there is only one worthwhile culture and anyone who shows "intransigence" deserves what they get. I would never accuse the Latins of such a thing.

Fool.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Thursday, March 28, 2002 at 08:15:59

Message:
To Hombre's Daddy:

AMEN!!!!!!1
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Thursday, March 28, 2002 at 11:25:15

Message:
>If the Indians are still discriminated against in Latin America, it is because they are transmutable CULTURAL Indians and not because they are IMMUTABLE racial Indians. If they become Latin, they will cease to be Indian. The extent and duration of the discrimination those Indians are experiencing is largely in their own hands: it will be determined by their own level of intransigence and recalcitrance (lack of culture is nothing to be proud of). But with race, those who are discriminated against can do nothing about the situation.

Alguem escreveu, "opinião e cu; cade um tem um", mas em seu caso você tem três cus: um no próprio lugar, outro na boca e o terceiro na mente. Cade um está fazendo bosta.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Thursday, March 28, 2002 at 17:18:50

Message:

Hombre's Daddy,

It takes quite a man to own up to responsibility for Hombre. However, one wonders if there may not be a case for criminal liability in the more enlightened jurisdictions. At least the offspring of your keyboard is worthy of admiration, sir. The fruit of your loins, on the other hand, while certainly a figurative abortion, should rightly have been a literal one. Better luck next time.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 29, 2002 at 20:42:03

Message:
>Hombre, I think you should be honest with us now. You really mean that Americans, not Anglos, are racialists. In that sense, you would be closer to the truth, but not completely there, yet. So, racialist and culturalist are improper terms for what you really mean. I think you mean "monoculturalists" vs. "polyculturalists". YOU are the former. In your world, there is only one worthwhile culture and anyone who shows "intransigence" deserves what they get. I would never accuse the Latins of such a thing.

First of all let me tell you that to me, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. Much louder. Always. So if a society is predominantly moreno, where much or most of its population has a mixture of Indian, African and European physical charachteristics, then all these anecdotes of yours become a bit redundant. If I say that I am a pacifist to the extreme extent and could not harm a fly, but while I'm saying this I am dressed in combat fatigues, with massive combat boots, an AK-47 slung across my back, and am in the process of hacking open the stomach of a pregnant woman to reveal the foetus with a machete and deriving enjoyment from my actions -- would my words be carrying any weight. Of course not. I would be talking the talk but not walking the walk, right? How seriously do you, Mr Paul, take people who talk the talk but don't walk the walk? They're hardly believable are they? You see, you and your people walk the walk of people who base their sense of identity on race but seemingly try to talk the talk of people who don't. Let's forget about this whole "racism"/"racialism" thing and concentrate on race-based identity, as was the original intent. The vast majority of people in places like Brazil not only talk the talk but walk the walk of people who base their sense of identity on culture and are therefore not as race-conscious as your people. Assuming you've interpreted his actions and comments correctly, how does Lucio reconcile his comments with the physical reality of the majority of his countrymen if his comments do not represent an aberration? I say "interpreted correctly" because I've seen countless examples of just that type of mistake here. If you asked an average Aussie whether there is much discrimination here, they'd reply quite emphatically in the affirmative. But what will not be established, of course, is that it'a all quite relative: "compared to whom?" should be the question. I knew this girl who was from Ghana but had grown up here in Australia and was of the opinion that racial discrimination against her was almost normal and everyday. But since she hadn't lived in any other country before coming from Ghana to Australia, she had no way of comparing this apparent racism with that of other places. The reality, which I of coarse realised, is that there is little to no chance of her experiencing any racial discrimination here in Australia because, one, she constitutes too small a minority to even matter and, two, Aussies aren't really the discriminating type anyway, as they exercise (together with the Kiwis, of course) an unnaturally strong commitment to the concept of fairness. The point is, misunderstandings can occur over the import of words and meanings conveyed. For example, calling someone a "negrito" in Latin America is a term of endearment, whereas the same word taken and translated to English is more often than not considered derogatory. Try going around in your country, Mr Paul, and referring to your fellow countrymen using that word translated into English. It immediately carries a totally different meaning and will evoke a totally different response, right? Now I wonder why that might be the case...?

Ever heard of Gilberto Freyre? Ever heard of a tenured professor of both Princeton and Berkeley universities called Jorge Klor de Alva? Do you think or not? Now a more pertinent question: ever LOOKED at the people of Brazil? The people of Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico...? I guess you can't have that good a view with your head in the sand.

Incidentally, you don't have to be brutish to be a barbarian. Oxford Concise English Dictionary definition of barbarian: 2. an UNCULTURED or brutish person .[my emphasis]

Talk is cheap, buddy. Walk the walk and I might take you seriously.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 29, 2002 at 21:24:47

Message:
I was mightily impressed with the women from that part of the world. You talk, Joaquim, of beauty being displayed in a joyful, healthy manner. And what I noticed was that the Latin women seemed to delight in the fact that they were female. They seemed to possess a deluxe femiminity, often characterised by a sinuous grace. And, moreover, they were looking at me! Man, I'd never had that before, that constant and aggressive eye-contact thing! Now being a negrito (y'all say neguinho over there?) is also an advantage here in Australia when it comes to women. But they just don't look at you. They don't take any notice of you. They don't give any indication of liking men! I had hitherto assumed all women the world over to be inscrutable and enigmatic. But now I realised that non-Latin women were only female in the biological sense of the word, . As you said yourself, the women in Brazil "consider themselves blessed" being women. In much of the Occidental, Teotonic world, the women feel themselves to be cursed having been born women. They believe they've been "oppressed" by their menfolk and often eschew feminimty, as a result often pursuing an ideal of no distinction between the sexes (there aren't any actresses anymore: all are now "actors")
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 29, 2002 at 21:28:44

Message:
Tell me: why are there in America (United States) still "black" and "white" people despite having lived together for over four hundred years and not a composite moreno people as is the case in much of the rest of America? Is it because, perchance, the North Americans lack culture and so base their identity on some factitious distinction called race? If these North Americans had culture, would not most of the population be of a composite moreno appearance? But this is not the case. The North Americans, being barbarians, base their sense of identity on something called race. Thus, if a "white" person married a "black" person, despite the fact that they both speak the same language and share the same basic "culture", it would be considered in that society intermarriage. Why? Because barbarians make distinctions between people on the basis of something they call race. Race is immutable. And intermarriage by definition is unnatural. If we thought it to be natural, we would just call it "marriage", eliminating the prefix "inter". Intermarriage on a large scale is impossible, because it is unnatural (though not wrong, of course!). Intermarriage to racial people is interracial, whereas to cultural people it is of coarse inter-cultural. Either way, large-scale intermarriage is impossible and has never been attempted by any people.

If lack of culture is not the explanation for the dichotomous physical appearance of North Americans, then what, pray tell, is its explanation? Surely you're not suggesting that North Americans are bad people, that they possess an irrational hatred of "difference", difference as understood by them? Surely it's not the case that they have hitherto been evil people only up till the Sixties? I, for one, definitely don't think they've ever been bad people. I just think they've always lacked culture -- culture properly speaking; culture not to be confused with mere customs and traditions, mind you.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 29, 2002 at 21:33:21

Message:
But what I'm concerned about is the global effect. Although I have respect for the United States (the respect has been mounting from that of the derision common in much of the world to an appreciation and envy of the superior and unparalleled understanding of fundamental principles in that country), I wouldn't care much for the place if it wasn't for her great influence in the world, influence which affects how we live even on the other side of the planet! And it is this same concern of how I'll live, and how future generations will live both here in Australia and elsewhere, which spurns my strong interest in Brazil and her development. As I said, we're not gonna be looking to Japan or Germany for how to dress, dance, sing, act and be cool in the future, for the simple reason that these countries just simply are not cool.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 29, 2002 at 21:45:16

Message:
There are two types of people in the world: race people (or racialists) and culture people (or culturalists). Culture people (or culturalists), because it is their prerogative to do so, look at the world and people in it in terms of culture. They see people as being Hispanic, French, Anglo-Saxon, and so on. They see things in terms of culture because they have culture. They base their sense of identity on culture. They are culturalists.

Race people, on the other hand, do not have such a luxury. Their sense of identity is pretty much by default. Lacking culture they have no choice but to base their sense of identity on something called race. They look at the world and people in it in terms of race. They therefore see people as being "black" people, "white" people, "yellow" people, and so on. They are racialists.

The people who I consider to be culture people are the Latin people of the world: the French people, the Italian people, the Spanish and their progeny and the Portuguese and their progeny. These people have culture -- culture most succinctly defined here as the possession of an ineffable joie de vivre. Life, with such people, is considered a verb, to be appreciated and contemplated in its most profound sense, to be continuously experienced and celebrated, to be an instinctive raison d'etre in its people. This joie de vivre is expressed through the refinement of cuisine, the movement of dance, the gaiety of music, the appreciation of wine -- in short, an emphasis on and celebration of the less tangible things and qualities in life. The Italians have succeeded in putting it simply: "la dolce vita". It is an intangible lifestyle whose fundament is Dionysiac. And it is this intangible lifestyle, this exercise of culture, which represents the acme of civilisation. Without it, technical advancement is not, as is thought by many, synonymous with civilisation. It is instead just plain, prosaic technical advancement; leaving the people who have attained it merely technically advanced barbarians. Advanced, yes, but barbarians nevertheless; barbarians not in the brutish sense but in the uncultured sense.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 29, 2002 at 22:28:46

Message:
I also learnt that the French never had a colour-bar during colonial times, unlike the English. It wasn't because the French were any nicer than the English, for the English tended to treat those under their rule somewhat better than did the French. But the Frenchman thinks in terms of culture, you see. And culture is not immutable. Thus, if the native could learn to speak French as well as the Frenchman, eat and appreciate French cuisine, drink wine and become "civilised", then as far as the French were concerned and for all intents and purposes, this native had become French! Whereas the English are racial people. And race (insofar as there is such a thing) is immutable. Thus, if the native learnt to speak English as well as his colonial master, read Shakespeare and Wordsworth, became an English gentleman -- despite all this, he still could never attain parity with the English. English people, after all, are "white"; and these people were "black". They were DIFFERENT -- immutably so. I remind: the English generally treated those in their colonies BETTER than did the French, and definitely better than the Belgians. It wasn't that the French were somehow nicer than the English or morally superior to them. It was just that the French obviously THOUGHT somewhat differently to the English.

The Romans also based their sense of identity on culture, and thus this identity was not immutable. Barbarians could become fellow Romans, and to do this didn't require affirmative action policies or Rosie O'Donnell championing homosexual rights as the logical extention of civil rights. No, this was all so natural for a Latin people like the Romans, so natural.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Troll-la-la
On Friday, March 29, 2002 at 22:41:33

Message:

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 29, 2002 at 23:34:56

Message:
Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.

Lazy troll, copying and pasting your own fairy tales from your earlier posts. So now even you admit you have no ideas.






RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 29, 2002 at 23:43:22

Message:
The Romans also based their sense of identity on culture, and thus this identity was not immutable. Barbarians could become fellow Romans, and to do this didn't require affirmative action policies or Rosie O'Donnell championing homosexual rights as the logical extention of civil rights. No, this was all so natural for a Latin people like the Romans, so natural.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 29, 2002 at 23:45:22

Message:
I wondered at that for a while and finally came to the conclusion that the Latin people of the world think quite differently to the non-Latin people. They all, for example, place more of an emphasis on language than do non-Latins, the French being the most obvious example. For example, when Latins immigrate to other non-Latin countries, they seem to hold onto their language a lot longer than, say, Germans or Dutch etc. And their identity has never been immutable. It has never required "tolerance" on their part for other people to be assimilated and considered part of them, eveb people who are considered in many parts of the world "racially different". Pan Africanism always hits a snag when it encounters the former French colonies, because its inhabitant quite often feel a closer kinship to their "white" French former masters than to their "black brothers"! And although the Italians fought on the same side as the Germans during the Second World War, they couldn't understand for the life of them why they should harm their Jewish community. The Italian Jewish community was Italian to the core -- they spoke Italian as fluently as the Italians and shared the same culture as the Italians. Identity to the Italians was cultural and not biological, and they just couldn't fathom how anyone could think otherwise. Naturally such thinking came quite easily to the racialistic Germans. Although the French were not quite so clean as the Italians, less Jews were killed pro rata in France than in anywher else in Nazi-occupied Europe.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 29, 2002 at 23:46:06

Message:
I wondered at that for a while and finally came to the conclusion that the Latin people of the world think quite differently to the non-Latin people. They all, for example, place more of an emphasis on language than do non-Latins, the French being the most obvious example. For example, when Latins immigrate to other non-Latin countries, they seem to hold onto their language a lot longer than, say, Germans or Dutch etc. And their identity has never been immutable. It has never required "tolerance" on their part for other people to be assimilated and considered part of them, eveb people who are considered in many parts of the world "racially different". Pan Africanism always hits a snag when it encounters the former French colonies, because its inhabitant quite often feel a closer kinship with their "white" French former masters than with their "black brothers"! And although the Italians fought on the same side as the Germans during the Second World War, they couldn't understand for the life of them why they should harm their Jewish community. The Italian Jewish community was Italian to the core -- they spoke Italian as fluently as the Italians and shared the same culture as the Italians. Identity to the Italians was cultural and not biological, and they just couldn't fathom how anyone could think otherwise. Naturally such thinking came quite easily to the racialistic Germans. Although the French were not quite so clean as the Italians, less Jews were killed pro rata in France than in anywher else in Nazi-occupied Europe.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, March 29, 2002 at 23:50:30

Message:
If you look closely, there are slight differences between the two preceding posts. Can you find them? ;-)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, March 30, 2002 at 03:40:45

Message:
Being a racialist does not make one bad or morally compromised. It is just that racialist societies are prone to racism. And racism (as is almost universally agreed) is particularly unfair on those who are being discriminated against. But the problem is, DISCRIMINATION AGAINST (OR AT LEAST SEPARATION FROM) THOSE WHO ARE CONSIDERED DIFFERENT FROM ONESELF IS ONLY NATURAL. Thus, quixotic attempts at trying to fix this problem without properly fixing its root causes are doomed. Why? Because racism comes from racialism. So if you can get rid of racialism (seeing racial distinctions), racism, ipso facto, is extinguished. But nota bene: discrimination is not exclusive to racialists: it is universal and, moreover, NATURAL. It's just that some forms of discrimination, by their nature, are perennial, while others only exist for as long as some recalcitrant barbarians invite it on themselves by petulantly refusing to accept culture and civilisation.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Saturday, March 30, 2002 at 11:06:55

Message:
El Hombre:

Vai cagar, vai caçar serviço, vai chupar prego, vai plantar batatas no asfalto, vai pentear macacos!!!

Bota rolha na sua boca!! Limpa sua mente Zé BURRÃO!!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, April 01, 2002 at 21:44:15

Message:
Being a racialist does not make one bad or morally compromised. It is just that racialist societies are prone to racism. And racism (as is almost universally agreed) is particularly unfair on those who are being discriminated against. But the problem is, DISCRIMINATION AGAINST (OR AT LEAST SEPARATION FROM) THOSE WHO ARE CONSIDERED DIFFERENT FROM ONESELF IS ONLY NATURAL. Thus, quixotic attempts at trying to fix this problem without properly fixing its root causes are doomed. Why? Because racism comes from racialism. So if you can get rid of racialism (seeing racial distinctions), racism, ipso facto, is extinguished. But nota bene: discrimination is not exclusive to racialists: it is universal and, moreover, NATURAL. It's just that some forms of discrimination, by their nature, are perennial, while others only exist for as long as some recalcitrant barbarians invite it on themselves by petulantly refusing to accept culture and civilisation.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, April 01, 2002 at 21:58:10

Message:
I also learnt that the French never had a colour-bar during colonial times, unlike the English. It wasn't because the French were any nicer than the English, for the English tended to treat those under their rule somewhat better than did the French. But the Frenchman thinks in terms of culture, you see. And culture is not immutable. Thus, if the native could learn to speak French as well as the Frenchman, eat and appreciate French cuisine, drink wine and become "civilised", then as far as the French were concerned and for all intents and purposes, this native had become French! Whereas the English are racial people. And race (insofar as there is such a thing) is immutable. Thus, if the native learnt to speak English as well as his colonial master, read Shakespeare and Wordsworth, became an English gentleman -- despite all this, he still could never attain parity with the English. English people, after all, are "white"; and these people were "black". They were DIFFERENT -- immutably so. I remind: the English generally treated those in their colonies BETTER than did the French, and definitely better than the Belgians. It wasn't that the French were somehow nicer than the English or morally superior to them. It was just that the French obviously THOUGHT somewhat differently to the English.

The Romans also based their sense of identity on culture, and thus this identity was not immutable. Barbarians could become fellow Romans, and to do this didn't require affirmative action policies or Rosie O'Donnell championing homosexual rights as the logical extention of civil rights. No, this was all so natural for a Latin people like the Romans, so natural.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Hombre's Daddy
On Monday, April 01, 2002 at 23:59:13

Message:
I guess you have moved on to the French to justify your silliness, so I will address them as well, since you insist.

"Under french domination, Algerians could not hold public meetings nor even leave their homes without permission. French state racism kept Algerians at the bottom of society, working as servants, unskilled labourers and peasants, while only French citizens or other whites were allowed skilled jobs and positions in the social institutions (from the police to the government)."

"Racism, also called RACIALISM, the theory or idea that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and certain traits of personality, intellect, or culture and, combined with it, the notion that some races are inherently superior to others.

It is difficult to establish definitely the origins of racist thinking, but certainly one of the most influential of such thinkers was the French writer and diplomat Joseph-Arthur, comte de Gobineau, who published his four-volume Essay on the Inequality of Human Races in the middle of the 19th century. He taught the superiority of the white race over all others, and, among the whites, of the Aryans as having reached the heights of civilization."

"colonialism... also found in racialism a helpful rationalization for conquest and expansion. When the Spaniards first came to America, several of their apologists (particularly Francisco de Quevedo and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda) supplied them with the proper excuses for taking the land away from the Indians and for treating them with complete lack of consideration. They developed the theory that the Indians had an entirely different origin from that of the Spaniards, that they were not human in the same sense, and that there was therefore no need to accord to them the same treatment as to one's fellow human beings. The familiar refrain of the "white man's burden," which was mainly of British manufacture and which found its literary expression in the writings of Thomas Carlyle, James A. Froude, and Charles Kingsley, and most strongly and clearly in those of Rudyard Kipling, made of imperialism a noble activity destined to bring civilization to the benighted members of other "races." Similarly, the French justified the maintenance of their colonial empire on the basis of their mission civilisatrice, their duty to bring civilization to the backward peoples of the world."

"In all of these colonizing empires, there were undoubtedly many individuals honestly convinced of the nobility of their motives and their enterprise; at the same time, the feelings of racial superiority that accompanied colonialism played an important part in developing resentments among the colonized which even emancipation and independence have not always made it possible to overcome."

>I also learnt that the French never had a colour-bar during colonial times, unlike the English.

Obviously, you learnt wrong. As per usual.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, April 02, 2002 at 03:20:36

Message:
Very interesting, daddy. But I think you're confusing a culture-bar with a colour-bar.

"To Frenchmen assimilation was synonymous with the civilizing mission which reduced African chiefs to 'mouthpieces and scapegoats' and elevated Africans who learned French and accepted French culture to an elite status which practiced power in the colonies and influence in France."

'During World War II, Jacques Stern, a former French Minister of Colonies, wrote almost lyrically of the "patient labor of assimilation" by which France had been "consolidating the moral and material ties which bind together forty million continental Frenchmen and sixty million overseas Frenchmen, white and colored" in the French Empire..."'

And you're telling me, daddy, that the French didn't think differently? As far as they were concerned, for example, during WWII the Germans were fighting "100 million Frenchmen".

One also has to take into account the overwhelming influence of the "scientific" evidence of the Darwin's theory of evolution (remember the subtitle for the "Origin of Species" -- "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"?), which implied that the "races" had developed as separate branches of humanity for millions of years. Faced with such "scientific evidence", it was difficult for even the most ardent culturalists to resist subscribing to the concept of qualitative differences between the apparently different forms of humanity existent. Indeed, take the premise of human evolution and the "different races" (I assume you believe in evolution): this being the case, how can you on the one hand maintain that there is no "race" superior or inferior to another (I'm assuming this is how you think) if these "different races" developed separately for millions of years and were thus subject to different environmental stimuli which thereby determined their rate of evolution. Surely if that were the case the "races" wouldn't be -- couldn't be -- the same, surely they couldn't have developed to the same level due to their existing in different environments and thus their experiencing differing stimuli. Are the different enviromental stimili the Chinese have experienced throughout millions of years the reason for their possession of generally bigger brains than the "other races"? If one's gonna be consistent in one's evolutionist presuppositions, one can't discount the possibility of qualitative differences between the "races". But of coarse I don't even believe in races in the first place, so I haven't got a problem. I just guess that M. comte de Gobineau was just so consistent in his evolutionistic presuppositions that he let them overrule his culturalist nature.

"The French colonial government employed a process that operated under the belief that the African had no culture thereby justifying the so-called French civilizing mission. The goal of the French was to make Africans into Frenchmen. France and French African, or as they say Francophone Africa would become one nation."

"assimilation was predicated on a presumption of the superiority of French culture and ‘civilisation’. As part of France’s ‘mission civilisatrice’, when confronted by ‘barbarian’ people, it was the duty of France to civilise them and turn them into Frenchmen.

"while this implied a kind of equality (that Africans were capable of becoming Frenchmen), it also dismissed African culture as non-existent or at least without value; of course, the French tended to feel that way about almost everyone else too. French culture was the epitome and everything else was at best 2nd or 3rd rate! African society was seen as without history or civilisation, largely in a state of war and flux."

And with the Spanish? How then do you explain their actions, which have been the main subject of this thread? Remember: actions speak louder than words. If people act in a culturalist manner -- then they are culturalists and not racial people!





RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick of Hombre
On Tuesday, April 02, 2002 at 06:02:43

Message:
Not even close. Why did the French consider them to be barbarians with no culture in the first place? Because the natives weren't keen on "culture" as you define it? A relaxing evening with good music, dancing, delicious cuisine and fine wine? No, because of the color of their skin, that's why. All the colonizers of that era used race to justify their actions. Sorry, but that is just a fact. The French didn't seem to think they had the duty to civilize the cultures immediately surrounding them...I wonder if the color of their skin made that crucial difference? Most likely.

Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859, Joseph Arthur de Count Gobineau was published in 1856. A little late to blame Darwin for all this, anyway.

>"To Frenchmen assimilation was synonymous with the civilizing mission which reduced African chiefs to 'mouthpieces and scapegoats' and elevated Africans who learned French and accepted French culture to an elite status which practiced power in the colonies and influence in France."

Elevated to what precisely? A lesser degree of discrimination, that's what. How charming.

Jacques Stern...1940's?..."patient labor of assimilation"? Ha! How long had it been? If they were Frenchmen, why did they kick the French out? You sound like the Southern slave owners who claimed the slaves liked being slaves.

>And with the Spanish? How then do you explain their actions, which have been the main subject of this thread? Remember: actions speak louder than words. If people act in a culturalist manner -- then they are culturalists and not racial people!

Remember: The Spanish gave us the notion of race conciousness in the first place to justify their own brutalities. So yes, actions speak louder than words.

What is most disturbing is that you seem to think that what the Latins did, in the name of culturalism you believe, was somehow justified. "Civilize or perish" I believe is what you said once before. You seem to take a certain amount of glee in genocide as long as the "superior" culture triumphs. You take moral relativism to heights uncommon in this day and age. Your mind is muddled with Eurocentrism. Please fetch your brain from the box in which you placed it.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Tuesday, April 02, 2002 at 06:10:39

Message:
>Your mind is muddled with Eurocentrism. Please fetch your brain from the box in which you placed it.

He can't. He's too busy giving himself a colonoscopy using his head as the colonoscope.

El Hombre:

Vai cagar, vai caçar serviço, vai chupar prego, vai plantar batatas no asfalto, vai pentear macacos!!!

Bota rolha na sua boca!! Limpa sua mente Zé BURRÃO!!



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Troll-la-la
On Tuesday, April 02, 2002 at 19:56:50

Message:

>He's too busy giving himself a colonoscopy using his head as the colonoscope.

Zat vood be to scope a dope mit a dopey scope.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, April 02, 2002 at 21:34:52

Message:
>The French didn't seem to think they had the duty to civilize the cultures immediately surrounding them...I wonder if the color of their skin made that crucial difference? Most likely.

I'd say the size of their guns, matey.

>Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859, Joseph Arthur de Count Gobineau was published in 1856. A little late to blame Darwin for all this, anyway.

Evolutionistic thinking preceded Darwin by a century. All he provided was the "scientific" backing.

>Jacques Stern...1940's?..."patient labor of assimilation"? Ha! How long had it been? If they were Frenchmen, why did they kick the French out? You sound like the Southern slave owners who claimed the slaves liked being slaves.

The issue is how the French think, not how politically correct they are.

>Remember: The Spanish gave us the notion of race conciousness in the first place to justify their own brutalities. So yes, actions speak louder than words.

If you insist on looking at it that way, then the Hispanics have exonerated themselves through their actions.

>What is most disturbing is that you seem to think that what the Latins did, in the name of culturalism you believe, was somehow justified. "Civilize or perish" I believe is what you said once before. You seem to take a certain amount of glee in genocide as long as the "superior" culture triumphs. You take moral relativism to heights uncommon in this day and age. Your mind is muddled with Eurocentrism. Please fetch your brain from the box in which you placed it.

Given a choice of two evils, I'll always go for the lesser evil, thank you.



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, April 03, 2002 at 01:16:46

Message:
>The French didn't seem to think they had the duty to civilize the cultures immediately surrounding them.

"while this implied a kind of equality (that Africans were capable of becoming Frenchmen), it also dismissed African culture as non-existent or at least without value; of course, the French tended to feel that way about almost everyone else too. French culture was the epitome and everything else was at best 2nd or 3rd rate! African society was seen as without history or civilisation, largely in a state of war and flux."

You see, the French would civilise everybody forcefully if they could but they can't so they won't. I assure you, the French think that you Americans are far less cultured and civilised than those in their previous colonies who at least speak French. It's just that y'all have such big guns! (by my last count y'all have about 850 Apache gunships!) And oh how it infuriates them that such barbarians as yourselves have so much power and influence! They can't stand it.

>"Civilize or perish" I believe is what you said once before.

That "Civilise or Perish" exhortation was directed solely at the Americans and not to anyone else (the Japanese, for example, won't perish if they don't civilise). It was not an ultimatum to civilise or else you will be forced to (who could force America to do anything?), but an entreaty to civilise in order to solve social problems which are having a debilitating effect on your society (and by extention the rest of the world). The insinuation is: if you don't civilise, you will end up perishing because of your own problems stemming from lack of culture. An example: if it wasn't for the civil-rights movement, would there be a homosexual-rights movement today? Whatever you think of homosexuality, you have to admit that it is behaviour which has until relatively recently been universally considered an abomination of the highest regard -- that is until desegragation and integration. When the homosexuals view the civil-rights movement as their inspiration, what are they saying? And what does it say about the way your people think that they should generally (albeit unconsciously) see acceptance of such behaviour as the natural succession of the civil-rights movement? Again, whether you think homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy or whether you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to admit that nobody would have thought about agitating for the legalisation of homosexual marriages if the laws against interracial marriages were still in place. Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether consciously or unconsciously) and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Just Sick Now
On Wednesday, April 03, 2002 at 03:42:50

Message:
Ha! I'll let you dream on about the French.

>The extent and duration of the discrimination those Indians are experiencing is largely in their own hands: it will be determined by their own level of intransigence and recalcitrance (lack of culture is nothing to be proud of).

That was the quote I was looking for before, not the civilize or perish quote, so I apologize for that. Either way, this is the evil you choose. You have a disturbing moral compass my friend, which was my point.

But all this is pointless. Your brain is boxed into these fantasies of cultural utopias, which have not and do not exist. There is nothing more to say.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, April 03, 2002 at 04:27:36

Message:
Then goodbye, Mr Can't Get Enough Of Hombre.

See you soon... ;-)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Wednesday, April 03, 2002 at 06:15:14

Message:
Vai cagar, vai caçar serviço, vai chupar prego, vai plantar batatas no asfalto, vai pentear macacos!!!

Bota rolha na sua boca!! Limpa sua mente Zé BURRÃO!!


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Pork_Chop_1
On Wednesday, April 03, 2002 at 08:20:17

Message:
>The extent and duration of the discrimination those Indians are experiencing is largely in their own hands: it will be determined by their own level of intransigence and recalcitrance (lack of culture is nothing to be proud of).

Hey Hombre, Sick is right! That is a bad one, my friend.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, April 04, 2002 at 00:28:30

Message:
>Hey Hombre, Sick is right! That is a bad one, my friend.

Pork Chop, old mate! Long time no see, buddy! But believe me: if the so-called African-Americans could have made themselves "white", I reckon they'd have done so a long time ago (immediately after the abolition of slavery, I'd say). It'd have saved them a whole lot of hassles. And it would have made the "whites" a whole lot happier, too. Everybody would have been the same, and there would never have been the perceived need for government-enforced "integration" and the coercive mixing of people who are different from each other and would be better served remaining apart.

This is what the Indians can do. With the Latins, difference can be eliminated; and quite literally, too, as their behaviour has clearly testified. If that discrimination really bothers those Indians, they can quite easily put an end to it. Offering them a spurious "tolerance", which, in my opinion, ends up being more insulting, with its condescending sympathy and so forth, instead of offering them genuine and sincere assimilation, is a gloss over the problem. The problem is difference. And if we can't eliminate difference, can we tolerate it? But does tolerance -- indeed, look at the meaning of that word -- work? If you tolerate one thing -- an unnatural thing -- what else are you going to tolerate? And can your society handle that -- tolerance of everything under the sky, a veritable slippery slope? The bleeding-heart liberals always campaign for the further unification of the "brotherhood of man", often in their paradoxical manner: "we're all the same despite our differences"; "our differences highlight our similarities"; "therefore we should celebrate our differences because we're all one people" etc. Yeah, whatever.

So what is to be offered to those Indians -- condescending tolerance? Would they do the same if the tables were turned and they were the ones with the power? Their history very much militates against such a possibility. Besides, the hypocrisy of the tolerance-junkies is laughably massive: the liberals exhort tolerance...so long as what is being tolerated lines up with their belief systems. As soon as women have to cover themselves from head to toe -- then that's simply intolerable! As soon as someone steps out of line and wants to educate their children they way they want -- intolerable! Such examples of double standards are legion. Whose standard prevails? Whose standard do we all appeal to -- the standards of he who has the biggest gun? Is it that might makes right?

You see, all I was doing with that Indian comment was being totally honest and fair dinkum. I could be politically correct if y'all want, sure I could. But I prefer to be realistic and therefore choose the lesser evil, which indeed, in this case, is the only viable option. If I had my hand on the hot plate of an oven, didn't like the pain and had the option of removing it -- I'd remove it, man! Maybe it's just me...I don't know. I'm not a masochist, you see.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, April 04, 2002 at 02:17:44

Message:
>That "Civilise or Perish" exhortation was directed solely at the Americans and not to anyone else (the Japanese, for example, won't perish if they don't civilise).

CORRECTION: Actually, the Japanese need to civilise or they, too, will perish. In fact, a lot of people need to civilise or they will perish also. Let's start with the Japanese.

The Japanese are the most racial (or racialist) people that I know of. The base their sense of identity very much on race. I mean, I don't know about you but I have difficulty telling the difference between a Korean and a Japanese physically. But in Japan, there are ethnic Koreans who were born in Japan, the majority of whom are fourth or fifth generation living in that country, who speak Japanese with a Japanese accent, act Japanese, marry Japanese, pretty much look like Japanese, and for all intents and purposes are Japanese. But to the Japanese they are NOT Japanese. Nor could they ever be Japanese. After having lived there for generations, they are still considered inferior foreigners.

Another case is with the Brazilians of Japanese descent. Since the Japanese have difficulty accepting people who look different from them (not that Koreans look different from them) the government came up with the idea of solving the problem of the need to import foreign workers for some forms of labour by importing ethnic Japanese who'd long ago emigrated elsewhere, the largest contingent going to Sao Paulo, Brazil. Naturally this was more palatable for the highly race-conscious Japanese. But these ethnic Japanese brasileiros/as have found problems of discrimination and of fitting into a society whose insipid nature is in direct and striking contrast to the frisson and ebullience of Brazil.

The problem? Japan has a negative growth rate. In twenty-five years' time the population will have halved. In thirty years' time one in four of the population will be aged. Japan will have to change its policy of only allowing a small amount of immigration to one accepting large amounts of immigrants. But Japan does not have the capacity to do this. If they're going to have difficulty accepting fourth- and fifth-generation Koreans as Japanese, think of the difficulty they'd face with people who look significantly different from them -- and in large numbers, too. Japan is renown for its low level of social problems such as crime and violence. But with the change of mentality required to accept large-scale immigration of people who don't look like them, would such an enviable situation continue? With the tolerance of all these "differences" needed, would the social structure remain intact? Would not the society then descend into social decay? The Japanese do not have the capacity to successfully accept and absorb people who look different from them. Unless they civilise, they will perish.

And the same goes for Europe. Many countries in that continent have a negative growth rate in terms of population. Some of the countries, being Latin, have the capacity to accept and assimilate successfully large groups of people who look significantly different from them, the reason being their identity is less based on physical appearance as it is on culture. The countries who do not have this capacity, like Germany, will face significat problems; the problem exacerbated for Germany by her history and therefore her inability to freely voice such concerns (the Austrians are more free to say what's on their mind, despite having been more into National Socialist ideology than the Germans). But even with the Latin countries there will be problems. In France, for example, a problem faced is with Africans arriving there and instead of adopting a French identity adopting a "black" identity. And where do they get this idea of identity from most strongly? The African-Americans, of course, whose cultural influence around the globe is disproportionate. And naturally this presents a clear and present danger to the integrity of French identity, as the French would make no distinctions between so-called African-Americans and Anglo-Saxons, viewing them to be one and the same thing. So in effect what they are seeing in their country is a Trojan Horse sneaked into the country through France's previous African colonies, revealing an Anglo-Saxon fifth column undermining French culture and civilisation by wearing their caps with the visor turned backwards, listening to hip-hop music while skating on a board with a can of Pepsi in their hand! It is my opinion that what is often regarded as French racism against "blacks" is in actual fact understandable concern over Anglo-Saxon infiltration. The Europeans will face serious problems in the future.

And you Americans? Well, I think enough has been said about your problems.

Civilise of Perish!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, April 04, 2002 at 03:33:05

Message:
>The Japanese do not have the capacity to successfully accept and absorb people who look different from them. Unless they civilise, they will perish.

Come to think of it, I really can't see a country with such a long history as that of Japan's "civilising" by adopting (another) culture. I think, then, that they are set to perish. Too bad. They make good products. Americans, on the other hand, will be overrun by Hispanics anyway; so they can either have a controlled civilisation process, whereby all that is good in America (all the good, wholesome right-wing stuff) can be retained, or it can happen helter-skelter. Either way it's gonna happen.

Sweet dreams :-)


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Thursday, April 04, 2002 at 06:19:13

Message:
Tira sua cabeça de seu cu, Zé BURRÃO!!!!!!!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Der Troll Fuehrer
On Thursday, April 04, 2002 at 14:57:13

Message:

Atta boy, Hombre, atta boy! We knew yer true color as soon as you waltzed in here. We was just wonderin' how long it'd be afore you realized it yerself. Yer a Schwarzennazi.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Thursday, April 04, 2002 at 16:57:16

Message:
>But I prefer to be realistic and therefore choose the lesser evil

Você é a unica maldade aqui.

Vá cagar, vá caçar serviço, vá chupar prego, vá plantar batatas no asfalto, vá pentear macacos!!!

Bota rolha na sua boca!! Tira sua cabeça de seu cu!! Limpa sua mente! Vá tomar no cu Zé BURRÃO, Zé RACISTO!!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Pork_Chop_1
On Thursday, April 04, 2002 at 17:21:16

Message:
Ok, this is getting way beyond ridiculous now. This is getting stoooopid!

That was not me who posted on April 3. I don't know what this person is trying to pull.

Anyways regarding this thread: why do people come back here to post day after day.

It's as plain as the nose on your face that every race has the potential to be racist. Especially to those they consider inferior. And also the potential to be cultural chauvenists (sp?). This is just universal human nature. The extent to which intermarriage occurs, is based on many individual choices with the notion of whether you consider a potential partner to be your racial/cultural/economic inferior/superior certainly a key factor.

But this matter of certain peoples being "racialists" or "culturalists" is utter nonsense. We're all both to some extent or other. It's just a matter of degree. I'll argue with you on degree, but not absolutes.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, April 04, 2002 at 22:26:29

Message:
Then it's at least fair to say that some people in the world base their sense of identity more on race than they do on culture while other groups of people base their sense of identity more on culture than they do race. It's pretty clear that different groups of people think in different ways. And it's obvious that their different ways of thinking result in different realities and consequences, some good, some bad.

> I'll argue with you on degree, but not absolutes.

So what we disagree on is semantics and not the fundamental point, right?

>The extent to which intermarriage occurs

You have a Latin heritage but obviously not a Latin mindset. Why insert the prefix "inter"? Whether you view a marriage as being intermarriage or simply marriage depends on whether you have a cultural mindset or a racial mindset. So when you say intermarriage, do you mean intercultural or interracial?

>That was not me who posted on April 3. I don't know what this person is trying to pull.

Don't worry, there are a few frustrated regulars who try to disguise their obsession and addiction with me by posting under varying pseudonyms. Obviously I've troubled and challenged them, but instead of making ammends it seems that they'd rather persist in denial.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Thursday, April 04, 2002 at 23:03:24

Message:

>I'm not a masochist, you see.

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, April 05, 2002 at 00:36:51

Message:
What? Given up on the pseudonyms already? Sick of America would have never given up so quickly!

So...still a barbarian or what?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Friday, April 05, 2002 at 06:20:17

Message:

>So...still a barbarian or what?

Você é a unica maldade aqui.

Vá cagar, vá caçar serviço, vá chupar prego, vá plantar batatas no asfalto, vá pentear macacos!!!

Bota rolha na sua boca!! Tira sua cabeça de seu cu!! Limpa sua mente! Vá tomar no cu Zé BURRÃO, Zé RACISTA!!


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Friday, April 05, 2002 at 08:19:04

Message:

One of the things that makes Hombre so fun is you always get more out of him than you put in. For example, O Nady got a return of 23 words for a meager investment of 7. Of course, they're only 23 words of gibberish, another example of less is more. Advantage: Nadelstich.

>Given up on the pseudonyms already?

Haven't given up on the paranoia yet? Is El Hombre your given name? Ooo! Horrors! Maybe Nadelstich is a nom de plume, too. Worry about it, Silly. Keep trying and some day you'll find out what happened to all those strawberries. Click-click, click, click-click . . . :-)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, April 08, 2002 at 22:43:03

Message:
>One of the things that makes...

...O Homem -- you too! Must be a big reunion. All so sick of me yet y'all keep coming back. Tell you what, it's real touching, boys. It's like one of those romantic comedies where the female hates the guy's guts but it ends up that all along she's really madly in love with him. But sorry to disappoint you, folks -- I'm not that way inclined :-(

So O Homem, mate...you still a barbarian as well?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, April 08, 2002 at 22:43:46

Message:
>One of the things that makes...

...O Homem -- you too! Must be a big reunion. All so sick of me yet y'all keep coming back. Tell you what, it's real touching, boys. It's like one of those romantic comedies where the female hates the guy's guts but it ends up that all along she's really madly in love with him. But sorry to disappoint you, folks -- I'm not that way inclined :-(

So O Homem, mate...you still a barbarian as well?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, April 08, 2002 at 23:00:13

Message:
"Another argument against affirmative action based on racial preferences is that the bottom line of Brazil's social ills is not racism but ECONOMICS. Critics [like me] point to the disparity of income distribution, the sad state of the health system, and to the failure of public education as examples of inequalities that affect all Brazilians regardless of race.

"According to the United Nations' Human Development Report released in 2001, Brazil ranks fourth among the nations with the highest income concentration in the smallest segment of the population—behind only Swaziland, Nicaragua and South Africa. Brazil's richest 10 percent hold 48.7 percent of the nation's wealth. Based on the per capita income alone, it ranks 57th among 162 countries, but it ranks 79th in education and 95th in health. There are 37 million Brazilians living with less than $2 a day.

"Consequently, admission to public universities based on racial quotas would be unfair to poor Brazilians in general. Moreover, it would not fix the basic problems, such as the lack of good public schools or the high number of school dropouts who often must make a difficult choice between school and work. Even black Brazilians are split on the subject. Recently, the Laboratory of Public Policies at the Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ) conducted a survey among 2,400 UERJ students and professors. The results showed that 57.4 percent of the 2,328 students polled were against the quota system. Among black students, the opposition to quotas was 49.6 PERCENT." [my emphasis]

You know what? I reckon these Brazilians should stop trying to imitate America to such an extent as to adopt a racial mindset in place of their culturalist one. We can see this especially in the incipient "black"-identity movement in Brazil, a silly movement (which understandably hasn't quite caught on) which tries to emphasise race in identity over culture but this in a culturalist society.

Some people take the Americanisation of the world to a risible extent.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 06:29:35

Message:
>You know what? I reckon these Brazilians should stop trying to imitate America to such an extent as to adopt a racial mindset in place of their culturalist one. We can see this especially in the incipient "black"-identity movement in Brazil, a silly movement (which understandably hasn't quite caught on) which tries to emphasise race in identity over culture but this in a culturalist society.

Mais burrice, mais babaquice, mais bobagem. Você é uma fonte de bosta, uma nascente de merda!

Vá cagar, vá caçar serviço, vá chupar prego, vá plantar batatas no asfalto, vá pentear macacos!!!

Bota rolha na sua boca!! Tira sua cabeça de seu cu!! Limpa sua mente! Vá tomar no cu Zé BURRÃO, Zé RACISTA!!

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Homber
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 00:35:26

Message:
You know what? I reckon these Brazilians should stop trying to imitate America to such an extent as to adopt a racial mindset in place of their culturalist one. We can see this especially in the incipient "black"-identity movement in Brazil, a silly movement (which understandably hasn't quite caught on) which tries to emphasise race in identity over culture but in a culturalist society.

Some people take the Americanisation of the world to too far and risible an extent.



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 02:14:48

Message:
"Western critics have also questioned the existence of fascism as a generic movement and claimed that extreme anti-Semitism and racism were a DISTINCTLY NAZI PHENOMENON AND NOT PRESENT IN ITALIAN FASCISM. The racist ideology mattered so much to Hitler and the Nazi elite that one cannot dismiss that difference." [my emphasis]

Funny that.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 02:23:22

Message:
"...anti-Semitism and extreme racism (which was made official state policy and highest priority in Germany) cannot be found in Italian Fascism; Mussolini adopted a more outspoken anti-Semitism in his last years mostly at the behest of his ally, Hitler, but Italian cooperation in the Holocaust was marginal and inconsistent."

"Though Fascists were at first wary of and even hostile to Hitlerism, the Nazi leader sought Mussolini as his chief ally. The Duce allowed himself to be convinced by the end of 1937, introducing Nazi-style racist and anti-semitic legislation in Italy despite the membership of many Jews in the Fascist Party."
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 03:37:34

Message:
Then it's at least fair to say that some people in the world base their sense of identity more on race than they do on culture while other groups of people base their sense of identity more on culture than they do race. It's pretty clear that different groups of people think in different ways. And it's obvious that their different ways of thinking result in different realities and consequences, some good, some bad.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 04:31:45

Message:
An example: if it wasn't for the civil-rights movement, would there be a homosexual-rights movement today? Whatever you think of homosexuality, you have to admit that it is behaviour which has until relatively recently been universally considered an abomination of the highest regard -- that is, until desegragation and integration. When the homosexuals view the civil-rights movement as their inspiration, what are they saying? And what does it say about the way your people think that they should generally (albeit unconsciously) see acceptance of such behaviour as the natural succession of the civil-rights movement? Again, whether you think homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy or whether you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to admit that nobody would have thought of agitating for the legalisation of homosexual marriages if the laws against interracial marriages were still in place. Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether consciously or unconsciously), and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 06:31:17

Message:
>An example: if it wasn't for the civil-rights movement, would there be a homosexual-rights movement today? Whatever you think of homosexuality, you have to admit that it is behaviour which has until relatively recently been universally considered an abomination of the highest regard -- that is, until desegragation and integration. When the homosexuals view the civil-rights movement as their inspiration, what are they saying? And what does it say about the way your people think that they should generally (albeit unconsciously) see acceptance of such behaviour as the natural succession of the civil-rights movement? Again, whether you think homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy or whether you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to admit that nobody would have thought of agitating for the legalisation of homosexual marriages if the laws against interracial marriages were still in place. Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether consciously or unconsciously), and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?

Alguém peidou aqui? Tem cheiro de pum . . .
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 22:33:54

Message:
An example: if it wasn't for the civil-rights movement, would there be a homosexual-rights movement today? Whatever you think of homosexuality, you have to admit that it is behaviour which has until relatively recently been universally considered an abomination of the highest regard -- that is, until desegragation and integration. When the homosexuals view the civil-rights movement as their inspiration, what are they saying? And what does it say about the way your people think that they should generally (albeit unconsciously) see acceptance of such behaviour as the natural succession of the civil-rights movement? Again, whether you think homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy or whether you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to admit that nobody would have thought of agitating for the legalisation of homosexual marriages if the laws against interracial marriages were still in place. Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether consciously or unconsciously), and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?

Voce fala ingles?

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 06:16:10

Message:
>An example: if it wasn't for the civil-rights movement, would there be a homosexual-rights movement today? Whatever you think of homosexuality, you have to admit that it is behaviour which has until relatively recently been universally considered an abomination of the highest regard -- that is, until desegragation and integration. When the homosexuals view the civil-rights movement as their inspiration, what are they saying? And what does it say about the way your people think that they should generally (albeit unconsciously) see acceptance of such behaviour as the natural succession of the civil-rights movement? Again, whether you think homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy or whether you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to admit that nobody would have thought of agitating for the legalisation of homosexual marriages if the laws against interracial marriages were still in place. Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether consciously or unconsciously), and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?

>Voce fala ingles?

Ai!!! Outro peido muito fedorento!! Pelo amor de Deus, bota uma rolha no seu cu, Zé BURRÃO!!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, April 12, 2002 at 22:09:42

Message:
An example: if it wasn't for the civil-rights movement, would there be a homosexual-rights movement today? Whatever you think of homosexuality, you have to admit that it is behaviour which has until relatively recently been universally considered an abomination of the highest regard -- that is, until desegragation and integration. When the homosexuals view the civil-rights movement as their inspiration, what are they saying? And what does it say about the way your people think that they should generally (albeit unconsciously) see acceptance of such behaviour as the natural succession of the civil-rights movement? Again, whether you think homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy or whether you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to admit that nobody would have thought of agitating for the legalisation of homosexual marriages if the laws against interracial marriages were still in place. Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether consciously or unconsciously), and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?

Voce fala ingles?

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, April 12, 2002 at 23:03:52

Message:
Then it's at least fair to say that some people in the world base their sense of identity more on race than they do on culture, while other groups of people base their sense of identity more on culture than they do race. It's pretty clear that different groups of people think in different ways. And it's obvious that their different ways of thinking result in different realities and consequences, some good, some bad.



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Saturday, April 13, 2002 at 10:06:55

Message:
Dois puns mais?!? Você gosta de dar gas, Zé BURRÃO, Zé REI DE BURRICE!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 02:15:42

Message:
Then it's at least fair to say that some people in the world base their sense of identity more on race than they do on culture, while other groups of people base their sense of identity more on culture than they do race. It's pretty clear that different groups of people think in different ways. And it's obvious that their different ways of thinking result in different realities and consequences, some good, some bad.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 06:19:59

Message:
[BIG YAWN]
[BOCEJÃO]
[BOSTEZON]
[SBADIGLIO]
[BÂILLEMENT]
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Troll-la-la
On Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 08:29:07

Message:
Dat boy Hombre come all de way down here for to find hisself trouble. He goin git it sure. He a f-o-o-o-l, with three "o"s.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 22:16:40

Message:
Eddie Murphy, huh? Well you a gooni-gu-gu!

An example: if it wasn't for the civil-rights movement, would there be a homosexual-rights movement today? Whatever you think of homosexuality, you have to admit that it is behaviour which has until relatively recently been universally considered an abomination of the highest regard -- that is, until desegragation and integration. When the homosexuals view the civil-rights movement as their inspiration, what are they saying? And what does it say about the way your people think that they should generally (albeit unconsciously) see acceptance of such behaviour as the natural succession of the civil-rights movement? Again, whether you think homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy or whether you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to admit that nobody would have thought of agitating for the legalisation of homosexual marriages if the laws against interracial marriages were still in place. Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether consciously or unconsciously), and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, April 17, 2002 at 03:57:17

Message:
There are two types of people in the world: race people (or racialists) and culture people (or culturalists). Culture people (or culturalists), because it is their prerogative to do so, look at the world and people in it in terms of culture. They see people as being Hispanic, French, Anglo-Saxon, and so on. They see things in terms of culture because they have culture. They base their sense of identity on culture because they have culture. They are culturalists.

Race people, on the other hand, do not have such a luxury. Their sense of identity is pretty much by default. Lacking culture they have no choice but to base their sense of identity on something called race. They look at the world and people in it in terms of race. They therefore see people as being "black" people, "white" people, "yellow" people, and so on. They are racialists.

The people who I consider to be culture people are the Latin people of the world: the French people, the Italian people, the Spanish and their progeny and the Portuguese and their progeny. These people have culture -- culture most succinctly defined here as the possession of an ineffable joie de vivre. Life, with such people, is considered a verb, to be appreciated and contemplated in its most profound sense, to be continuously experienced and celebrated, to be an instinctive raison d'etre in its people. This joie de vivre is expressed through the refinement of cuisine, the movement of dance, the gaiety of music, the appreciation of wine: in short, an emphasis on and celebration of the less tangible things and qualities in life. The Italians have succeeded in putting it simply: "la dolce vita". It is an intangible lifestyle, a lifestyly whose fundament is Dionysiac. And it is this intangible lifestyle, this exercise of culture, which represents the acme of civilisation. Without it, technical advancement is not, as is thought by many, synonymous with civilisation. It is, instead, just plain, prosaic technical advancement; leaving those who have attained it merely technically advanced barbarians. Advanced, yes, but barbarians nevertheless. And not in the brutish sense, in the uncultured sense: but pitiable barbarians -- yes.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Wednesday, April 17, 2002 at 06:16:00

Message:
>-- culture most succinctly defined here as the possession of an ineffable joie de vivre

This is exactly why so many of us found your comments to be so offensive and ridiculous. You present your opinion as if it were fact. It is not. Disabuse yourself of that notion. All the above statement is is your opinion and nothing else. It is not a definition of culture. Like so many of your comments, it relies on stereotypes. It being your opinion and only your opinion it is no more accurate and no less accurate than anyone else's opinion.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Wednesday, April 17, 2002 at 08:43:24

Message:
>Race people, on the other hand, do not have such a luxury. Their sense of identity is pretty much by default. Lacking culture they have no choice but to base their sense of identity on something called race. They look at the world and people in it in terms of race. They therefore see people as being "black" people, "white" people, "yellow" people, and so on. They are racialists.

Ai! Você parou com os peidos e agora está dando bosta, Zé BURRÃO, Zé MAL EDUCADO?!?!?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Troll-la-la
On Wednesday, April 17, 2002 at 10:20:05

Message:
>It is, instead, just plain, prosaic technical advancement; leaving those who have attained it merely technically advanced barbarians.

Hee, hee, hee! Dat boy sufferin from technical advancement envy. Like all what ain’t got it, dey want it, but dey can’t have it, so dey insults it. It’s like a fat girl who knows fat just gotta be prettier’n thin. Just GOT to be. . .got to be . . . got to. . .

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Wednesday, April 17, 2002 at 19:41:53

Message:
>There are two types of people in the world: race people (or racialists) and culture people (or culturalists). Culture people (or culturalists) because it is their prerogative to do so, look at the world and people in it in terms of culture. They see people as being Hispanic, French, Anglo-Saxon, and so on. They see things in terms of culture because they have culture. They base their sense of identity on culture. They are culturalists.


Há dois tipos de povos no mundo: burros e inteligente. Com este tipo de pensar, você mostrou muito bem que você é um burro mesmo, Zé BURRÃO!!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, April 18, 2002 at 22:35:39

Message:
>All the above statement is is your opinion and nothing else.

WELL DUH!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, April 18, 2002 at 23:27:06

Message:
>This is exactly why so many of us found your comments to be so offensive and ridiculous.

So the truthfulness of a proposition is determined by how inoffensive and normative it is?

You don't have to subscribe to that definition of culture. All that is required of you is that you at least realise that their exists a different way of thinking and looking at things out there. People around the world act differently from each other, you see, and how they THINK may -- JUST POSSIBLY -- have something to do with their actions, which differ in many instances from yours. Take -- just to pick something out of the air -- the contrasting behaviour through the centuries between Anglo-Saxon Americans and Latin Americans which has resulted is strikingly differing physical compositions of much of the populations. One people have acted in a manner that places little emphasis on something called race, while the other has placed all too apparent an emphasis on something called race. And this continues blatently today: just look at the hoopla that was made at the Oscars where an actress was awarded recognition not for being the 73rd (or whatever) winner of that award but -- get this -- the first "BLACK" woman to get it! Now it y'all aren't race-obsessed, I don't know what you are.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, April 19, 2002 at 01:27:58

Message:
>Hee, hee, hee! Dat boy sufferin from technical advancement envy. Like all what ain’t got it, dey want it, but dey can’t have it, so dey insults it. It’s like a fat girl who knows fat just gotta be prettier’n thin. Just GOT to be. . .got to be . . . got to. . .

'Sup, homeboy? Now ma bro ain't gots to be listening to me, man. When did I ever disparage technical advancement, bitch? I have more than once lauded American success in this area, ho. I particularly respect (right-wing) America's understanding and appreciation of fundamental principles. And I'd rather have no other nation as the sole superpower than America (US).

So, G-bitch, u ain't be listenin', man!

It's just your culture -- or lack of it -- which I don't have respect for. It behoves y'all to civilise -- otherwise you'll continue your downward spiral of liberalism until you're totally defunct as a nation.

Civilise or PERISH!

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, April 19, 2002 at 04:39:22

Message:
Having said all this, and y'all having listened to it, been insulted by it, annoyed by it, but nevertheless having been made aware of a different perspective out there(whether you believe it to be legitimate or not), you are left with a decision to make.

The decision? What definition of the words I have hitherto used will you subscribe to? Shall barbarian be a politically incorrect term referring to those who are technically backward and who do not bide by the Geneva Conventions in warfare? Or will it mean someone whose culture is pitiably shallow and so whose identity must necessarilly rest, by default, on skin colour or something called race? Shall the word civilised refer to those who live in a technically advanced and sophisticated society and who exercise chivalry in warfare, or shall it refer exclusively to those who exercise an ineffable joie de vivre (preferrably while possessing technical advancement)?

Naturally, I'm sure, you'll stubbornly choose to remain with the former definition; but I can offer you some problems with that choice on which to ponder. The Romans, for example, are considered to be co-founders with the Ancient Greeks of what is known as Western Civilisation. So the Romans were to civilisation (as the term is generally understood) what Rolls-Royce is to motor vehicles. But when the Romans were fighting the barbarians, you see, when they defeated, say, a particular village (needless to say, not the one of Asterix and Obelix!), what would they do? They would burn the homes of those vanquished, rape the women, and then kill everyone there.

Were they still civilised, these Romans? Or were they merely technically advanced?

Take the Germans also. At the time of the Second World War, the Germans were the most higly educated and technically advanced people in the world. For the preceding century or so, the Germans had the best universities and made the greatest contributions to the Western Canon. And yet these people, people who represented the cream of the crop of the Age of Reason, committed what is pretty much universally considered to be some of the most barbaric acts of the twentieth century. Barbaric in what sense? Well THERE'S a question -- but barbaric in the brutish sense, which is how the word is normally understood.

So were they civilised, these redoubtable Germans? Or were they merely technically advanced?

Then what IS civilisation? Does it have anything to do with technical advancement? Are we confusing chivalry with civilisation? Is it, then, that the Germans were unchivalrous but nevertheless civilised? Or was it the case that they were uncivilised but nevertheless technically advanced?

So does the word barbarian refer to dirty people, such as those who held clubs and foolishly tried to fight the sophisticated and advanced Romans like those in the opening scene of the movie "Gladiator" (great scene, that; best part of the movie!)? Or does it refer to people who require their women to cover themselves from head to foot lest the men around them be tempted with impure thoughts? Or is it, yet again, a reference to people who do not abide by the Geveva Conventions during times of war? And what about people like scientists who carry out medical experiments on animals -- are they barbarians acting barbarically? Does barbarian refer, then, to people who are cruel? But doesn't that then make my sister, a straigh-A student and veritable nerd, a barbarian? Do all those guys whom we all know out there who are womanisers and so insensately break countless girls' hearts -- are they barbarians engaging in cruel, barbaric behaviour? Or does it refer to brutes, people who are (in my opinion) unchivilrous? But did the English then civilise the Indians when they outlawed the practice of Suttee, in which a widowed wife imolated herself on her husband's funeral pyre, which the British considered barbaric? Had the Indians hitherto never been civilised?

So what DO these words mean? The Japanese are certainly technically advanced; but does that make them civilised? That's assuming, of coarse, that being civilised means subscribing to the chivalric code stemming from the Arthurian legends. Because these Japanese did, after all, commit a lot of unchivalrous behaviour during the Second World War -- though by their standards of chivalry they were acting according to their version of it, the Bushido code, which in many cases required diametrically opposite behaviour to what we would consider noble for its practioners to appear honourable.

Maybe the words civilisation and civilised have nothing to do with chivalry. Perhaps they only refer to technical advancement, regardless of how brutish the behaviour of those who possess it is. Which would mean that if the National Socialists had won WWII, they would (at least for some time) have represented the acme of civilisation, possessing the most technically advanced society ever, with the most highly educated population in the world, designing and producing the most sophisticated and advanced machinery and technology in the world (needless to say of the best quality) and generally proving themselves to have been right all along in their boasts of representing the cream of the crop of humanity, at least in the technically advanced sense.

Or maybe barbarian simply refers to people who don't exercise an ineffable joie de vivre, and maybe civilised is a word that can only be applied to those who do. Maybe. Who knows. You all know my opinion on the matter, of course -- but that's just me.

At least we can be sure of one thing: that people around the world think differently from each other, and even often have differing understandings as to the meaning of some of the very same words.

Imagine that!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Friday, April 19, 2002 at 06:22:54

Message:
I wrote:

>All the above statement is is your opinion and nothing else.

El Bozo replied:

>WELL DUH!

Then if you agree start qualifying your statements and people would be less inclined to attack you. You need only type three words: "In my opinion . . ."

Stop referring to those who don't share your point of view as barbarians and maybe they won't respond as hostilely. Also, when someone makes a point consider it and don't belittle it. For example, my point about Afro-Argentineans and your belittling of two experts on race in latin America. I never belittled Jorge Klor de Alva.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Friday, April 19, 2002 at 21:31:36

Message:
"I implore you to recognize the Church as a lady and in the name of the Pope take the King as lord of this land and obey his mandates. If you do not do it, I tell you that with the help of God I will enter powerfully against you all. I will make war everywhere and every way that I can. I will subject you to the yoke and obedience to the Church and the majesty. I will take your women and children and make them slaves....The deaths and injuries that you will receive from here on will be your own fault and not that of his majesty nor of the gentlemen that accompany me."

This is one version of what came to be known as "the requirement". The Spaniards would read this (in Spanish) to new tribes they encountered in what is now the Caribean and South and Central America. Technically advanced, unchivalrous barbarians to say the least. Now that's what I call an "ineffable joie de vivre".

>At least we can be sure of one thing: that people around the world think differently from each other, and even often have differing understandings as to the meaning of some of the very same words.

WELL DUH!!!

No one ever said that people around the world do not or should not think differently.....except you Hombre. Something about universal moral standards I believe it was...so the idea that you think you are enlightening us as to different points of view is laughable. It should also be brought to your attention that you do not speak for "people", you speak for yourself only.

Most of us on here, I think it is safe to say, define things like culture in broad terms not in a narrow manner in order to prove to the world some inner personal obsession of ours. You claim that we think inside a box, but it is not us who insist upon narrow definitions of broad concepts. You claim we hold a "racialist" perspective, but you brought it up. You claim we can't understand other ways of thinking, yet, like you, we all have a thing for Brasil. In my case, it is BECAUSE they think differently. All this is funny though because it is you who seems to be the most guilty of these accusations. Your brain is in a box, historical facts that counter everything you say roll right off your back. You mostly ignore them when they don't conform to your pre-conceived notions. It seems you are the one obsessed with race, not us Anglos. You probably couldn't even understand the concept that race can, in fact, be mutable, so I won't even try to explain it. Here's a hint though, it's because people around the world THINK differently. Imagine that! You figure it out from there. If Latins are culturalists and not racialists, why on earth would they call anyone a negrito? That is strictly a race concious term. And the one that humors me most is your claim to have become Latin. Sorry, wrong again. Just like a person of Irish descent raised in Chile is a Latin, a person of African descent, raised in an Anglo society can be nothing other than an Anglo. Klor de Alva is right in that manner. The fact is, you are the Cornel West of Australia. Anglo through and through. It seems you blame America for this, and I admit, America is a very race concious society more so than most. But then again, no one on here ever disputed that notion either. It was explained to you why, for the most part, this is so, but that didn't conform to your pre-conceived notions either. However, America cannot be blamed for your Anglo ways, no matter how much you wish it were true.

So, you are left with a decision to make. Shall we call you Cornel or Dr. West?

Yours Truly,

Sick
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, April 22, 2002 at 23:27:28

Message:
>You need only type three words: "In my opinion . . ."

Why? Isn't it obvious? So I have to spell everything out to you?

>Stop referring to those who don't share your point of view as barbarians and maybe they won't respond as hostilely.

What if they ARE barbarians, Mr Paul?

>when someone makes a point consider it and don't belittle it.

What if it's a point worth belittling?

>Most of us on here...

Hows about introducing y'all to the concept of a paradigm shift...? But then again -- that in itself may possibly require a paradigm shift! Ay caramba!

>So, you are left with a decision to make. Shall we call you Cornel or Dr. West?

On the contrary! Call me a man after Jorge Klor de Alva's heart. I'm Latin -- not a colour! Not a barbarian! Latin!

Incidentally, have you read that colloquy with Dr West and Prof. Klor de Alva in Harpers? Surely if you did you'd understand what I've been saying all along.

Civilise or Perish!

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Tuesday, April 23, 2002 at 06:29:02

Message:
Oh pulleeze. You are the sole arbiter of who is a barbarian and whose points need to be belittled?

Grow up, little boy.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Tuesday, April 23, 2002 at 07:09:09

Message:
>"Civilise or Perish!"

Take your own advice.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Tuesday, April 23, 2002 at 07:42:48

Message:

Strictly speaking, "barbarian" refers to one who doesn’t speak Greek, the language of one of the "co-founders" of Hombre’s version of Western Civilization. The term was used to denote the unintelligibly babbling foreigner. Sound familiar? Thus, it’s Hombre who’s the barbarian.

"Civilization" originally referred to the existence of cities or communities. It has been bent and banged around since then but "joie de vivre?" I think not. How silly. : ) Maybe Hombre wants to include primitive savages and happy puppies peeing on fire hydrants in his definition then. He also fails to appreciate how much fun we on this forum get out of kicking him around. : )) He keeps telling us we're not civilized, unable to appreciate our "joie de vivre."

I suppose it’s possible to get the idea that the Romans were "co-founders" of Western civilization through a light-headed perusal of the table of contents of a fifth grade social studies text. In reality, civilization-wise, they were an extension, perversion and, sometimes, repression of the earlier Greek civilization.

Sick is right. He has hit the dummy on the head. : ) "Hombre" is the hombre who introduced race into the discussion. In fact, it IS the discussion for him. It’s his laughable ignorance and his clumsy attempts to mask that which have become the discussion for everybody else.

Civilize or keep on babbling, Dumbo! : ))



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, April 23, 2002 at 23:13:55

Message:
What do y'all think of Martin Luther King? Do you think what he inspired was good? And what about Jim Crow and segregation -- were those all bad things? How about having a highly race-conscious, or even race-obsessed, society? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Assuming you're the sort of person who believes that "things have gotten better in America" since Martin Luther King's "dream" and its progressive "realisation" through the decades, civilisation (or at least my definition of it) is what y'all secretly yearn for but are unaware of: it is your unconscious desideratum.

Here I am having told you the solution -- and you spit on it!

Madness, pure madness...

Or perhaps overbearing pride, unwilling to change oneself (for the better).

You can either civilise, or descend further into a deplorable cesspit of liberalism, where benightedness reigns supreme and unchallenged -- trying to be civilised but without the civilisation, trying to be cultured but refusing culture, remaining barbarians while sardonically dismissing anyone's pointing this out.

Liberalism and benightedness ain't the answer to Martin Luther King's silly dream. Culture is.

Unless, of course, you don't see that "dream" business as being a desidaratum. If not -- ignore what I say. (But if so, where the heck's this thorn-in-the-side population gonna go? What's to be done with it?)

Civilise (if you so wish) or Perish!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at 00:36:21

Message:
Paradigm shift anybody?...
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at 08:13:38

Message:

>Civilize or keep on babbling, Dumbo! : ))

And so your choice is to keep babbling. Well, it's understandable. People like to stick with what they do best.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at 19:16:51

Message:
>Civilise (if you so wish) or Perish!

When you were born, why didn't your mother take some stem cells, put them in a Petri dish and try to clone you a brain. Or better yet, why didn't she put you in the medical waste canister and raise the placenta as her son?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, April 25, 2002 at 00:01:45

Message:
>People like to stick with what they do best.

Then are you saying that you're very good at being a barbarian?

>When you were born, why didn't your mother take some stem cells, put them in a Petri dish and try to clone you a brain. Or better yet, why didn't she put you in the medical waste canister and raise the placenta as her son?

That REALLY hurt, Mr Paul, REALLY hurt. My hands are shaking in rage and grief as I write this. I can barely see the screen for the tears welling up in my eyes... You BAD, Mr Paul, bad... Of all the things y'all have said to me on this thread -- that was the WORST!

By the way, Mr Paul, how's your mate Sabedoria?

Also, is the solution to your race-identity problem in America a deeper descent into liberalism, moral depravity, nihilism, benightedness, etc? Because it is only in such an environment that you could have dated (and even married!) that "great black girl" friend of yours without anyone ever thinking to ask you what on earth your parents might think. Because who could possibly find any problem with that in a society that finds no problem with homosexual marriages and adoption, so-called cohabitation etc? But before you reach that level of tolerance and acceptance and progressivism, will your society still exist as a functioning, viable entity?

Civilise (if such a consequence as that I've described seems unappealing) or Perish!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Thursday, April 25, 2002 at 06:19:20

Message:
>People like to stick with what they do best.

>Then are you saying that you're very good at being a barbarian?

[BOSTEZON]

>That REALLY hurt, Mr Paul, REALLY hurt. My hands are shaking in rage and grief as I write this. I can barely see the screen for the tears welling up in my eyes... You BAD, Mr Paul, bad... Of all the things y'all have said to me on this thread --that was the WORST!

[BIG YAWN]

>By the way, Mr Paul, how's your mate Sabedoria?

Ze Burrão, não conheço ele.

>Also, is the solution to your race-identity problem in America a deeper descent into liberalism, moral depravity, nihilism, benightedness, etc? Because it is only in such an environment that you could have dated (and even married!) that "great black girl" friend of yours without anyone ever thinking to ask you what on earth your parents might think. Because who could possibly find any problem with that in a society that finds no problem with homosexual marriages and adoption, so-called cohabitation etc? But before you reach that level of tolerance and acceptance and progressivism, will your society still exist as a functioning, viable entity?

[BOCEJÃO]

>Civilise (if such a consequence as that I've described seems unappealing) or Perish!

Vá cagar, cabeça de bosta!!

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Thursday, April 25, 2002 at 08:49:44

Message:
I don't know Sabedoria either, although I love the nickname.

While I would never use the exact language he uses, I do agree with him that your commentary is very gassy.

You are certainly full of yourself, aren't you? Perhaps Sabedoria has a point with his most recent comment. . .
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Thursday, April 25, 2002 at 18:19:46

Message:
>The extent and duration of the discrimination those Indians are experiencing is largely in their own hands: it will be determined by their own level of intransigence and recalcitrance (lack of culture is nothing to be proud of).

This is probably the most thoroughly odious comment you have ever posted. So if some group of Indians in Brazil (the Yanomamo for example) don't assimilate in your elitist, fascistic idea of what culture is they deserve whatever they have suffered. I think your mother did raise the placenta.

So if someone exhibits the joie de vivre you write about, using vida as a verb, they are Latinos? Gee, when I lived in Germany I knew a number of Germans like that. Are they latinos? My wife had an uncle who lived his entire life in Brazil (never even setting foot outside of the country) and who was extremely proper and conservative. You couldn't even curse in front of him. So despite his family going back six generations in Brazil and being able to trace their roots to Portugal for at least another six after that, he's not latino. What is he, German? Scandanavian? Irish? Welsh? Chinese? Russian? Inuit?

You must be Henri Le Pen's bastard child.

>But I'm facing a bit of a conundrum.

Too bad your father didn't wear a condom one night.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Friday, April 26, 2002 at 13:15:12

Message:
One minor correction. That should read "You must be Jean-Marie Le Pen's bastard child.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, April 27, 2002 at 01:02:44

Message:
>This is probably the most thoroughly odious comment you have ever posted. So if some group of Indians in Brazil (the Yanomamo for example) don't assimilate in your elitist, fascistic idea of what culture is they deserve whatever they have suffered

So what is the alternative, Mr Paul -- further moral decadence? Maybe those Indians should be "tolerated", eh? Maybe a condescending sympathy, one that is sure to subconsciously destroy their self-esteem and sense of dignity, should be conferred upon them? The ultimate problem, you see, is that of difference, which is why there exist borders and different countries in the first place. But what happens when there exist different people WITHIN the same borders? And with globalisation, and the resulting weakening of existing borders, what's gonna happen with all these DIFFERENT people mingling together? Why were there borders in the first place? Will everybody become the same by accepting, and even celebrating, everybody else's differences? But to do this requires liberalism. Intolerable liberalism, I would say. Indeed, untenable liberalism.

The point is, Mr Paul, there is no viable alternative. Burying your head in the sand won't do. Denying your reality won't do. What you've been doing so far won't do. The whole point I was making is that you can't continue on your present course, because it is destroying you. To give you in indication of what I mean, I shall re-post an earlier posting, which strongly hints at the shortcomings and negative consequences of what y'all have been trying:

"An example: if it wasn't for the civil-rights movement, would there be a homosexual-rights movement today? Whatever you think of homosexuality, you have to admit that it is behaviour which has until relatively recently been universally considered an abomination of the highest regard -- that is, until desegragation and integration. When the homosexuals view the civil-rights movement as their inspiration, what are they saying? And what does it say about the way your people think that they should generally (albeit unconsciously) see acceptance of such behaviour as the natural succession of the civil-rights movement? Again, whether you think homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy, or whether you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to admit that nobody would have thought of agitating for the legalisation of homosexual marriages if the laws against interracial marriages were still in place. Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether consciously or unconsciously), and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?"

You see, Mr Paul, the Latin mindset is the unconscious desideratum here. Unless, of course, Jim Crow never bothered you. Unless segregation was fine with you. Unless a continuation of the uncomfortable existence between people who are immutably different from each other is all right with you... Otherwise -- you WANNA become Latin but don't know it! What's tha matta? You're most of the way there... You've married a Latina, speak some of the languages -- you're on the home straight, mate! Alls you perhaps need to do is go back to Brazil. Undoubtedly you'll be living a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, preferably away from the big cities so that you avoid the violence. And of course you'll enjoy the added benefit of your wife never needing to do the housework again! Surely she's getting sick of that, unless you're already wealthy. If the incompetant Brazilian governement and system messes up big time, then you still have your American passport and can head back. After a few years of living in Brazil you'll think like a Latin and be a true-blue latino! And then you won't feel obliged to tolerate moral decadance, because to do otherwise would be "racist". Remember: you're on the home straight. ;)

>So if someone exhibits the joie de vivre you write about, using vida as a verb, they are Latinos?

Now, now, Mr Paul... All I way trying to say is that people obviously think differently around the world. And I think I may have even succeeded in managing to get even you to concede, however slightly, that this might actually -- just possibly -- be the case. Now I offered some suggestions, of which I intend to engage in further and more thorough research over the next few years, as to why some people -- in our case the Latins -- think quite differently to such people as the Anglo-Saxons, evidenced clearly by their differing behaviour and resulting actions.

I'm sure you'll concede, Mr Paul, that how people think determines how they act. Perhaps how the members of Al Q'aida think might have something to do with the actions with which we have become all too familiar in recent months. Perhaps. Perhaps how socialists of all persuasions thought throughout the twentieth century determined their resulting, baleful actions. Perhaps how people think and how they view their world determines how they subsequently act. Perhaps, Mr Paul, perhaps.

So if the situation concerning identity is somewhat different in Anglo-Saxon America compared to Latin America, then perhaps -- just maybe! -- the answer to this difference in circumstances lies in a different way of thinking. Surely, Mr Paul, even YOU won't disagree with that.

>You couldn't even curse in front of him. So despite his family going back six generations in Brazil and being able to trace their roots to Portugal for at least another six after that, he's not latino. What is he, German? Scandanavian? Irish? Welsh? Chinese? Russian? Inuit?

I think he may be an aberration -- just look at the actions, behaviour and physcial appearance of the majority of his countrymen! Or yes, maybe he is a German, Scandinavian or whatever -- at least an honourary one. You see, Australians are a fair-minded people who are egalitarian. Our political leaders, including the prime minister, insist on driving in the front passenger seat of their chauffeur-driven cars, for to do otherwise would be elitist and unAustralian, and therefore wouldn't make re-election any easier. But does the fact that there are a few exceptions to this rule -- that there are Aussies who are unfair and snobbish -- then cancel out this general observation? Of course not! To think like that is to be pedantic and absurd. Generalisations are quite normal and valid and we all -- including yourself -- engage in them. It's just that generalisations are not exact and do not describe everyone to a T, and this shortcoming should be, and generally [;)] is, taken into account. It is quite fair to say that the Americans are patriotic. One is quite justified in saying that Aussies like sports, that Brazilians are ebullient, that the English are reserved, that the French are arrogant, that the Scandinavians are tall, that the Germans and Japanese make quality products, that the Swiss are punctual -- it's quite fair to say all this, Mr Paul. Throwing up a few aberrations doesn't nullify the general observation. To think like that would be unfair and silly. So cut a bit of slack, Mr Paul. Sure there are some race-obsessed Brazilians out there, but they are OBVIOUSLY in the minority. And I can imagine that there are also Brazilians who certainly ain't got any sense of rhythm, but obviously this isn't, thankfully, a national characteristic.

>You must be Jean-Marie Le Pen's bastard child.

I reiterate: what is often regarded as French racism may more likely be French culturalism in reality -- only appearing to be racism to those who are accustomed to thinking from a racial point of view and so mistakenly assume the same of everyone. I think the backlash against the immigrants might be because they are not assimilating. The Arabs are remaining Muslim and aren't adopting French mannerisms and ways, and the Africans are becoming "black" instead of French. To continue on their present course, therefore, would be to set off on a kamikaze mission. If the French could have the same situation as Brazil -- that is, everybody essentially being Latin and therefore the same -- they would be quite happy. But this unfortunately isn't turning out to be the case.

Do you think, incidentally, Mr Paul, that America will ever overcome its obsession with race, resulting in its perennial race problem? If so, how do you think this can or will be done?

>Too bad your father didn't wear a condom one night.

And to think that you're a practicing Catholic! :O

PS: I got this quotation, which I believe is revealing and demonstrates my whole point, on a thread around the front of this forum titled "Boston's Women Samba Band Needs New Members":

>We welcome women of all socio-economic status, ethnicity, background, sexual prefernce, color, etc.

Sounds like a very tolerant and progressive group, this. One evidently can't have acceptance of one "socio-economic status" without accepting all the rest; to do otherwise would be inconsistent! And this thinking is very representative of what is a growing approach to America's community problems, and is, to say the least, an ominous portend.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, April 27, 2002 at 05:06:47

Message:
>I think he may be an aberration -- just look at the actions, behaviour and physcial appearance of the majority of his countrymen!

>Sure there are some race-obsessed Brazilians out there, but they are OBVIOUSLY in the minority.

Correction: I was confusing Mrs Paul's uncle with her brother.

But nevertheless, in attempting to describe succinctly what constitutes possession of culture and using the word joie de vivre to describe it, you'll notice that I always preceded it with the word ineffable. Also, I used the word intangible to describe this lifestyle which constituted this culture which I was speaking about. In short, what I understand by culture is very difficult to explain, because it is, in two words, ineffable and intangible.

I intend to learn all the Latin languages (I'm currently consolidating my Spanish) and then spend some time in the Latin European countries talking to people on the street, intellectuals, diplomats, etc, basically trying to figure out exactly what it is that makes these people think they way that they do and what they mean exactly by culture, especially the French. What you see at the moment is only my thoughts and observations in embryo, but what is enough nevertheless to explain roughly what I mean.

So the fact that your wife's uncle is more of a reserved English gentleman with a stiff upper lip in nature than he is a Dionysiac Brazilian does not, I should think, detract too significantly from my observations. Despite this uncle's personality, you cannot deny, GENERALLY SPEAKING, that the Latin mindset is significantly different to that of the Anglo-Saxon, and the Latin's behaviour through the centuries, particularly with "race" in Hispanic and Portuguese America, has demonstrated this difference in mindset irrefragably.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, April 27, 2002 at 05:17:05

Message:
Is a race-based identity a blessing or a curse?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Saturday, April 27, 2002 at 22:29:26

Message:
Sounds like a cop-out but it can be either. One could ask the same question of culture based identities as well. Both are different means to the same end, and both can have either outcome. The blessing outcome being a society with diverse views and lifestyles, minimal tensions and a constantly evolving progressive culture. The curse outcome being balkanization, maximum tensions and a stagnant, dogmatic culture.

Those would be the two extremes, as I see it, and looking at what I typed all the societies I can think of are a mixture of both. Most in the middle and a few leaning toward an extreme.

A problem with all this is the fact that you can't put a finger on your definition of culture. You can't define it but you know it when you see it. I am not criticizing, I understand what you are saying.

So I will explain my point of view and use Brasil as my example going by how I perceive culture. Brasil is oozing with the joie de vivre you talk about. I don't think anyone would contest this. It's precisely what draws my interest in the place. But I would not describe Brasil as having an evolving progressive culture. I see it as stagnant and dogmatic. And this is exactly the the perception I got during my short visit there. I think this is a problem endemic throughout Latin America for one sole purpose: the Catholic Church. I am not referring to recent events in the US or any of their religious doctrines in particular, or am I pointing a finger at Catholics as individuals and blaming them for problems in Latin America. However, the Church as an institution, I believe, has inbibed a scholasticsm that impedes modern, cultural and economic development. I don't blame EVERYTHING on the Church, but I believe that is where the roots of most problems stem from in that region (not from the US, the current scapegoat).

Now I ask, how can this be a good thing? How can this culture ultimately survive being rooted in such ideological dogmas? This is why I have disagreed with you so much on this issue. I don't think you include things like religion in your definition of culture. I think these things matter. So to be part of Latin culture does one have to be Catholic? Surely not, since many are not. So there can be differences within culture, i.e. religion, and maintain minimal tensions. The US has minimal religious tensions. Other parts of the world do not, so it can be balkanizing as well. However, it seems the US has a tradition of tolerance regarding religion. Ya know, liberalism.

So differences can exist within a culture and assimilation need not be forced. Why do recent immigrants to France have to assimilate? What happens if they don't? Why should French citizens even care if they do or not? Just like America has an obsession with race, I would say France has an obsession with culture. In my view, the French are the balkanizers in regard to immigrants failing to assimilate. The French are the problem, not the immigrants looking for a better life and wishing to live it as they please. Instead of drawing from the cultures of the immigrants and improving their own (which I believe America does, but then again, I'm biased), they choose to single out and isolate anyone who won't fall in line or seen as a threat to French culture. If France has such a superior culture, which they claim, then they need not worry about immigrants who won't assimilate.

Maybe France needs more liberalism?

What causes identity politics isn't liberalism, because if that were true Americans not only would be engaging in race-identity, but cultural-identity, religious-identity, eye color-identity, ad nauseum. Also, most Latin American countries cannot be described as having a grand history of liberalism. Yet, identity politics occur there, be it race, ethnicity, origin or third worldism. What causes identity politics are things like discrimination, in any form, forced assimilation and I would agree that imperialism would apply as well. And spare me placing the blame for liberalistic identity politics on America that's an insult to people who recognize injustices and draw their own conclusions on how to respond. America is not THAT influential or worshipped globally to that extent.

America's obsession with race is what keeps us from the blessing extreme leaving us lingering in the middle. But again, discrimination came first, liberal identity politics second. I agree that this obsession is a threat to American culture. Perhaps we need more liberalism. It seems our culture is stuck in stagnant, dogmatic modes of thought, at least in regards to race. America, for the most part, gave up a long time ago trying to force immigrants to assimilate. Most do anyway, by choice. Some actually WANT to become Americans....can ya believe that? An entire culture hovering over a new wave of immigrants insisting they change ASAP, as I said, only inspires intransigence. It draws them closer together, causes tensions and resentment, and impedes whatever assimilation that usually occurs by default. Therefore, I believe, liberal tolerance actually facilitates assimilation, regarding immigrants. The answer to the previous question is YES, the French need more liberalism, no doubt.

So I don't really make a distinction between race-identity politics and cultural-identity politics because they are caused by the same thing, discrimination basically. Since people are being singled out based on specific characteristics be it race or culture or whatever, I think a natural reaction to that is to take on that identity. So cultures not practicing that dreaded liberal tolerance are actually the ones calling for their own demise, not vice versa.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Sunday, April 28, 2002 at 08:30:23

Message:
>So what is the alternative, Mr Paul -- further moral decadence? Maybe those Indians should be "tolerated", eh? Maybe a condescending sympathy, one that is sure to subconsciously destroy their self-esteem and sense of dignity, should be conferred upon them? The ultimate problem, you see, is that of difference, which is why there exist borders and different countries in the first place. But what happens when there exist different people WITHIN the same borders? And with globalisation, and the resulting weakening of existing borders, what's gonna happen with all these DIFFERENT people mingling together? Why were there borders in the first place? Will everybody become the same by accepting, and even celebrating, everybody else's differences? But to do this requires liberalism. Intolerable liberalism, I would say. Indeed, untenable liberalism.

Live and let live.

>The point is, Mr Paul, there is no viable alternative. Burying your head in the sand won't do. Denying your reality won't do. What you've been doing so far won't do. The whole point I was making is that you can't continue on your present course, because it is destroying you.

Utter bullshit.

>I think he may be an aberration -- just look at the actions, behaviour and physcial appearance of the majority of his countrymen! Or yes, maybe he is a German, Scandinavian or whatever -- at least an honourary one. You see, Australians are a fair-minded people who are egalitarian. Our political leaders, including the prime minister, insist on driving in the front passenger seat of their chauffeur-driven cars, for to do otherwise would be elitist and unAustralian, and therefore wouldn't make re-election any easier. But does the fact that there are a few exceptions to this rule -- that there are Aussies who are unfair and snobbish -- then cancel out this general observation? Of course not! To think like that is to be pedantic and absurd. Generalisations are quite normal and valid and we all -- including yourself -- engage in them. It's just that generalisations are not exact and do not describe everyone to a T, and this shortcoming should be, and generally [;)] is, taken into account. It is quite fair to say that the Americans are patriotic. One is quite justified in saying that Aussies like sports, that Brazilians are ebullient, that the English are reserved, that the French are arrogant, that the Scandinavians are tall, that the Germans and Japanese make quality products, that the Swiss are punctual -- it's quite fair to say all this, Mr Paul. Throwing up a few aberrations doesn't nullify the general observation. To think like that would be unfair and silly. So cut a bit of slack, Mr Paul. Sure there are some race-obsessed Brazilians out there, but they are OBVIOUSLY in the minority. And I can imagine that there are also Brazilians who certainly ain't got any sense of rhythm, but obviously this isn't, thankfully, a national characteristic.

If you knew as many Brazilians as I do, you would realize what a fully uninformed statement that is.

>I reiterate: what is often regarded as French racism may more likely be French culturalism in reality -- only appearing to be racism to those who are accustomed to thinking from a racial point of view and so mistakenly assume the same of everyone. I think the backlash against the immigrants might be because they are not assimilating. The Arabs are remaining Muslim and aren't adopting French mannerisms and ways, and the Africans are becoming "black" instead of French.

So when France was colonizing Africa, the Middle East, Indochina, South America, the South Pacific and the Caribbean, the fact that the French did not take on the cultural identities of the people they were colonizing, but instead, imposed their own, you find acceptable?

You are morally obtuse.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Sunday, April 28, 2002 at 09:04:03

Message:
I wrote:

>Too bad your father didn't wear a condom one night.

To which you replied:

>And to think that you're a practicing Catholic! :O

Sometimes it's worthwhile to go against doctrine to prevent a larger evil.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Troll-la-la
On Monday, April 29, 2002 at 16:23:57

Message:
>Burying your head in the sand won't do. Denying your reality won't do. What you've been doing so far won't do.

. . . And Hombre's do-do won't do.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 00:46:40

Message:
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution, Sick; I'll reply to it tomorrow.

>If you knew as many Brazilians as I do, you would realize what a fully uninformed statement that is.

I just came across this contribution by a Brazilian on this forum under the thread titled "As opinoes dos brasileiros". Thought you might find it a bit interesting, Mr Paul et.al.:

"No Brasil a questão racial é completamente diferente do que acontece nos Estados Unidos. Aqui a questão é social, o preconceito racial não é tão grande quanto nos Estados Unidos, aqui o preconceito mais forte é o social, ou seja, quem tem dinheiro pode tudo, até burlar a justiça. Absurdo mas, isso ainda é uma realidade em países subdesenvolvidos. Após a Abolição da Escravatura (Fim da Escravidão)em 1888 não houve nenhuma política dos governantes brasileiros para a introdução do negro na sociedade por isso, eles não conseguiram ter acesso a educação e a bons trabalhos. Muitos continuaram fazendo o mesmo que faziam quando ainda eram escravos e ganhando muito pouco ou só alimento. Então hoje é difícil ver uma boa representação negra na sociedade, porque a luta teve que ser redobrada pois, além do preconceito que existia e ainda existe, tiveram que superar a educação deficiente, conseguir bons cargos em empresas, etc. Talvez este seja um dos motivos pelo qual o negro no Brasil é associado à criminalidade como você pode ver na mensagem acima mas, tudo é uma questão de oportunidade. Eu acredito que só agora as coisas estão mudando com relação ao papel do negro dentro da sociedade. O racismo no Brasil é um problema social e não racial propriamente. Se a pessoa é branca e não tem dinheiro ela sofrerá o mesmo preconceito que uma negra sem dinheiro.
Outra coisa que é muito diferente dos Estados Unidos é a questão do conceito de raça. A maioria da população brasileira não é nem de brancos nem de negros e sim, de mestiços. Portanto é difícil definir se a pessoa é negra ou branca. É uma questão completamente incoerente por aqui. Eu sou mestiça de negros e brancos e me considero da etnia brasileira. Não gosto de ativismo por uma coisa que acredito que não existe que é o conceito de raça. Me lembro sempre no colegial (highschool) quando aprendi em Biologia que o fenótipo que definia a cor da pele era o mesmo para miopia, por exemplo. Então se eu partisse desta lógica absurda a meu ver, poderia dizer que se a cor negra é uma outra raça, a miopia também é uma outra raça. Absurdo, não? Eu acredito em etnia que é um conjunto de características (tanto físicas, culturais e geográficas) que designam um determinado povo e eu sou brasileira (cuja religião é sincrética, cuja cor da pele não é imporatnte e sim, o que eu tenho a dizer). Talvez por isso o racismo aqui não seja tão forte mas, existe sim porque há pessoas que são influenciadas por idéias vindas de outros países mas, a verdade é que não existe brasileiro de uma "raça" pura porque não acredito que raça exista. Somos uma grande e bela mistura.
Quanto ao seu português, eu pensei que você fosse brasileira. Você já fala muito bem para quem está começando. Continue assim.
Abraços,
Isobel"

Tchau :)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 02:02:53

Message:
Isobel said basically what we have been saying all along. There is racism in Latin America (in this case referring to Brasil). It is different than in the US. It manifests itself in the social structure (which I interpret as "class" not "culture"). All of which contradicts your theory. Racism is racism so deal with it. I guess you missed the post directly following Isobel's, which was more to the point:

RE: As opinioes dos brasileiros
Posted by daniel
On Monday, April 29, 2002 at 20:29:43

Message:
suely,quase nenhum preconceito? deve estar de gozação,todo mundo sabe que tem muito preconceito, principalmente no sul do brasil onde há a maior colônia de europeus e descendentes, mesmo no Rio ou São Paulo e no restante do país têm,pode ser menos do que nos US, mas aqui também tem mais mistura racial,não poderia mesmo ser igual. deviam fazer uma pesquisa, deviam perguntar pros brancos, você aceitaria normalmente que o seu filho se cassase com uma negra? o resultado seria 100%, todos bonzinhos...chega de falsidade, tem preconceito racial sim e muito!

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 04:12:43

Message:
Here's some more from another brasileira on the same thread -- evidently another of the Brazilians whom you DON'T know.

"Temos pretos no futebol, nossa governadora é preta, em relação a preconceitos é quase nenhum, existe sim alguns marginais negros, com existem brancos também."
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 05:10:15

Message:
>Isobel said basically what we have been saying all along. There is racism in Latin America (in this case referring to Brasil). It is different than in the US. It manifests itself in the social structure (which I interpret as "class" not "culture"). All of which contradicts your theory. Racism is racism so deal with it. I guess you missed the post directly following Isobel's, which was more to the point

Ay caramba! I do believe Isobel was saying (if you're willing to pay any attention) that the social predicament many Brazilians find themselves in has nothing to do with race but rather to do with where one finds oneself when born: it is, as you said youself, a problem of class (though you contradict yourself by saying that what is actually attributable to class is in actual fact attributable to race [?]). The predominance of dark-skinned people in the lower rungs of the social ladder in Brazil is due to their history, having started off at a disadvantage, this being especially damning in a society where upper mobility is not easily forthcoming. She explicitly said that any superciliousness or mistreatment meted out against the underclass is due to their POVERTY and not their "race" -- indeed Isobel questions the existence of such a concept as race in a country like Brazil, and its relevance to such a people as herself.

And despite that you have the brazen chutzpah to suggest that by her saying all this she's in actual fact contradicting me! Ay caramba indeed!

Read again carefully; and here's some specific quotations for you to give particular attention to:

"O racismo no Brasil é um problema social e não racial propriamente. Se a pessoa é branca e não tem dinheiro ela sofrerá o mesmo preconceito que uma negra sem dinheiro."

What she really means to say is that the inequality problem in Brazil is social and not racial, although she says "[t]he RACISM in Brazil is a social problem and not racial, properly speaking" (my emphasis), thus appearing to contradict herself. She just worded it badly.

"Outra coisa que é muito diferente dos Estados Unidos é a questão do conceito de raça."

"A maioria da população brasileira não é nem de brancos nem de negros e sim, de mestiços. Portanto é difícil definir se a pessoa é negra ou branca. É uma questão completamente incoerente por aqui."

And here's a particularly telling one:

"Talvez por isso o racismo aqui não seja tão forte mas, existe sim porque há pessoas que são influenciadas por idéias vindas de outros países mas, a verdade é que não existe brasileiro de uma "raça" pura porque não acredito que raça exista."

And about Daniel? Why do you think he pointed out Southern Brazil in particular? Are the people there really Latin Brazilians, or are they instead racial Brazilians and therefore act according to their nature? I would suggest that Daniel first live in another country before saying what he does. If you ask a person who's never tasted Pepsi or Coke which is the better of the two, he'd be hard pressed to give you an answer, because he just wouldn't know; or, if you asked someone who's only ever tasted one of the two drinks which of the two is better, again, he wouldn't be in a position to offer an answer. It sounded to me like Isobel has actually lived in the US. Ask an Aussie about racism here in Australia and he'll sadly shake his head and proclaim in a melancholy tone that it is indeed a universal problem -- until he lives overseas for some time, like in England, THEN he'll know.

How can a people who are not conscious of race be racist? It's like suggesting an illeterate person wrote "War and Peace"!


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 09:09:10

Message:
Yeah, you've got me there Cornel. With the largest African population outside of Africa and the largest Japanese population outside of Japan, the fact that Brasil has black soccer players, at least one black politician, black delinquents and white delinquents as well, proves you're right. Good going Mate!

Haha geez. Talk about convoluted arguments. We now have the concept of "racial brasilians" and a native of Brasil is (assuming he were actually participating) disqualified from discussing this issue because he has never lived abroad (but the real reason is he proves you're wrong, shhh I won't tell anyone).

>>it is, as you said youself, a problem of class (though you contradict yourself by saying that what is actually attributable to class is in actual fact attributable to race [?]).

That is not a contradiction if the class structure is drawn along racial lines, which it is, and this has been pointed out to you numerous times. Some Brasilians of mixed race, who would be considered black in the US because of our concept of race, are considered white in Brasil because of their concept of race. This different concept of race can be used as an advantage in a society with a class structure based on race...they can marry UP. A form of upward mobility in a country that, as you say and I'll take your word for it, doesn't offer too many opportunities in that regard. On the other hand, people tend to avoid marrying down. It also shows how race CAN be mutable. If that Brasilian were to get on a plane and fly to the US, his race would change, then change again when he returned. So you are at least right about one thing, race is a silly concept. I also think class is a silly concept, for that matter.

>>The predominance of dark-skinned people in the lower rungs of the social ladder in Brazil is due to their history, having started off at a disadvantage, this being especially damning in a society where upper mobility is not easily forthcoming.

Yes, you are right again. Historically, they started off disadvantaged. The disadvantage being darker skin. This disadvantage foisted upon them was no accident. Couldn't one make the same argument for the US? Sorry, of course not, it would disprove your theory. You explained it to me once before, the history of the US is irrelevant, especially when it may contradict your theory.

>>She explicitly said that any superciliousness or mistreatment meted out against the underclass is due to their POVERTY and not their "race"...

No kidding? If I intended to mistreat someone because of that person's "underclass" status, then it would make sense that their POVERTY and not their race would be the standard I would go by. Thanks for clearing that one up though, Dr. West.

No one ever denied that Brasilians, because of the ethnic mix of Brasil, have a different concept of race than the US, as I explained above.

Oh yes of course, it is the "foreigners" and the "racial Brasilians" that keep the southern part of Brasil rich and the northern part poor. The northern part being the part of Brasil where the people tend to have a darker hue. But clearly, history and the class structure explains this disparity. The wealth remains in the south simply because, by golly, those people up north are POOR!

Did you ever consider for one moment, the lack of upward mobility that keeps darker skinned Brasilians at the bottom of the social ladder is no accident? Is it possible that upward mobility would be a threat to the "whiteness" of the ruling elite? I have a feeling that the history of Brasil, and all of Latin America for that matter, will suddenly become irrelevant as well.

>>How can a people who are not conscious of race be racist?

A class structure with darker skin on the bottom and lighter skin on the top is clear evidence of race consciousness. There can be no other explanation.

Brasilians, according to you, who have never lived abroad are not qualified to speak on the issue of race in regards to the very country they have lived their entire lives. But you, on the other hand, can gauge the conciousness of an entire continent in which you have never lived. Did you, perchance, write "War and Peace"?

Abracos e beijos,

Sick
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 10:53:43

Message:
>And about Daniel? Why do you think he pointed out Southern Brazil in particular? Are the people there really Latin Brazilians, or are they instead racial Brazilians and therefore act according to their nature?

The single largest ethnic group in Rio Grande do Sul, the southernmost state in Brazil, are the descendants of Italian immigrants. There is as much racial prejudice there as anywhere else in the South of Brazil. Are these Italo-Brazilians not latins? What are they then, Irish, Hutu, Tutsi, Hausa, Lapp, Ainu?

The Governor of Rio de Janeiro state is Benedita da Silva who is the first Afro-Brazilian woman to be elected to Congress and the Senate. She became governor as a result of the resignation of Antônio Garotinho, who, by law had to resign in order to run for president.

>How can a people who are not conscious of race be racist? It's like suggesting an illeterate person wrote "War and Peace"!

If you think that Brazilians are not conscious of race, fica sonhando, besta.

Still no answer to this question?

>So when France was colonizing Africa, the Middle East, Indochina, South America, the South Pacific and the Caribbean, the fact that the French did not take on the cultural identities of the people they were colonizing, but instead, imposed their own, you find acceptable?

>So what is the alternative, Mr Paul -- further moral decadence? Maybe those Indians should be "tolerated", eh? Maybe a condescending sympathy, one that is sure to subconsciously destroy their self-esteem and sense of dignity, should be conferred upon them?

The true hypocrisy here, using Guatemala as an example as the majority of the population are descendants of the indigeneous people, the Creole (i.e. white descended European) dominated government using the indigenous people and their culture (and despite your gassy commentary they do have culture) as a major component of their international tourism effort. Tolerated indeed, they should be celebrated.

Oh and by the way since you snubbed my comment about the Afro-Uruguayan population, with the following statement: "A significant Afro-Uruguayan population? What -- one percent?"

After consulting several sources the number is consistently placed between 4-6% about a third to half of the US Afro-American population.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 14:05:51

Message:
El Hombre:

If you can read Portuguese read this from the "As opiniões dos brasileiros" thread:

RE: As opinioes dos brasileiros
Posted by Rene
On Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 11:48:53

Message:
"Oi, Tanya:

"Na verdade, eu gostaria de fazer um comentário sobre o que o Daniel disse.

"O sul do Brasil realmente foi colonizado por europeus, como todo o resto do Brasil foi. Por exemplo, os portugueses.

"Entretanto, em um dado momento de nossa história, muitos imigrantes procedentes da Alemanha e da Itália fixaram-se em estados como o Rio Grande do Sul e Santa Catarina. Surgiu, então, o 'mito' de que o sul do Brasil é muito racista. Alguns até afirmam que o sul é o ponto mais racista de nosso país e que até hoje o racismo é muito forte por aqui.

"Só que o sul do Brasil, hoje, não é mais racista do que outras partes do Brasil. Muito pelo contrário. Se fôssemos muitos racistas, não teríamos eleito para prefeito de Porto Alegre o Sr. Alceu Collares, que anos mais tarde foi também o governador do Rio Grande do Sul. Não tenho dados precisos, mas acredito que Alceu Collares foi o primeiro governador negro de um estado brasileiro.

"Não sei se o Daniel sabe sobre o dado histórico de que o Rio Grande do Sul aboliu a escravatura no estado quatro anos antes de a Princesa Isabel abolí-la no resto do país.

"Ainda há preconceito com relação a cor no sul do Brasil da mesma forma que ele ainda existe no restante do Brasil e nos Estados Unidos e, acredito, em diversos outros lugares deste planeta. Só que não procede a informação de que o racismo está principalmente no sul do Brasil."

Um abraço,

Rene

So much for your stereotypes.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, May 01, 2002 at 02:44:08

Message:
>...in a country that, as you say and I'll take your word for it, doesn't offer too many opportunities in that regard.

The country doesn't offer many opportunities because it is not fully industrialised. And it's not as enterprising as such countries as America (US) and Australia where opportunity is abundant.

>On the other hand, people tend to avoid marrying DOWN. [my emphasis]

Talk about an inadvertent mea culpa!

>The disadvantage being darker skin.

The disadvantage being SLAVERY!

>Couldn't one make the same argument for the US?

"No Brasil a questão racial é completamente diferente do que acontece nos Estados Unidos. Aqui a questão é social, o preconceito racial não é tão grande quanto nos Estados Unidos, aqui o preconceito mais forte é o social, ou seja, quem tem dinheiro pode tudo, até burlar a justiça. Absurdo mas, isso ainda é uma realidade em países subdesenvolvidos."

>If I intended to mistreat someone because of that person's "underclass" status, then it would make sense that their POVERTY and not their race would be the standard I would go by.

"Se a pessoa é branca e não tem dinheiro ela sofrerá o mesmo preconceito que uma negra sem dinheiro."

>...because of the ethnic mix of Brasil, have a different concept of race than the US...

So their particular mindset developed AFTER the fact of their mixing or did it exist BEFORE the mixing and was in fact a part of their nature?

>The wealth remains in the south simply because, by golly, those people up north are POOR!

Yes...and...?

>Is it possible that upward mobility would be a threat to the "whiteness" of the ruling elite?

Why would "whiteness" matter to a Latin people? I think the whole point I've been making all along is that they think different from you guys? I thought that would have been clear by now. How come this precious "whiteness" (naturally precious to race people) never mattered to the vast majority of Latins like Isobel in Brazil and most of Latin America? How come it seems to have only mattered to the Anglo-Saxon Americans, where laws, until relatively recently, were in place to insure the continued "whiteness" of the already existing "white" population in Anglo-Saxon America. And don't think these laws somehow were imposed against the will of the majority-"white" population -- America (US) has always been a democratic nation and the laws that have existed have been a reflection of the will of the people. Perhaps you ought to read a bit more of what Isobel has to say: "A maioria da população brasileira não é nem de brancos nem de negros e sim, de mestiços. Portanto é difícil definir se a pessoa é negra ou branca. É uma questão completamente incoerente por aqui." Now why is it like this in Brazil (and many Latin American countries) and CLEARLY not the case in Anglo-Saxon America?

>A class structure with darker skin on the bottom and lighter skin on the top is clear evidence of race consciousness. There can be no other explanation.

"Após a Abolição da Escravatura (Fim da Escravidão)em 1888 não houve nenhuma política dos governantes brasileiros para a introdução do negro na sociedade por isso, eles não conseguiram ter acesso a educação e a bons trabalhos. Muitos continuaram fazendo o mesmo que faziam quando ainda eram escravos e ganhando muito pouco ou só alimento. Então hoje é difícil ver uma boa representação negra na sociedade, porque a luta teve que ser redobrada pois, além do preconceito que existia e ainda existe, tiveram que superar a educação deficiente, conseguir bons cargos em empresas, etc."

>Brasilians, according to you, who have never lived abroad are not qualified to speak on the issue of race in regards to the very country they have lived their entire lives.

Again, if you've never tasted Pepsi and have only ever drank Coke, you wouldn't be able to compare which is better. In the same way, if you've only lived amongst one people all your life, you might not be able to appreciate how differently people think and would be particularly surprised at how the same thing can be viewed so differently. Sick thinks that marrying a negrita is, ipso facto, marrying "down"; but in Brazil, if that negrita were rich, then how could it be considered marrying "down"? The richest and most powerful family in Australia, to give you an example of how people think differently, is the Packer family. James Packer, the heir to the throne, was an extremely eligible bachelor (I think he's since married) who was dating a negrita and was set to marry her. The negrita (Deni Hines) eventually refused him, considering the family's opulent billionaire lifestyle just too much (although she's quite rich herself). Now do you think to Australians the fact that the heir to the Packer family wealth was apparently going to marry a negrita would have somehow been looked upon as marrying "down", as you so delicately put it? Of course not! Australians don't think like that, as should be clear to you by now. Maybe in America (US), yes, but not here. So why is it so hard to believe that the same might be the case in Brazil?

>Did you, perchance, write "War and Peace"?

Nope. I believe Leo Tolstoy did :)

>The single largest ethnic group in Rio Grande do Sul, the southernmost state in Brazil, are the descendants of Italian immigrants. There is as much racial prejudice there as anywhere else in the South of Brazil. Are these Italo-Brazilians not latins? What are they then, Irish, Hutu, Tutsi, Hausa, Lapp, Ainu?

You'll realise from that, Mr Paul, why parents always worry about whom their kids hang around.

>There is as much racial prejudice there as anywhere else in the SOUTH OF BRAZIL. [my emphasis]

MEA CULPA! :)

>If you think that Brazilians are not conscious of race, fica sonhando, besta.

"A maioria da população brasileira não é nem de brancos nem de negros e sim, de mestiços. Portanto é difícil definir se a pessoa é negra ou branca. É uma questão completamente incoerente por aqui."

"a verdade é que não existe brasileiro de uma "raça" pura porque não acredito que raça exista."

>So when France was colonizing Africa, the Middle East, Indochina, South America, the South Pacific and the Caribbean, the fact that the French did not take on the cultural identities of the people they were colonizing, but instead, imposed their own, you find acceptable?

Yep.

>Tolerated indeed, they should be celebrated.

What else would you "tolerate" and "celebrate", Mr Paul? There's been a lot of that going on since the Sixties, and moral decadence, drug abuse, violence, social decay, family breakdown, etc has been commensurate.

>After consulting several sources the number is consistently placed between 4-6% about a third to half of the US Afro-American population.

When I was there, wherever I read information on Uruguay it was consistently 1 percent. Musta read the wrong information.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Wednesday, May 01, 2002 at 10:28:17

Message:
>>On the other hand, people tend to avoid marrying DOWN. [my emphasis]

Talk about an inadvertent mea culpa!

Talk about lack of comprehension!

>>The disadvantage being SLAVERY!

Somehow slaves in the US avoided this disadvantage. Amazing.

>>So their particular mindset developed AFTER the fact of their mixing or did it exist BEFORE the mixing and was
in fact a part of their nature?

Most likely sometime in the 1930s when Gilberto Freyre introduced the concept of "racial democracy". Up until that point, the policy of "whitening" and its origins had been in full effect for 400 years. Freyre's nationalist myth is not as widely held as it once was, which you fail to realize.

"...in 1946 a Unesco study revealed that while most Brazilians approved of racial tolerance, in practice racial
discrimination was widespread." --BBC

Damn racialist studies!

>>The wealth remains in the south simply because, by golly, those people up north are POOR!

Yes...and...?

And think, if this is possible for you, about why that is, given the racial demographics of the north.

>>"Após a Abolição da Escravatura (Fim da Escravidão)em 1888 não houve nenhuma política dos governantes
brasileiros para a introdução do negro na sociedade por isso, eles não conseguiram ter acesso a educação e a bons trabalhos. Muitos continuaram fazendo o mesmo que faziam quando ainda eram escravos e ganhando muito pouco ou só alimento. Então hoje é difícil ver uma boa representação negra na sociedade, porque a luta teve que ser redobrada pois, além do preconceito que existia e ainda existe, tiveram que superar a educação deficiente, conseguir bons cargos em empresas, etc."

Nice history lesson, but it doesn't explain why so I'll explain it to you...Why were there no policies for the introduction of blacks into society? Because they were black. The US actually tried to incorporate blacks into the society after the civil war ended, known as Reconstruction.

>>If I intended to mistreat someone because of that person's "underclass" status, then it would make sense that
their POVERTY and not their race would be the standard I would go by.
>>Se a pessoa é branca e não tem dinheiro ela sofrerá o mesmo preconceito que uma negra sem dinheiro

Exactly the same thing I said, but with different wording. You must not have understood that one either.

>>Sick thinks that marrying a negrita is, ipso facto, marrying "down"; but in Brazil, if that negrita were rich,
then how could it be considered marrying "down"?

Nice try Cornel but no cigar. I do not think that nor did I even imply that I think that. You completely missed the point, but what's new. Here is what I wrote:

"Some Brasilians of mixed race, who would be considered black in the US because of our concept of race, are
considered white in Brasil because of their concept of race. This different concept of race can be used as an advantage in a society with a class structure based on race...they can marry UP. A form of upward mobility in a country that, as you say and I'll take your word for it, doesn't offer too many opportunities in that regard. On the other hand, people tend to avoid marrying down."

Where does it say that is my concept of race? If you could follow along, you would see that it doesn't. Therefore, I do not ipso facto think anything of the sort, and I resent the accusation.

I was only trying to show how difficult it is for Brasilians of darker skin to move up the social and economic ladder. If a rich "negrita" marries someone of a lower class, then of course she is marrying down, because it's a class system. You seem to have drawn the obtuse conclusion that each class is populated by a single race. I neither said that nor implied it. There is simply a strong correlation which even you admit. And if you still draw the conclusion that marrying down in a class system skewed by race implies that Brasilians won't marry down because they don't want to be associated with a race perceived as less desireable, then that just sounds like the nastiness of racism to me. I wouldn't agree with that conclusion, I think Brasilians are race concious but not to that extreme.

This class structure goes far in explaining the Brasilian concept of race and how they define themselves. In a country that you claim to be so "morenoed", 55.3% of the population call themselves white and only 4.9% call themselves black (1991 statistics). Odd statistics for a country that you claim is not concious of race. Those numbers indicate stigmas and a skew towards "whiteness". Oh, and Cornel, don't even try to turn that last statement around on me, like you tried to above in typical demagogic fashion. Those numbers probably indicate the effectiveness of the "whitening" policies more than anything else.

And for the record, all this is my opinion, which I base on what I have learned from Brasilians that I know and have spoken with about this along with what I have read. I try not to state my conclusions as facts, like some people.

>>Now do you think to Australians the fact that the heir to the Packer family wealth was apparently going to
marry a negrita would have somehow been looked upon as marrying "down", as you so delicately put it? Of course not!

I'll take your word for it. I don't know what the class structure is like in Australia. I will only say that it is my opinion that class is not emphasized in the US to the extent it is in Latin America or Europe.

The problem with this discussion is that in arguing against your baseless theory I have a feeling I am making Brasilians sound like a bunch of racist thugs and that afro-Brasilians are almost non-existent in the cultural, political, and economic spheres of Brasil. I don't believe that at all. I think Brasilians are far less race concious than Americans, but race concious nonetheless. Same goes for the rest of Latin America as well, and the world for that matter.

Abracos e beijos

Sick
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Wednesday, May 01, 2002 at 10:46:48

Message:
>>Why would "whiteness" matter to a Latin people? I think the whole point I've been making all along is that they think different from you guys? I thought that would have been clear by now. How come this precious "whiteness" (naturally precious to race people) never mattered to the vast majority of Latins like Isobel in Brazil and most of Latin America? How come it seems to have only mattered to the Anglo-Saxon Americans, where laws, until relatively recently, were in place to insure the continued "whiteness" of the already existing "white" population in Anglo-Saxon America. And don't think these laws somehow were imposed against the will of the majority-"white" population -- America (US) has always been a democratic nation and the laws that have existed have been a reflection of the will of the people.

Here's your answer to all those questions and basically everything you have ever posted on here:

"While promoting the public myth of the "racial democracy," the Vargas regime projected the "white" image of Brazil to the world. The policy of whitening the population through increased European immigration continued during this era. In 1945, Vargas' Decree No. 7967 was issued establishing a criteria for immigration in which immigrants would be admitted only in conformity with the "necessity to preserve and develop, in the ethnic composition of the population, the more desirable characteristics of its European ancestry." Vargas' decree remained in force well into the 1980s until the constitution of 1988 was ratified."

--Democracy and Race in Brazil, Britain and the United States by Walton L. Brown

Just let me know if this isn't enough information for you, there is plenty more.

Abracos e beijos

Sick
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, May 01, 2002 at 23:03:44

Message:
>I was only trying to show how difficult it is for Brasilians of darker skin to move up the social and economic ladder. If a rich "negrita" marries someone of a lower class, then of course she is marrying down, because it's a class system. You seem to have drawn the obtuse conclusion that each class is populated by a single race. I neither said that nor implied it. There is simply a strong correlation which even you admit. And if you still draw the conclusion that marrying down in a class system skewed by race implies that Brasilians won't marry down because they don't want to be associated with a race perceived as less desireable, then that just sounds like the nastiness of racism to me. I wouldn't agree with that conclusion, I think Brasilians are race concious but not to that extreme.

You aren't making any sense, mate.

>This class structure goes far in explaining the Brasilian concept of race and how they define themselves. In a country that you claim to be so "morenoed", 55.3% of the population call themselves white and only 4.9% call themselves black (1991 statistics). Odd statistics for a country that you claim is not concious of race. Those numbers indicate stigmas and a skew towards "whiteness". Oh, and Cornel, don't even try to turn that last statement around on me, like you tried to above in typical demagogic fashion. Those numbers probably indicate the effectiveness of the "whitening" policies more than anything else.

You really are mad...

>Democracy and Race in Brazil, Britain and the United States by [Randy Paul et alia]

In other words, pig-headed racialists who don't wanna change and want a continued justification for their mindset even if it involves chimera.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Wednesday, May 01, 2002 at 23:38:35

Message:
>>You aren't making any sense, mate.

Sorry mate, I overestimated your comprehensive capacity.

>>In other words, pig-headed racialists who don't wanna change and want a continued justification for their mindset even if it involves chimera.

To the contrary, that author is Latin. His "joie de vivre" is quite evident.

The author being Latin only works in my favor, but for the sake of argument I will suppose for a moment he isn't Latin. Now, can you explain Decree No. 7967? A numbered decree sounds like documentation to me, and not mere racialist conjecture.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Wednesday, May 01, 2002 at 23:43:39

Message:
hrmm ...Sorry mate, I overestimated your comprehensive capacity.

I need an editor.

It should read:

Sorry mate, I overestimated your capacity to comprehend.

Ahh better.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, May 02, 2002 at 00:11:20

Message:
>A numbered decree sounds like documentation to me, and not mere racialist conjecture.

You'll realise from that, Sick, why parents always worry about whom their kids hang around. :)




RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Thursday, May 02, 2002 at 00:15:42

Message:
You're sinking fast. Time to jump ship, mate.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, May 02, 2002 at 00:28:54

Message:
So you're quite happy with the course the American ship (to use your metaphor) has taken and is taking? Full-steam ahead, eh?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Thursday, May 02, 2002 at 00:54:55

Message:
No. I think I have made my displeasure clear with America's history and present situation on this subject.

But even if you were right, how would it improve the quality of anyone's life? It wouldn't.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, May 02, 2002 at 01:13:57

Message:
"Apart from this brief reference, he does not mention immigration. Various French acquaintances I consulted before the interview confirmed that immigration formed little or no part of his presidential campaign. ‘Le Pen is not a racist,’ said one. ‘It’s only the other parties who talk about immigration now,’ said another. Le Pen’s campaign was based instead on law and order, unemployment, and on his policy of abolishing income tax. ‘Why am I so viciously attacked in the British press?’ he asks me. Le Pen’s views on immigration are the same as Norman Tebbit’s, while his views on urban blight, social collapse and the decline of traditional values can be found every week in the columns of the Daily Mail or The Spectator. The Sun, for that matter, has spent the week enumerating Le Pen’s various hateful policies, such as closing the refugee centre at Sangatte or opposing the right of homosexuals to adopt children, but the obligatory photograph of Hitler with which it adorned the rant did little to distinguish the list from everything the Sun itself generally supports. Le Pen accuses the Left of exploiting the immigrant as its new totem in the place of the worker, but without really ever having cared for either. ‘What makes me sad,’ he has written, ‘is that the great majority of the immigrant community just wants to live in peace, and yet the Left takes up an immigrant cause which is in reality only that of a minority of delinquents.’ But the idea that Le Pen proposes to ethnically cleanse France of its present immigrant population is nonsense."

John Laughland, "Why does everybody hate me?" The Spectator of London magazine, 27 April 2002


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Thursday, May 02, 2002 at 01:49:26

Message:
"‘What makes me sad,’ he has written, ‘is that the great majority of the immigrant community just wants to live in peace, and yet the Left takes up an immigrant cause which is in reality only that of a minority of delinquents.’"

I guess this is the key sentence. I would agree with that only if the part about "the immigrant community just wants to live in peace" is meant in a literal sense. The meddling of the left for sure can cause problems and only benefit a "minority of delinquents". But if it really means, the left should leave them alone BUT they must assimilate on our terms and quickly or else suffer the consequences, then it takes on an even more insidious nature then anything the left could ever do. The cause then shifts from a "minority of delinquents" to "they are all delinquents".
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, May 02, 2002 at 04:10:11

Message:
I don't think it's likely, judging from this, that it would ever progress to classifying all immigrants as "delinquents", simply because it seems that these minority delinquents are the only ones showing no interest in assimilating and becoming French, something the French, being Latin, are capable of doing -- absorbing people who look different. These minority delinquents, I suspect, are those who'd rather base their identity on race and therefore feel obliged to emulate their African-American gangsta mentors. When I first came to Australia, by the amount of grafitti I was seeing it was easy to imagine that the place was crawling with rough gangs up to no good. But after you live here for a while you realise it's just shallow immitation. We don't actually have an underclass here: pretty much everybody has a middle-class lifestyle. So how do we explain all that grafitti? Pseudo-negroes, that's what (or, more accurately, pseudo-Afro-American gangstas), and these are all people y'all would call "white". Although they haven't experienced the experiences of those they are trying to emulate, they nevertheless feel compelled to act out some of their actions. And this seems to be happening in France, which is currently experiencing a wave of crime, where hundreds of cars, for example, are torched by these "minority delinquents" just for the fun of it (I guess for identity reasons).

>But even if you were right, how would it improve the quality of anyone's life? It wouldn't.

Say what? It would stop the spiralling moral decadance, that's what it would do! And you don't think that would improve the quality of life?

Listen: my whole point is that it is UNNATURAL for y'all to be living together, that is, so-called "black" people to be living within the same borders as "white" people, pretending that they are the same, "united" people. Your history proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that such pretence is ridiculous and that y'all consider yourselves to be immutably different from each other (or at least one party has been stubornly and consistently of this view) and have therefore existed as two nations withing the same borders. Although you might consider so-called African-Americans today to be your fellow Americans, you nevertheless see them as being different from yourself, as constituting a different ethnic group from that to which you apparently belong, being "the Other" in your scheme of things. You're different from each other, Sick, racially different -- or at least you're of this opinion. And why should this "race" business matter (insofar as there is such a thing)? Because Anglo-Saxons are race people. And why do they concern themselves with race instead of, say, culture like the Latins do? Well the thing is, if they could concern themselves with culture they would, but God not having blessed them with it they must naturally concern themselves instead with race.

And because it's unnatural for y'all to live and mingle together -- 'cos y'all are jus' p-l-a-i-n differen' -- any attempt to surmount this division is futile. You haven't surmounted it today because you CAN'T surmount it. And you NEVER will surmount it. What you currently see isn't the problem being solved gradually; what you see is merely liberalism. What you currently see is an implicit admission that the only way you, Sick (you and your people), can happily sit in school next to a "black" kid, work next to a "black" man, and -- God forbid -- even marry a negrito/a is if you're prepared to have the same "tolerance" conferred to the homosexual, the transexual-Nazi-Eskimo, the Rosie O'Donnell, the libertine, the deadbeat dad, the never-married single mom, the nihilistic, lubricious, bibulous, drug-abusing, violent, contumacious youth, the Jerry Springer and all his show celebrates...etc., etc. In short, moral decadance. You can only give the appearance of "living" Martin Luther King's "dream" (a dream essentially, though he did not know it, to be a Latin society) if you become liberal, that is, if you become morally decadent and benighted.

This isn't a solution. If what's happened so far has been a victory, a victory for the American Dream and Ideal, then it's resoundingly been a pyrrhic one: two steps forward and ten steps back!

But what about if you don't have to engage in this orgy of self-flagellation as a nation, eviscerating your national character and values in order to salve your seared conscience? What if there's a REAL solution?

There is. The United States is the top dog in almost every relevant field of endeavour: the best and freest political institutions in the world, a superior and unparallelled understanding and appreciation of fundamental principles, the biggest, most advanced and dynamic economy in the world, the possession of undoubtedly the most powerful military force that has ever existed in history, the fattest people in the world, the preserver and protector of freedom and democracy, and fundamentally a force for good in the world... I could go on. So WHY lose all this because of your silly obsession with race? Latinising would only be IMPROVING the situation, not making it worse; it would be a step up, not a step down. With a homogenous population (for the first time in America's history), a population not only capable of assimilating only northern (and maybe even southern) Europeans but people who look different would exist. Because as long as you remain a people who base their sense of identity on race, you will need to become more and more liberal and "tolerant" in order to APPEAR -- and that's what is is: merely an appearance -- to be able to absorb people who look different from youselves. But this will unfortunately mean the destruction of your society, which means, by the way, the destruction of the world (Do you know, incidentally, why many Islamic women resist the imposition of dress-codes requiring them to wear the veil or burkas? Because American, or Western, women don't dress like that! It just ain't fashionable, baby! Tells you something about your influence). To remind you of the relationship between the civil-rights movement and moral decadance, I'll requote a previous posting of mine which asks some troubling questions:

An example: if it wasn't for the civil-rights movement, would there be a homosexual-rights movement today? Whatever you think of homosexuality, you have to admit that it is behaviour which has until relatively recently been universally considered an abomination of the highest regard -- that is, until desegragation and integration. When the homosexuals view the civil-rights movement as their inspiration, what are they saying? And what does it say about the way your people think that they should generally (albeit unconsciously) see acceptance of such behaviour as the natural succession of the civil-rights movement? Again, whether you think homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy or whether you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to admit that nobody would have thought of agitating for the legalisation of homosexual marriages if the laws against interracial marriages were still in place. Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether consciously or unconsciously), and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?

You see, you already want to be Latin but don't know it. The Latin mindset is the unconscious desidaratum here. Every time you think how terrible Jim Crow was you're in fact wishing, unconsciously, that your society were Latin. Every time you think that segragation was an injustice the more Latin you want your society to become. Every time you wonder why on earth the South would have fought to defend the "perculiar institution" (regardless of what the neo-Confederate revisionists are currently saying) you're really desiring that your society had been Latin all along. You see, you WANNA become Latin, Sick, but just don't know it. Everytime time you wanna achieve the results of having a Latin mindset but WITHOUT becoming Latin, you are in actual fact being very insulting. Read again that repost I gave: what, then, would y'all saying, people?

Do a "Jeb Bush", mate: marry a latina. Besides, they're much better than your "women" (who are only women in the biological sense -- another curse of not being Latin), and aren't as difficult as yours tend to be -- and definitely are not sphinxes! This way your kids will grow up with a partly Latin mindset. Naturally you'll marry a "white" latina, just to make things easy on your parents and grandparents, as it's gotta be a gradual thing, a generational thing, perhaps. Where's the sacrifice in that? You get a beautiful girl who possesses a deluxe femininity, you're likely to learn, like Jeb Bush and some of his siblings have, the language of your wife, and the next generation will be less race-concious and -obsessed than the previous one, not because it is more benighted and morally decadent, but because it concerns itself more with culture than with shallow, pitiable matters -- because for the first time it can.

C'mon, Sick,...you know you wanna...

Civlise or Perish!

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Cleusa
On Thursday, May 02, 2002 at 13:53:46

Message:

>Did you, perchance, write "War and Peace"?

I think he will write "Bore You To Pieces."
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Thursday, May 02, 2002 at 20:11:42

Message:
Hombre, you are without a doubt the most uninformed person on the planet about American society (I was referring to the US but, upon reflection, it could also apply to the entirety of the Americas). I suggest you expand your knowledge of this society by seeking sources other than newspapers, Harper's Magazine, Springer and your dreams.

>>these minority delinquents are the only ones showing no interest in assimilating and becoming French,
something the French, being Latin, are capable of doing -- absorbing people who look different.

Take a look at Frantz Fanon's 1961 book "The Wretched of the Earth". By the way, he was of African descent, born and raised in Martinique. I tell you that only to dissuade you from dismissing him as a racialist Anglo without even investigating it. I suspect he may even give you inspiration in regard to your theory, but he may not be so kind to the Latin French that you hold so dear, so maybe not. Regardless, I'm here to help. :)

>>Although they haven't experienced the experiences of those they are trying to emulate, they nevertheless feel
compelled to act out some of their actions.

You just described Eminem and about any suburban white kid in America.

>>Say what? It would stop the spiralling moral decadance, that's what it would do! And you don't think that
would improve the quality of life?
>>What you currently see isn't the problem being solved gradually; what you see is merely liberalism.

These are claims made by about every dictator that has ever roamed the planet, moral decadance from whatever source or for whatever reason, from Hitler to the littany of Latin American caudillos. Not one of those dictators improved the life of anyone, anywhere. That second statement has been uttered by practically every caudillo and Marxist to ever open his mouth in Latin America. The leap from "El Hombre" to "El Presidente" isn't that far now is it?

"Neoliberalism is inherently immoral because it has as its foundation a Godless positivism, putting profits and money as the supreme good..." --Bartolome Carassco Briseno, Archbishop Emeritus of Oaxaca, Mexico; Mexico City, 1995. This being just one of many examples.

>>Although you might consider so-called African-Americans today to be your fellow Americans, you nevertheless
see them as being different from yourself...

Yes quite right, we're all unique individuals. Proof that you have no clue about what I believe or think.

>>Because Anglo-Saxons are race people. And why do they concern themselves with race instead of, say, culture
like the Latins do?

In the not to distant future, mostly due to immigration, America will cease having a white majority. Historically, because of the "one drop rule", people of mixed race defined themselves in minority terms. Hence, in the not to distant future they will be in the majority or in a less marginalized group. (Talk about planning for the future!) Conversely, in say, Brasil for example, the bias for self-definition is inverse. The bias of self-definition is toward "whiteness". Therefore, "whiteness" will always be in the majority. Thus, dooming those not meeting or approaching the ideal of "whiteness" (to a satisfactory degree) to a life, in general, on the lower end of the socio-economic strata. I trust you don't see this as a good thing. See how I give you the benefit of the doubt and don't insist on knowing what you think? Try it sometime, I would appreciate it.

>>Well the thing is, if they could concern themselves with culture they would, but God not having blessed them
with it they must naturally concern themselves instead with race.

Spoken like the true racialist you are. If not culture, then "naturally" it could ONLY be race. Bravo Cornel!

>>Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether
consciously or unconsciously), and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?

We are simply saying that we don't sweep our injustices or social ills under the rug by employing nationalistic myths.

>>Martin Luther King's "dream" (a dream essentially, though he did not know it, to be a Latin society) if you
become liberal, that is, if you become morally decadent and benighted.

In my opinion, King's mistake was embracing socialism. He saw justice, be it social or racial, as being achieveable only through socialism. He was a man of his times though, many intellectuals worldwide embraced socialism, especially in Latin America. King was known to cite Latin countries, like Cuba, as paradigms of racial and social justice. He believed in economic conformity but not social conformity. You may agree with this and say this is exactly what you are saying. However, I don't think that is the case. You may not endorse socialism as a viable economic system but you no doubt endorse social conformity. The idea of individuality is anethema to you. How dare someone want to be different! They must be assimilated at all costs, lest we devolve into a morally decadent state! You just joined a club consisting of leaders of the Taliban, liberation theologists, the Khemer Rouge, the caudillos, nazism and any other criminal, anti-human, mind-melters that have ever existed...all in the name of social conformity. Congratulations. Enjoy your stay in Hell.

>>With a homogenous population (for the first time in America's history), a population not only capable of
assimilating only northern (and maybe even southern) Europeans but people who look different would exist.

This is evidence of your lack of understanding. Asian and Latin immigrants assimilate quite well in a couple of generations, which is a standard time for assimilation about anywhere on the planet (France must be the exception). What you don't understand is that most African-Americans were NOT immigrants. You see, different circumstances, therefore different issues, hence, different solutions. History does not happen in a vaccuum, all circumstance are not equal and comparisons sometimes cannot be made in any cogent manner. In this case, African-Americans and comparing their history of discrimination to other immigrant groups. You have already shown your ignorance on the nature and history of slavery in the US. I guess Harper's never presented an article about it and I know you won't see it on Springer.

>>Do a "Jeb Bush", mate: marry a latina. Besides, they're much better than your "women" (who are only women in
the biological sense -- another curse of not being Latin), and aren't as difficult as yours tend to be -- and definitely are not sphinxes!

Finally something we can agree upon.

>>Civlise or Perish!

I think you mean, Conform or Perish!

The Dr. West of the Antipodes will most likely name his revolutionary tome "Racialism Matters" subtitled "Really It Does, I Know I'm Right, It Exists, I Can't Prove It But Really I Mean It, LISTEN TO ME PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASSSSSSSSE?!?! With Sugar On Top?!?!"
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Friday, May 03, 2002 at 09:15:37

Message:

The fault lies not within Hombre’s arguments, but within himself. His silly theories are the fractured results of an unmet need.

There was a joke during the Nazi days: "The Perfect Nazi – as fit as Goering, as blond as Hitler, as tall as Goebbels, and his last name is Rosenberg."

The perfect Latin -- born a Mututsi, raised in England, lives in Australia, and his name is Dummy. : ))

Those who are uncertain in their identity strive all the more ridiculously to fabricate one. Sad, isn’t it.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, May 04, 2002 at 02:02:17

Message:
>I think he will write "Bore You To Pieces."

May I remind everybody that it is neither obligatory to read nor respond to anything I have written here. I'm sure there's plenty of other interesting things to which one can devote one's precious time in this world other than respond to my posts if one finds them to be too disagreeble. :) I take it you're one of those women who's only so in the biological sense of the word :) But a deluxe feminity is not something that's immutable, my dear: you, too, baby, can become a latina -- with a sinuous grace and a deluxe femininity to boot!

>Not one of those dictators improved the life of anyone, anywhere

Oh? Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hitler revived the German economy (but how long his socialism would have appeared to work is another matter) and the pride of the German people, Singapore and South Korea were catapulted to industrialisation and First World status by dictators and semi-dictators. And for latin "caudillos" not improving anybody's lives? How about that military dictator who goes by the name of Augusto Pinochet? Without him, and instead with Salvador Allende's "enlightened" government, Chile would today be one of the poorest countries in Latin America. Instead, its population enjoys the highest standard of living in Latin America. I can't tell you how relieved I was to reach Chile after spending some time in Bolivia and Peru. And it was thanks to el generalisimo that I could arrive to a modern state where people pretty much had a First World standard of living, where taxi drivers didn't drive like kamikazes (OK, that might not have anything to do with el generalisimo) and where everything was clean and ordered. Think again about what you said, buddy.

>Yes quite right, we're all unique individuals.

Ha-ha, very funny!

>Spoken like the true racialist you are. If not culture, then "naturally" it could ONLY be race. Bravo Cornel!

You really are deluding yourself. I mean, all I've been saying is plain for everyone to see, yet y'all stubbornly insist on indulging in unfettered chimera. You keep calling me Cornel West: does that mean that you've read that interesting article?

>We are simply saying that we don't sweep our injustices or social ills under the rug by employing nationalistic myths.

What ARE you talking about?

>You may not endorse socialism as a viable economic system but you no doubt endorse social conformity. The idea of individuality is anethema to you. How dare someone want to be different! They must be assimilated at all costs, lest we devolve into a morally decadent state! You just joined a club consisting of leaders of the Taliban, liberation theologists, the Khemer Rouge, the caudillos, nazism and any other criminal, anti-human, mind-melters that have ever existed...all in the name of social conformity. Congratulations. Enjoy your stay in Hell.

What have you got against making any sense? All I'm advocating is homogeneity. I suppose, then, that the Brazilians are a bunch of mind-melted social conformists because they are homogenous. It won't hurt you to make some sense once in a while, buddy.

>What you don't understand is that most African-Americans were NOT immigrants. You see, different circumstances, therefore different issues, hence, different solutions.

And the slaves who were brought to Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, etc., WERE immigrants? What I've been trying to highlight throughout is the GLARING difference between how the Anglo-Saxon Americans acted and behaved compared to the Latin Americans. Ay caramba!

>You have already shown your ignorance on the nature and history of slavery in the US.

Oh I have a rough understanding... I understand that involuntary slaves were brought from Africa and that most of them existed in the South and that a war was fought for their emancipation (despite claims by neo-Confederate revisionists to the contrary)...and so on and so forth. I don't know how much you expect me to know before I can offer any comments on America (US). What else do I know about America's history...? I know that your first president was George Washington. I know that your war of independence was triggered of by the Boston Tea Party incident. I know that at bottom the fundamental issue was that of taxation without representation. Oh -- and I know you guys won that little war! And you set in place an unprecendented form of government that was founded as a constitutional republic with decentralisation and separation of powers being of central importance, thereby recognising and taking into account the human condition (a fallen condition) and so taking the necessary precautions to insure the safety of the ("white"} community and its peaceable pursuit of happiness and protection of its inalianable rights (again, only those of the "white" community, but this was fair enough, seeing as these were a racial people who therefore understandably saw those apparently racially different from themselves and living amongst them as being essentially foreigners who just happenned to live within the same boundaries). What else? I know there was in the early period a time of expansion where the West was tamed and conquered and Mexican possessions were appropriated (I think it was President Jackson who was quite happy with the idea of extending this expansion to cover the whole of America right down to Tierra Del Fuego). What else? I don't know if many people know this but some time after independence the British actually re-captured and sacked the capital, Washington, DC, for a time when they were punishing the Americans for making expansionist forays into Britain's Canadian possessions (we musn't have such embarrassing episodes highlighted in our history books, must we?). What else? I know a reasonable amount of your modern twentieth-century history as well -- want me to summarise it? I think it'd take too much time, matey, and you wouldn't be bothered reading it all.

>Finally something we can agree upon.

Good man! I think y'all have a heck of a mismatch going on there: you have basically what are in my opinion the best men in the world (in terms of how they treat their women, among other things) saddled up with some of the most difficult, spoilt, unfeminine women in the world. Y'all deserve real women, man, not a bunch of Amazons who think they've been cursed having been born female, who, despite being the best-treated women in the world, insist that they have been "oppressed" by their menfolk for millennia in a conspiracy of monumental proportions, one that has only finally come to their attention in the last two centuries or so, and because of this tend to have a festering inferiority complex. Instead, you should get women -- real women and not women who are only so in the biological sense of the word -- who delight in their femininity, who are quite happy with the fact that they are women, and who aren't busy trying to be commandos and CEO's grunting and fighting to eliminate any distinctions between men and women (yeah right; I've known that they are different from each other since I was like one-and-a-half, or maybe even before then -- as a baby I never tried to suckle on my dad, you know). Your "women", in short, have got some issues, man, ultimately stemming, in my opinion, from lack of culture. Stay away from 'em -- unless you're a masochist, of course. If women complain about men who, because of their heritage of chivalry, are essentially faultless -- who's really the cause of the problem? Hmmm.

Civilise or Perish -- for feminine as well as racial reasons!

>The Dr. West of the Antipodes will most likely name his revolutionary tome "Racialism Matters" subtitled "Really It Does, I Know I'm Right, It Exists, I Can't Prove It But Really I Mean It, LISTEN TO ME PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASSSSSSSSE?!?! With Sugar On Top?!?!"

Not quite. It'll be named: "Civilise or Perish: Lack of Culture in America and It's Consequences". The first part of the book will be titled, "Racism in America", and the second part, "Feminism in America".

>Those who are uncertain in their identity strive all the more ridiculously to fabricate one. Sad, isn’t it.

And would you care to enlighten us on what exactly might be YOUR identity, champ? :)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Saturday, May 04, 2002 at 04:21:26

Message:
Your lack of comprehension of some of my posts may stem from the term "liberal" which I often use in it's original context, meaning "classical liberal" or libertarian. You must use it only in the context of left-wing ideology. In that light, I can see the confusion. If it isn't that, then your lack of comprehension must stem from the term "obtuseness", which will be used in it's pejorative context.

Of course only you could posit an ends justify the means argument in defense of dictators like those. Hell is waiting.

<<(again, only those of the "white" community, but this was fair enough, seeing as these were a racial people who therefore understandably saw those apparently racially different from themselves and living amongst them as being essentially foreigners who just happenned to live within the same boundaries).

One could make the same argument about Brasil. If you can't comprehend this, then I refer you, again, to Decree No. 7967.

My point that you fail to understand history stands, as evidenced above. Details are one thing, syncretism quite another. Because all this is beyond your grasp, I am not going to waste my time arguing US history or US racial politics so you can try to resurrect your theory that went down in flames several posts ago. Turning to the Anglo (read: US, the other Anglos seemed to have suddenly and mysteriously disappeared) aspect of your theory, while the Latin aspect lay in ruins, is pointless. Back to the drawing board, mate.



Tchau
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, May 04, 2002 at 05:08:49

Message:
>Your lack of comprehension of some of my posts may stem from the term "liberal" which I often use in it's original context, meaning "classical liberal" or libertarian. You must use it only in the context of left-wing ideology. In that light, I can see the confusion. If it isn't that, then your lack of comprehension must stem from the term "obtuseness", which will be used in it's pejorative context.

You're an American and so you should understand the word liberal as I meant it and how it is normally used in your country, as denoting a left-leaning progressive and radical world view. Your misunderstanding was wilful.

>Of course only you could posit an ends justify the means argument in defense of dictators like those. Hell is waiting.

Would you have preferred a Haiti-like Chile where many many more people would have been murdered under a socialist Allende regime than was the case under Pinochet? I suppose you'd have also preferred a Third World Singapore, eh?

>then I refer you, again, to Decree No. 7967.

For goodness' sake go and LOOK at the people of Brazil instead of hunting for some decrees made by some pseudo-Germans! I suppose if you'd found a decree from France proclaiming that the French language is an inferior language and the French shouldn't speak it then you'd believe that this is how the French think of their language. Look at people's actions and not at some aberrants' words.

>My point that you fail to understand history stands, as evidenced above. Details are one thing, syncretism quite another. Because all this is beyond your grasp, I am not going to waste my time arguing US history or US racial politics so you can try to resurrect your theory that went down in flames several posts ago. Turning to the Anglo (read: US, the other Anglos seemed to have suddenly and mysteriously disappeared) aspect of your theory, while the Latin aspect lay in ruins, is pointless. Back to the drawing board, mate.

What I've been trying to say all along is so blatently obvious that your continued denial of the undeniable is distressing. But remember: I always give you a choice in offering you these observations. You can always perish if you're so inclined. If you're happy with the way things are in your country then there's no point you wasting your time with me: I work on the assumption that there are fundamental problems in your society stemming from lack of culture which need fixing if decadence is not to ensue.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Saturday, May 04, 2002 at 08:08:12

Message:

Never fear, readers. If Hombre were to allow himself to comprehend you, he would be obliged to comprehend himself. This can not happen. Enjoy!

By the way, you seem to have inordinate difficulty with women who disagree with you. Problems with, Mum too? You left that part out of your unsolicited, narcississtic autobiography. : ))


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Saturday, May 04, 2002 at 08:57:32

Message:

My apologies to the >genuine< Latins who may be trying to learn English for my previous butchery of the spelling of "narcissistic." I actually was trying to spell "Mississippi." : )

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Sunday, May 05, 2002 at 18:20:10

Message:
I wrote:

>So when France was colonizing Africa, the Middle East, Indochina, South America, the South Pacific and the Caribbean, the fact that the French did not take on the cultural identities of the people they were colonizing, but instead, imposed their own, you find acceptable?

To which O Besta replied:

>Yep.

Which certainly confirms your cultural fascism.

>Tolerated indeed, they should be celebrated.

>What else would you "tolerate" and "celebrate", Mr Paul? There's been a lot of that going on since the Sixties, and moral decadence, drug abuse, violence, social decay, family breakdown, etc has been commensurate.

You have a masterful skill at putting two and two together and coming up with five. What evidence do you have that the indigenous communities in the Americas were guilty of the behavior you describe? For example, in Colombia, Peru and the other Andean countries, the indigeneous peoples have been using coca leaves for centuries without engaging in a murderous cocaine trade. In fact, it was the descendants of the Iberians in Colombia who created that business that lead to an average of 8 murders a day in Medellin at its worst. It was the Iberian descendants who engaged in a cycle of violence from 1948 to 1958 resulting in the deaths of 200,00 and so devoid of logic that it was simply called La Violencia.

>When I was there, wherever I read information on Uruguay it was consistently 1 percent. Musta read the wrong information.

Yet again, to say nothing of writing the wrong information . . .

Do you wear a black or brown shirt?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Sunday, May 05, 2002 at 22:50:34

Message:
>You have a masterful skill at putting two and two together and coming up with five. What evidence do you have that the indigenous communities in the Americas were guilty of the behavior you describe?

Who's putting two and two together to get five? I'm talking about the US when I mentioned moral decadance! Ay caramba! You see, the Latins never had to "tolerate" difference: they simply eliminated it. What you see in most of Latin America, except for a few isolated Indians, is a homogenous whole, a Latin society. But with you guys difference is immutable, because it is based on something called race. Since you can't eliminate it you try to "tolerate" it. But this is unnatural, because if people are different from you -- they're different! Being "tolerant" is basically a synonym for being liberal (that is, progressive, radical, etc.), so in other words, the more "tolerant" you have to become, the more liberal you become, which translates into meaning the more morally decadent you become, because you just start to tolerate everything out there.

>Do you wear a black or brown shirt?

Those people were socialists, Mr Paul. I'm not one. The type of government I advocate is small, limited and decentralised; in other words, harmless. The reason those socialist governments like Hitler's were so harmful and dangerous was precisely because they were large, centralised totalitarian systems, whose ideology and world view was materialistic.

Here's a repost of mine to help you put two and two together regarding my comments about morality and its relationship to "tolerance" and liberalism (if you intend to pay any attention this time).

An example: if it wasn't for the civil-rights movement, would there be a homosexual-rights movement today? Whatever you think of homosexuality, you have to admit that it is behaviour which has until relatively recently been universally considered an abomination of the highest regard -- that is, until desegragation and integration. When the homosexuals view the civil-rights movement as their inspiration, what are they saying? And what does it say about the way your people think that they should generally (albeit unconsciously) see acceptance of such behaviour as the natural succession of the civil-rights movement? Again, whether you think homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy or whether you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to admit that nobody would have thought of agitating for the legalisation of homosexual marriages if the laws against interracial marriages were still in place. Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether consciously or unconsciously), and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Sunday, May 05, 2002 at 23:01:41

Message:

>The reason those socialist governments like Hitler's were so harmful and dangerous was precisely because they were large, centralised totalitarian systems, whose ideology and world view was materialistic.

No, you have it wrong.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Sunday, May 05, 2002 at 23:14:49

Message:
>Do you wear a black or brown shirt?

And I'm not a homosexual either!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Sunday, May 05, 2002 at 23:22:59

Message:
>No, you have it wrong.

Oh?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Sunday, May 05, 2002 at 23:41:28

Message:
>>You see, the Latins never had to "tolerate" difference: they simply eliminated it.

Courtesy of BRC-NEWS, 2001 and the BBC, 2000.

*In an effort to address the racial disparities, Brazil's government (led by sociologist/president Fernando
Henrique Cardoso) recently initiated legislation to create a groundbreaking affirmative action/racial quotas
program that would guarantee blacks 20 to 25 percent of the positions at universities, in the civil service and
even on television programs.

*The Racial Equality Statute, currently being debated in the Brazilian congress, also attempts to rectify the
under-representation of Afro-Brazilians in the government (less than 5 percent of Brazil's mayors, governors,
senators and members of congress are black) by insuring that political parties allot 30 percent of candidacies
for public office to blacks.

*Even in Salvador, the capital and major slave port for nearly 300 years, where blacks make up more than 80% of
the population, very few are to be found in government.

Yes yes, obviously eliminated. Someone forgot to tell Cardoso.

>>What you see in most of Latin America, except for a few isolated Indians, is a homogenous whole, a Latin
society. But with you guys difference is immutable, because it is based on something called race. Since you can't eliminate it you try to "tolerate" it. But this is unnatural, because if people are different from you -- they're different! Being "tolerant" is basically a synonym for being liberal (that is, progressive, radical, etc.), so in other words, the more "tolerant" you have to become, the more liberal you become, which translates into meaning the more morally decadent you become, because you just start to tolerate everything out there.

Don't forget that Japan is arguably the most homogenous society on the planet. Japan should be your model, given it's lengthy history of survival and adaptability. Since Latin American countries like Brasil have "eliminated" differences, let's take a quick look at how Brasilians express their tolerance, which you argue they don't need. Apparently, they agree. This is from the same sources cited above:

*And incredibly, up until the 1970s even Salvador's carnival parade was for whites - blacks could only push the
floats, not dance around them. That situation only came to an end when a group of blacks set up their own black-only Carnival group, Ile Ayie, meaning big house in Yoruba. They also started a school to teach black children their own history - about the many slave rebellions, uprisings and quilombos (free territories) set up by runaways - usually excluded from official schoolbooks.

*But in 1946 a Unesco study revealed that while most Brazilians approved of racial tolerance, in practice racial
discrimination was widespread. Fifty years later in 1999, a report by the Minority Rights Group International showed that discrimination had continued: black and mixed race Brazilians still have higher infant mortality rates, fewer years of schooling, higher rates of unemployment, and earn less for the same work.

*Black men are more likely to be shot or arrested as crime suspects, and when found guilty, get longer
sentences.

*A DNA study by Brazilian scientists found that 80 percent of the population has at least some African ancestry,
and fully half of the nation's 165 million inhabitants consider themselves to be of African descent.

Why would a country not conscious of race do a DNA study on race??

*Afro-Brazilians have also long been excluded from the civil service and other professions, with newspapers
advertising private sector jobs stipulating "good appearance," a code word for "white."

*And only two percent of Brazil's 1.6 million college students are black.

*According to a study published in the newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo, 89 percent of Brazilians said they believed
there was racism in the society, but only 10 percent admitted they themselves were racist; 87 percent of those
surveyed, however, manifested some sort of prejudice in agreeing with some popular racist statements and admitted having exhibited some racist behavior in the past.

*Nearly half the Afro-Brazilians surveyed agreed with popular statements such as "Good blacks have white souls."

POPULAR statement?!?! Ugh! Talk about self loathing.

*In the informal segregation of Carnival troupes and samba schools, as well as lyrics of popular carnival songs
like "O Teu Cabelo Nao Nega" (Your Hair Can't Deny It) and "Nega do Cabelo Duro" (Hard-Hair Blackie), racial
stereotypes and questions of identity are played out openly.

Nice songs.

*In his book, Making Race and Nation, Anthony Marx says Brazilian elites deliberately avoided creating an
American or South African-style system of legal racial domination after witnessing the large slave revolts in
the US: "They [Brazilian leaders] were eager to submerge potential racial conflict under the myth of 'racial
democracy'...rather than reinforce past images of racial inferiority and domination."

*Spurning the myth of racial democracy, blacks here speak of exposing Brazil's "racismo cordial," or polite
racism.

Racialist Brasilians? Pseudo-Germans? The next-door neighbor's children? Conspiracy? Is it on par with the so-called international Jewish conspiracy? Is there a psuedo-German hiding under every Brasilian's bed? Could it be that 87% of Brasilians are really of German descent? Or, half of Afro-Brasilians are really English? Is your claim that you have become "Latin" really a latent desire to be German? Hmmm...that just may be it....
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, May 06, 2002 at 01:05:09

Message:
Sick, I'm gonna shock you. There are no "blacks" in Brazil, nor have there ever been. And there are no "whites" in Brazil and nor have there ever been. So all these statistics about "black" this and "white" that are meaningless. What you and all these people you've quoted are doing is imposing your paradigm onto the Latin people. Remember this quotation? "A maioria da população brasileira não é nem de brancos nem de negros e sim, de mestiços. Portanto é difícil definir se a pessoa é negra ou branca. É uma questão completamente incoerente por aqui. Eu sou mestiça de negros e brancos e me considero da etnia brasileira" "a verdade é que não existe brasileiro de uma "raça" pura porque não acredito que raça exista". For some reason you refuse to see things any differently from the way you're used to seeing things. Somehow everybody just has to think the same way you do, regardless of their actions which prove the contrary. I guess it makes you feel better about yourself, eh?

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

THE EMPEROR'S NEW RACE

Once upon a time their existed this country of culturalists where people base identity on culture called Brazil. But one day there came these Americans who were rich and successful and started telling the Brazilians that they weren't in actual fact culture people but were race people like them. In fact, they said, all the people of the world were race people regardless of evidence to the contrary. The Brazilians couldn't understand what they were saying at first, but the Americans persisted. They said that the Brazilians were different from each other and had been engaging in large-scale intermarriage. They said some Brazilians were inherently different from others and that the people should therefore begin to act accordingly. Since the Americans were so rich and respected many Brazilians thought it would be silly to disagree with such people. Indeed they started to notice these differences themselves and could see what the Americans had been talking about; and of course the plethora of injustice that had all along existed began to come to light. Some of these new racial Brazilians reacted to this new awareness by living by the principle, "birds of a racial feather flock together", while others wanted to right existing injustices. Soon the society began to divide along these racial lines, which had never existed before (except for some few Germans/Japanese and a few pseudo-Germans/Japanese), and balkanisation begun...

This is the end of this installment...

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

>*In an effort to address the racial disparities, Brazil's government (led by sociologist/president Fernando
Henrique Cardoso) recently initiated legislation to create a groundbreaking affirmative action/racial quotas
program that would guarantee blacks 20 to 25 percent of the positions at universities, in the civil service and
even on television programs.

Soon Brazil will be just like America! Brazilian monkey see, Brazilian monkey do.

Y'all are just obsessed with race -- whatever that is. Try a little culture...might do ya some good.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Monday, May 06, 2002 at 02:08:07

Message:
>>Sick, I'm gonna shock you. There are no "blacks" in Brazil, nor have there ever been. And there are no "whites" in Brazil and nor have there ever been. So all these statistics about "black" this and "white" that are meaningless.

Again, someone seems to have forgotten to tell Cardoso. I dare you to go to Brasil and tell all the Brasilians you encounter that Cardoso is an American racialist dupe. You may learn the art of Gracie Jiu-Jitsu in reverse fashion.

>>What you and all these people you've quoted are doing is imposing your paradigm onto the Latin people.

Even if I were to concede that, which I won't, you cannot explain to so-called racialists from a so-called culturalist point of view how and why those disparities exist. Since it is the racialists obsession, as you claim, you should be able to explain it away, you can't. Coinicidence does not explain the lack of darker skinned people in positions of power. Nor does intermarriage and the mix resulting from that. Nor does class. Nor does racial democracy. The US did not invent racism or a racist paradigm. It was inherited from Europe, just as it was inherited in Latin America. I have shown this to you over and over again. Both North America and South America have, and continue to use race to maintain the status quo in regards to the ruling elite. I will concede, it has been done in different manners. However, it is racism nonetheless and it should be confronted in all quarters. What I displayed in my last post was not all Anglo, by the way, the BRC-NEWS posts stories from Africa, much of it coming from a story from Africana.com. Anyway, it is quite obvious that Brasilians are very concious of race. In fact, since this is so obvious to anyone with functioning synapse connections, it should be noted that it is actually YOU imposing a paradigm on Brasil. Not me.

>>THE EMPEROR'S NEW RACE

How can somone be this stupid and not die in the process?

>>and balkanisation begun...

More like, balkanization realized...

Brasil does not need the US to point out it's social ills. Brasil can take care of itself. It is insulting to assume they are that callous and unaware, which is what you are doing by projecting your callous naivete upon them. Everyone should be celebrating the steps Brasil is taking to address their society's inequities. I know I am.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, May 06, 2002 at 02:25:08

Message:
Sick, you keep calling me Cornel West: does that mean that you've read that interesting article?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Monday, May 06, 2002 at 02:37:54

Message:
Harper's does a good job of protecting their copyrighted stories. I can't get my hands on it through the internet. I have read about it though. Some people don't draw the same conclusion as you. Most seem to imply that Klor de Alva was only pointing out that one is merely a product of the culture they grow up and live in. Some even said the use of the word Anglo was intentional to incite West (which it did). Of course the focus was on the controversy, not the substance. I have no idea because I have not read it, that is why I haven't commented on it. If you find a link for it, please pass it along.

Tchau
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, May 06, 2002 at 02:51:06

Message:
>...you cannot explain to so-called racialists from a so-called culturalist point of view how and why those disparities exist.

I'll let Isobel explain it to you -- for the umpteenth time!

"Após a Abolição da Escravatura (Fim da Escravidão)em 1888 não houve nenhuma política dos governantes brasileiros para a introdução do negro na sociedade por isso, eles não conseguiram ter acesso a educação e a bons trabalhos. Muitos continuaram fazendo o mesmo que faziam quando ainda eram escravos e ganhando muito pouco ou só alimento. Então hoje é difícil ver uma boa representação negra na sociedade, porque a luta teve que ser redobrada pois, além do preconceito que existia e ainda existe, tiveram que superar a educação deficiente, conseguir bons cargos em empresas, etc"

What, by the way, do you think about Isobel and all she said? And also, since you keep calling me Cornel West, have you read that Harpers article?

>...to maintain the status quo...

Ha! It would seem that it is indeed YOU who is committed to maintaining the status quo.

Civilise or Perish!

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, May 06, 2002 at 03:04:05

Message:
>Harper's does a good job of protecting their copyrighted stories. I can't get my hands on it through the internet. I have read about it though. Some people don't draw the same conclusion as you. Most seem to imply that Klor de Alva was only pointing out that one is merely a product of the culture they grow up and live in. Some even said the use of the word Anglo was intentional to incite West (which it did). Of course the focus was on the controversy, not the substance. I have no idea because I have not read it, that is why I haven't commented on it. If you find a link for it, please pass it along.

I'm afraid I looked fruitlessly on the Internet for the article also. But I was assuming you'd be able to get back issues at a library or something. I saw it first at my library at university -- but that's quite some ways out and I don't go to uni any more. It would pay if you could read it -- I'm sure there's a library (like a state library) that would have a back issue.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Monday, May 06, 2002 at 06:24:24

Message:
>Who's putting two and two together to get five? I'm talking about the US when I mentioned moral decadance! Ay caramba! You see, the Latins never had to "tolerate" difference: they simply eliminated it.

Yes. It was called genocide.

>Being "tolerant" is basically a synonym for being liberal (that is, progressive, radical, etc.), so in other words, the more "tolerant" you have to become, the more liberal you become, which translates into meaning the more morally decadent you become, because you just start to tolerate everything out there.

No, it means to respect other as you would have them respect you. Indeed, it is a major tenet of the Roman Catholic Church, which is the dominant religion in all latin cultures.

>? Whatever you think of homosexuality, you have to admit that it is behaviour which has until relatively recently been universally considered an abomination of the highest regard -- that is, until desegragation and integration. When the homosexuals view the civil-rights movement as their inspiration, what are they saying? And what does it say about the way your people think that they should generally (albeit unconsciously) see acceptance of such behaviour as the natural succession of the civil-rights movement? Again, whether you think homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy or whether you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to admit that nobody would have thought of agitating for the legalisation of homosexual marriages if the laws against interracial marriages were still in place. Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether consciously or unconsciously), and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?

Your obsession with homosexuality smells of latency on your part. It must be difficult to be so self-loathing.

>The reason those socialist governments like Hitler's were so harmful and dangerous was precisely because they were large, centralised totalitarian systems, whose ideology and world view was materialistic.

And I suppose their obsession with the superiority of their Aryan culture that led them to engage in activities that resulted in the creation of the word genocide had nothing to do with how harmful and dangerous they were.

Opinião e cu: cade um tem um.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Monday, May 06, 2002 at 06:42:06

Message:
Your comment:

>Who's putting two and two together to get five? I'm talking about the US when I mentioned moral decadance! Ay caramba! You see, the Latins never had to "tolerate" difference: they simply eliminated it.

Was in response to a comment I had made about Indians in Latin America and tolerance. Thus the above statement of yours is a non-sequitor.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Monday, May 06, 2002 at 07:42:58

Message:

>And I'm not a homosexual either! -- El Hombre

"I am not a crook!" -- Richard M. Nixon

"I am not a Marxist!" -- Karl Marx

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" -- William Jefferson Clinton

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Monday, May 06, 2002 at 10:20:11

Message:
Not that there's anything wrong with it.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Monday, May 06, 2002 at 21:40:17

Message:

>And I'm not a homosexual either!

Really? How germane, though I am certain we are all very happy for you. But this is a rather remarkable denial in the absence of an accusation, don’t you think? I am inspired to make a toast to your condition by means of a reiteration for which the occasion would truly seem to call:

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

Again . . . and again . . .

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, May 06, 2002 at 22:53:32

Message:
>Really? How germane, though I am certain we are all very happy for you. But this is a rather remarkable denial in the absence of an accusation, don’t you think?

I do seem to remember Mr Paul asking me this: "Do you wear a black or brown shirt?"

Both these National Socialist organisations were jam-packed to the rafters with homosexuals, the officer corps of the Brown Shirst being almost exclusively homosexual, and Hitler's body guard being made up mostly of homosexuals.

So no, I am neither a big-government socialist nor am I a homosexual.



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, May 06, 2002 at 23:18:43

Message:
>Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Naturally. You did, after all, go out with that "great 'black' girl" from Belize, didn't you -- and there wasn't "anything wrong with that", was there? Hmmm.

Yes, times they are-a changin'...
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Tuesday, May 07, 2002 at 09:18:25

Message:
Regarding your last comment, her race never entered into it and I'm not latin. Also, before I got married, I stopped dating "girls" and started dating women when I became an adult. It was also in reference to the television Series "Seinfield" in which two of the characters were assumed to be gay when they weren't and their constant refrain was "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

Regarding the comment prior to that, while I will take your word for it that you are neither a big government socialist nor homosexual (despite your constant mentioning of homosexuals which in my opinion - note the fact that I am qualifying my statement - reeks of latency), in my opinion (again note the qualification) you are a fascist.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Tuesday, May 07, 2002 at 12:44:50

Message:
Nadelstich:

Of all the horrible things that the Nazis and Mussolini's followers have done, it is very telling that what appears to be the one that El Hombre finds most objectionable is the alleged homosexuality of some of them. He finds tolerance to be objectionable and the one thing that he appears to object to the mist in the USA is tolerance of gays.

He doesn't just reek of latency; he screams it.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 07, 2002 at 23:36:32

Message:
>Of all the horrible things that the Nazis and Mussolini's followers have done, it is very telling that what appears to be the one that El Hombre finds most objectionable is the alleged homosexuality of some of them.

Fair dinkum? When did I EVER say that? And to think that you have the nerve to act sententiously!

>He finds tolerance to be objectionable and the one thing that he appears to object to the mist in the USA is tolerance of gays.

I was just showing how unfounded and fake the supposed achievements of the civil-rights movement were and what a pyrrhic victory it's all been. Either you should reinstate segregation or civilise.

Besides, my "tome" will be aimed at a right-wing-nut audience anyway, so they're likely to prick up their ears on hearing one of the explanations for moral decadence. They're likely to conclude, if convinced, that something needs to be done. I should think they would be the sort who'd find the idea of perishing very disagreeble.

Civilise or Perish!

>in my opinion (again note the qualification) you are a fascist.

Oh? A right-wing fascist? I guess, then, I'm also a tall midget, a fat anorexic, clean-shaved with a long beard...etc, etc... Try and make some sense, Mr Paul.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Wednesday, May 08, 2002 at 00:50:16

Message:

>He doesn't just reek of latency; he screams it.

He does seem to have a special place in his heart for it, doesn’t he. : ))

>Both these National Socialist organisations were jam-packed to the rafters with homosexuals, the officer corps of the Brown Shirst being almost exclusively homosexual, and Hitler's body guard being made up mostly of homosexuals.

My, my, where did a busy fellow like you ever find the time to conduct such a survey? : )) And how did you do it?

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, May 08, 2002 at 01:07:31

Message:
>...her race never entered into it...

But of course not -- not in this day and age!

>despite your constant mentioning of homosexuals which in my opinion...reeks of latency

But how could I possibly be homosexual? I'm from Africa, and we don't have any homosexuals there -- except for a neglible amount of immitators.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, May 08, 2002 at 02:41:43

Message:
>My, my, where did a busy fellow like you ever find the time to conduct such a survey? : )) And how did you do it?

It's in a book titled "The Pink Swastika", written by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. The surprise and confusion arises from the fact that the National Socialists did discriminate against homosexuals and homosexuals accompanied the Jews to the death camps. But the National Socialists weren't so much against homosexuality per se but rather effeminate homosexuality in particular. What the Brown and Black shirts idealised was the ultra-butch homosexual in the vein of Alexander the Great, not the camp one. The latter form of homosexuality represented to them the antithesis of true and proper masculinity, which was personified in the ultra-butch homosexual and against whom, incidentally, hetrosexual men represented a lesser form of masculinity. Although, as far as I know, there is no direct or definitive evidence to implicate Hitler in this lifestyle, the book "Hidden Hitler" (2001), by the German academic Lother Machtan, argues (apparently "pursuasively") that Hitler's "secret homosexual life" defined his career.

Here's an excerpt from the preface to the fourth edition of "The Pink Swastika":

"In the 1960s, Nazi homosexuality was so widely acknowledged in America (at least among the “social elites”) that the portrayal of Nazi thugs as homosexual was a frequent occurrence in Hollywood movies. One of the best examples is in Exodus (United Artists, 1960), the film adaptation of the Leon Uris novel about the creation of the State of Israel after World War II. In the film, actor Sal Mineo, playing a young man attempting to join the Irgun (the Jewish underground movement), fails to convince Irgun leaders that he is a genuine Nazi concentration camp survivor. Finally they are convinced — only when he breaks down and confesses that the Nazi guards “used me as a woman.” To the Irgun, this was definitive proof that he had been a Nazi prisoner."


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, May 08, 2002 at 02:52:21

Message:
Some two reviews of "The Pink Swastika":

“The Pink Swastika is a powerful exposure of pre-World War II Germany and its quest for reviving and imitating a Hellenistic-paganistic idea of homo-eroticism and militarism.”

Dr. Mordechai Nisan, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

“...a treasury of knowledge for anyone who wants to know what really happened during the Jewish Holocaust...”

Norman Saville, News of All Israel






RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Wednesday, May 08, 2002 at 03:04:55

Message:
You know full well about "The Pink Swastika", but not about the whitening policies in Brasil. I don't think I need to hear anymore, that says it all.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, May 08, 2002 at 03:23:09

Message:
>You know full well about "The Pink Swastika", but not about the whitening policies in Brasil. I don't think I need to hear anymore, that says it all.

If they had a "whitening" policy then they did a GREAT job of it, didn't they? I don't think you realise that you are inadvertently insulting Brazilians in saying that, insinuating that they are so thoroughly incompetent that in endeavouring to "whiten" the population they instead ended up with the majority of the population demonstrably not "white" (whatever that means). Where would these inveterate incompetants be without their German population, eh?

Civilise or Perish!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Wednesday, May 08, 2002 at 03:43:29

Message:
>>If they had a "whitening" policy then they did a GREAT job of it, didn't they?

Yeah it appears to have worked, the whites are still in power. Which was the entire point of it. I suggest you read up on it. If you can read up on pink Germans you can read up on this.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, May 08, 2002 at 05:31:20

Message:
>Yeah it appears to have worked, the whites are still in power.

What "whites"? I personally never say any "white" people in Brazil while I was there. All I saw were Brazilians. :)

Tchau
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Wednesday, May 08, 2002 at 12:49:00

Message:

Hombre knows all about the "pink swastika" because he’s unusually interested in it. He even read two books about it. Every boy should have a hobby. : ))

Is it time to remember? This is the fellow who opened this thread with the pitiable request to know if the determining impulse behind Carnaval and Brazil was "lubricity." An odd question from the man who now knows everything about the variegated psyches of 170 million Brazilians after only a few weeks of spreading venereal diseases among transexual Mututsi-philes in Niteroi. It should be no surprise that he’s seen no whites there either. He wasn’t looking for any. : )) A closed eye is the handmaiden of a closed mind. : ))


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Wednesday, May 08, 2002 at 12:54:54

Message:

Not that there's anything wrong with any of that. : ))

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Wednesday, May 08, 2002 at 16:53:47

Message:
Hombre, I read that article. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, you must not have remembered it correctly. You have it out of context, Klor de Alva was referring to Hispanic-Americans not Latin Americans. The discussion was strictly on US culture, with one exception, an example Klor de Alva gives about the Aztecs. An example not in your favor either.

The good news is, I'll stop calling you Cornel. :)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Wednesday, May 08, 2002 at 18:39:52

Message:
>Oh? A right-wing fascist? I guess, then, I'm also a tall midget, a fat anorexic, clean-shaved with a long beard...etc, etc... Try and make some sense, Mr Paul.

Franco was a proud right-wing fascist who used Hitler and Mussolini's help to fight the left in Spain. Stop sucking on the cane toads.

You are, to all appearances a mental midget, if you are anorexic, you are certainly fatuous, and if you were seen publicly with a tall woman and you were clean shaven, in one sense of the word, you could be with a long beard.

>Fair dinkum? When did I EVER say that? And to think that you have the nerve to act sententiously!

It's actually what you didn't say. If someone accused me of being a follower of Hitler or Mussolini, my first reaction would be that I am not a bellicose practicioner of genocide. Your response speaks volumes to me about your priorities.

>But how could I possibly be homosexual? I'm from Africa, and we don't have any homosexuals there -- except for a neglible amount of immitators.

I'm sure just like your claims regarding the complete absence ever of any instances of discrimination against dark-skinned people in Australia, you speak with authority. No doubt you propostioned every male on the continent.

>I was just showing how unfounded and fake the supposed achievements of the civil-rights movement were and what a pyrrhic victory it's all been. Either you should reinstate segregation or civilise.

So the abolition of Jim Crow Laws, the creation of the voting rights act and desegretation of public facilities retarded our progress? God, are you gassy today.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, May 11, 2002 at 03:29:16

Message:
>He even read two books about it. Every boy should have a hobby. : ))

It should have been clear from what I wrote that I had at least not read the second book (the one by the German). Of the first I have only read excerpts on-line, but enough to get the gist of it. But I definitely intend to purchase and read the first book, due to the importance and historical value the existence and actions of the Third Reich represents (at least to me).

>Hombre, I read that article. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, you must not have remembered it correctly. You have it out of context, Klor de Alva was referring to Hispanic-Americans not Latin Americans. The discussion was strictly on US culture, with one exception, an example Klor de Alva gives about the Aztecs. An example not in your favor either.

What AM I gonna do with you, Sick?

By the way, I'd higly recommend that y'all read that Harpers piece. Perhaps Professor Klor de Alva will have better luck in convincing you than I have.

>Franco was a proud right-wing fascist who used Hitler and Mussolini's help to fight the left in Spain.

The point I was trying to make (which you completely missed) is that the phrase "right-wing fascist" is an oxymoron, as fascism is a variant of socialism and socialism, of coarse, represents the extreme left of the political, ideological and religious spectrum. The only reason the word fascism has come to be imputed to the right wing is because those who are generally in charge of controlling the political discourse (the left-leaning media and left-wing intellectuals) represent a rival form of socialism which vehemently hates the nationalistic socialism of facsism and National Socialism, preferring instead a universalistic "Brotherhood of Man" type of socialism.

>You are, to all appearances a mental midget, if you are anorexic, you are certainly fatuous, and if you were seen publicly with a tall woman and you were clean shaven, in one sense of the word, you could be with a long beard.

See reference above to oxymoron.

>If someone accused me of being a follower of Hitler or Mussolini, my first reaction would be that I am not a bellicose practicioner of genocide. Your response speaks volumes to me about your priorities.

But what sort of mindset would be needed to be a "bellicose practitioner of genocide". The theses of the two aforementioned books imply, either implicitly or explicitly, that a "Hellenistic-paganistic idea of homo-eroticism and militarism" just very well may have had something to do with some resulting actions of the National Socialists of which we are all too familiar today. So -- naturally -- my response speaks volumes about my committment toward insuring that there is never a recurrence of such evil as that which the National Socialists represented.

>No doubt you propostioned every male on the continent.

It is a well known fact that of the people infected with AIDS in Africa 90% contracted the disease through heterosexual copulation while the remaining 10% are those who were born with the disease, having received it from their infected mothers. In a country such as Australia, male homosexuals represent 80% of those infected with the AIDS virus -- for obvious reasons. Moreover, most African languages still don't have a word for homosexuality, as the idea of homosexuality is still a relatively new concept on that continent, one that hasn't established itself yet.

>So the abolition of Jim Crow Laws, the creation of the voting rights act and desegretation of public facilities retarded our progress?

Obviously. Just look at the social indicators of rising crime, divorce, promiscuity, family breakdown, contumacy, nihilism, suicide, etc, etc. The abolition of Jim Crow laws, desegragation and integration have had a partial and indirect, but nevertheless significant, cause-and-effect relationship to this decadence.

Civilise or Perish!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, May 11, 2002 at 04:55:16

Message:
Just two examples:

>...note the fact that I am qualifying my statement...

>again note the qualification

You may have heard of the Truman Doctrine, Mr Paul et.al. Permit me to quote its three most important and famous sentences:

"I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.

"I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.

"I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes."

These sentences are universally recognised to have been badly worded and, in written form, are considered poor prose. Ronald Reagan or Winston Churchill would have never began such speeches by qualifying: "I believe...", especially three times in a row! It might have been better worded thus:

"If the United States is to remain true to her creed, it must be her policy to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.

"This nation as the principal guarantor of freedom must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way -- their inalianable right.

"Therefore our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes."

But presumably Mr Paul would be happier if one worded one's opinions and convictions thus:

"It is my humble opinion -- one which may not necessarilly be shared by everyone -- that what the National Socialists did to the Jews -- you do not have to agree with me, I remind you! -- what the National Socialists did to the Jews was, according to my PERSONAL (which I do not intend to impose on anyone) value system...wrong. Not wrong, I hasten to add, in the absolute sense, no! That would be, well... absolutist! No, I just FEEL that my personal experiences, together with the environment in which I grew up, the opinions of my significant others who contributed in shaping my personal value structure, lead me to the personal -- and I emphasise that word, personal -- view that the wholesale murder (murder being the killing of any living creature, including, but not limited to, plants -- which is wrong!) of innocents (except for those whom the Latin language designates "little ones") is somehow...disagreeble. This, I emphasis again, is just my humble opinion -- subject to change upon cogent, non-offensive pursuasion to the contrary, using only words whose definition and understanding is what is currently accepted as being that possessed by the majority of people as reflected in the most current dictionaries.

"I thank you deeply and humbly for your kind, gentle, loving attention, and I hope this discourse we have just engaged in will help further international understanding and help unite the Brotherhood of Man in one universal family of man...no, mankind...no...of...humankind...no, of... personkind...no, of person/daughterkind...no, of beingkind -- yes, beingkind.

"God (who is a Lesbian and, needless to say, a woman who also goes by the name of Gaia) bless tolerance."

Nah. Me, I simply say: what the National Socialists did to the Jews was just plain wrong -- in the absolute sense and, moreover, WITHOUT ANY QUALIFICATION!

Tchau :)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Saturday, May 11, 2002 at 11:09:53

Message:
"Latinos are homologous with the totality of the United States. That is, Latinos can be of any race. What distinguishes them from all other Americans is culture, not race."

Jorge Klor de Alva, 1996

You posted this quote. This is the quote you hinge on, in fact it appears your entire existence hinges on it. However, there are two problems with this quote. First, it's been grotesquely altered. Second, it's out of context. I will paste the entire section which is under the heading "Anglos Can Be of Any Race":

ANGLOS MAY BE OF ANY RACE

SHORRIS: We've just demonstrated one of the tenets of this conversation. That is, we have discussed almost exclusively the question of blacks in this society. But we started out saying we would have a black-brown dialogue. Why does that happen? And not only in the media. Why did it happen here, among us?

KLOR DE ALVA: Part of the answer, as Cornel was pointing out, is that blacks are the central metaphor for otherness and oppression in the United States. Secondly, in part I take your question, when focused on Latinos, to mean, Don't Latinos have their own situation that also needs to be described if not in the same terms, then at least in terms that are supplementary?

I'm not sure. The answer goes to the very core of the difference between Latinos and blacks and between Cornel and myself: I am trying to argue against the utility of the concept of race. Why? Because I don't think that's the dominant construct we need to address in order to resolve the many problems at hand. Cornel wants to construct it in the language of the United States, and I say we need a different kind of language. Do you know why, Earl? Because we're in the United States and blacks are Americans. They're Anglos.

WEST: Excuse me?

KLOR DE ALVA: They're Anglos of a different color, but they're Anglos. Why? Because the critical distinction here for Latinos is not race, it's culture.

WEST: Speaking English and being part of American culture?

KLOR DE ALVA: Blacks are more Anglo than most Anglos because, unlike most Anglos, they can't directly identify themselves with a nation-state outside of the United States. They are trapped in America. However unjust and painful, their experiences are wholly made in America.

WEST: But that doesn't make me an Anglo. If I'm trapped on the underside of America, that doesn't mean that somehow I'm an Anglo.

KLOR DE ALVA: Poor whites similarly trapped on the underside of America are also Anglos. Latinos are in a totally different situation, unable to be captured by the government in the "five food groups" of racial classification of Americans. The Commerce Department didn't know what to do with Latinos; the census takers didn't know what to do with Latinos; the government didn't know what to do with Latinos, and so they said, "Latinos can be of any race." That puts Latinos in a totally different situation. They are, in fact, homologous with the totality of the United States. That is, like Americans, Latinos can be of any race. What distinguishes them from all other Americans is culture, not race. That's where I'm going when I say that Cornel is an Anglo. You can be a Latino and look like Cornel. You can be a Latino and look like you, Earl, or like me. And so, among Latinos, there's no surprise in my saying that Cornel is an Anglo.

WEST: But it seems to me that "Anglo" is the wrong word.

KLOR DE ALVA: Hey, I didn't make it up, Cornel.

WEST: "Anglo" implies a set of privileges. It implies a certain cultural formation.

KLOR DE ALVA: I'm trying to identify here how Chicanos see "Anglos.".

WEST: But I want to try and convince those Latino brothers and sisters not to think of black folk as Anglos. That's just wrong. Now, they can say that we're English-speaking moderns in the United States who have yet to be fully treated as Americans. That's fine.

KLOR DE ALVA: My friend, Cornel, I was speaking of one of the more benign Latino names for blacks.

WEST: Let's hear some of the less benign then, brother.


As you can see, it was the "culturalist" US government that "put Latinos in a totally different situation", according to Klor de Alva. In other words, it is the US government distinguishing Latins by culture, NOT Latins. He also goes on to argue that because Latins are not distinguished by race, they suffer in light of US government programs like affirmitive action because they do not have a race distinction.

There it is Hombre. You may now return to your favorite topic, gay Germans.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Sunday, May 12, 2002 at 18:13:01

Message:
>The point I was trying to make (which you completely missed) is that the phrase "right-wing fascist" is an oxymoron, as fascism is a variant of socialism and socialism, of coarse, represents the extreme left of the political, ideological and religious spectrum. The only reason the word fascism has come to be imputed to the right wing is because those who are generally in charge of controlling the political discourse (the left-leaning media and left-wing intellectuals) represent a rival form of socialism which vehemently hates the nationalistic socialism of facsism and National Socialism, preferring instead a universalistic "Brotherhood of Man" type of socialism.

I missed no point. I just think as usual you're full of shit. This sort of thinking is what has come from the more irresponsible arm of the right wing who think that all evil emanates from the left and all virtue emanates from the right, whereas most reasonable thinkers of both left, center and right (certainly leaves you out) believe that fascism and communism are two sides of the same extremist coin. The same sort of thinking comes from the extreme left when they seek to rationalize the crimes against humanity of a Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro or Erich Honecker, as the right managed to rationalize the crimes against humanity of Pinochet, the Argentine Junta, and Efrain Rios Montt. Simply because Hitler named his party National Socialists doesn't mean that they were in fact socialists as the existence of large successful corporations such as Krupp, Daimler-Benz, Volkswagen, Bayer et al. would contradict. So much for the government controlling all major means of production.

There is a mistaken notion among some members of the right that true right-wingers always practice the principle of reduced government and non-interference with individual lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. Classic examples of right-wingers who ruled with an iron fist and dominated the lives of their citizens include the afrementioned Pinochet and Franco. Here in the USA we have an attorney general who is so obsessed with foisting his Pentecostal religious agenda on the country that he is attempting to prevent doctors in the state of Oregon from assisting terminally ill patients from ending their lives in dignity, despite the fact that the citizens of the state have twice voted overwhelmingly in favor of this right. This is to say nothing of his wholesale attempt to rape the 4th amendment to the US Constitution and to condemn those who disagree with him on certain issues as lending aid and comfort to the enemy. The idea of forcing others to adhere to a culture that you deem as the only acceptable culture or perishing as the alternative is probably the sort of thing that was discussed as the Wannsee Conference.

>But what sort of mindset would be needed to be a "bellicose practitioner of genocide".

I think that you have demonstrated that quite ably.

>It is a well known fact that of the people infected with AIDS in Africa 90% contracted the disease through heterosexual copulation while the remaining 10% are those who were born with the disease, having received it from their infected mothers. In a country such as Australia, male homosexuals represent 80% of those infected with the AIDS virus -- for obvious reasons. Moreover, most African languages still don't have a word for homosexuality, as the idea of homosexuality is still a relatively new concept on that continent, one that hasn't established itself yet.

I'll make it easy for you and I'll type slowly so you'll understand. Show me an easily accessible source that shows that NOT ONE CASE OF AIDS in Africa has resulted from homosexual contact.

>Obviously. Just look at the social indicators of rising crime, divorce, promiscuity, family breakdown, contumacy, nihilism, suicide, etc, etc. The abolition of Jim Crow laws, desegragation and integration have had a partial and indirect, but nevertheless significant, cause-and-effect relationship to this decadence.

Why, because you say so? This goes heart of why so many posters have found your comments to be so risible. You have not shown one scintilla of cause and effect.

>Nah. Me, I simply say: what the National Socialists did to the Jews was just plain wrong -- in the absolute sense and, moreover, WITHOUT ANY QUALIFICATION!

As do I. Yet, you provided a rationale for the genocidal acts of the Spanish and Portuguese Conquistadors agains the indigenous people of the Americas for refusing to submit to their culture. God are you a hypocrite!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Sunday, May 12, 2002 at 18:58:21

Message:
As far as Ronald Reagan being a man of such strong convictions, why didn't he say I'm going to sell weapons to a terrorist state (Iran) in order to get hostages released and use the profits from this sale to fund a covert war in Central America that Congress has forbidden me to spend any money on?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 02:47:49

Message:
>As you can see, it was the "culturalist" US government that "put Latinos in a totally different situation", according to Klor de Alva. In other words, it is the US government distinguishing Latins by culture, NOT Latins. He also goes on to argue that because Latins are not distinguished by race, they suffer in light of US government programs like affirmitive action because they do not have a race distinction.

What AM I gonna do with you, Sick? Thanks a lot for taking the time out to type out that excerpt of the colloquy; it is very much appreciated. I'm assuming that you typed it out, even though you said you'd "paste the entire section". Does that mean that it's available online somewhere? 'Cos I'd really like to print a copy if it is. But if you typed it, again, thanks a lot for taking the time to do that; I think it's a great help. Oh, and before I forget -- thanks for bolstering my position immeasurably in pasting this excerpt, although for some rediculous reason you seem to be supporting me inadvertently. I'd strongly advise that in the future you pay more attention to what it is you are doing and saying. :)

>...believe that fascism and communism are two sides of the same extremist coin.

So you're telling me that the National Socialist Workers' Party, known as the "Marxist heresy", is left wing? I guess, then, that the Pope is a Lesbian drag-queen militant Green Peace activist who rides a Harley and belongs to the group Hell's Angels, and who also likes listening to Madonna (and even has her autograph!), is part of the dance-choreography team for Brittany Spears' next world tour, and will be the Vatican state's entry this year for the Miss Universe Beauty Pageant (wait till you see him in a swimsuit!).

>So much for the government controlling all major means of production.

It was known as "the Marxist HERESY".

>...as the right managed to rationalize the crimes against humanity of Pinochet...

So saving the Chilean people from socialism and utter poverty and from the murder by their government of far more Chileans than was the case under Pinochet is a "crime against humanity"? Figures. You did, after all, work for Amnesty International for fifteen years, that "guarantor" of "human rights" (snicker!). I guess the Americans in defeating Germany and Japan in the Second World War was not campaigning against the evils of totalitarianism but was, in doing so, actually engaging in "crimes against humanity"?

>Classic examples of right-wingers who ruled with an iron fist and dominated the lives of their citizens include the afrementioned Pinochet and Franco.

Pinochet was only right wing in the economic sense, that is to say, the government was "small" when it came to economics, keeping its sticky beak out of the economy and instead allowing market forces to take their course. As for Franco, I don't know much about him, but it would seem he was only right wing in the relative sense. But big, authoritarian, despotic government is, by definition, left wing. The extreme end of the right wing is represented by anarchism, because the government there is so small, whereas the extreme left is represented by totalitarianism, because the government there is just so darn big.

>...in favor of this right.

"Right"? "Right", Mr Paul? I very much doubt that you have even the slightest understanding of what a right is, my dear fellow. The fact that you worked for (or were involved with) Amnesty International for all those years is resounding confirmation of this. "Right" indeed! Ha!

>Show me an easily accessible source that shows that NOT ONE CASE OF AIDS in Africa has resulted from homosexual contact.

I'll re-post (slowly) a previous quotation of mine, this time with some added emphasis:

"But how could I possibly be homosexual? I'm from Africa, and we don't have any homosexuals there -- EXCEPT FOR A NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF IMMITATORS."

>Why, because you say so? This goes heart of why so many posters have found your comments to be so risible. You have not shown one scintilla of cause and effect.

Oh? Permit me to re-post one of my regular re-posts:

"An example: if it wasn't for the civil-rights movement, would there be a homosexual-rights movement today? Whatever you think of homosexuality, you have to admit that it is behaviour which has until relatively recently been universally considered an abomination of the highest regard -- that is, until desegragation and integration. When the homosexuals view the civil-rights movement as their inspiration, what are they saying? And what does it say about the way your people think that they should generally (albeit unconsciously) see acceptance of such behaviour as the natural succession of the civil-rights movement? Again, whether you think homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy or whether you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to admit that nobody would have thought of agitating for the legalisation of homosexual marriages if the laws against interracial marriages were still in place. Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether consciously or unconsciously), and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?"

>I think that you have demonstrated that quite ably.

Yes, I have. I believe that the warped mindset that endeavours to revive and imitate a Hellenistic-paganistic idea of homo-eroticism and militarism just very well may be the same one that is able and willing to engage in an insane effort to eliminate from the face of the earth the Jewish people.

Incidentally, the Fascists were relatively harmless, as far as socialists go, their worst action being their use of poisonous gas against the valiant Ethiopians. They never adopted crazy schemes like that of eliminating the Jews, nor did they subscribe to barbarian ideas of biological superiority (the Italians ARE Latin, after all!).

>Yet, you provided a rationale for the genocidal acts of the Spanish and Portuguese Conquistadors agains the indigenous people of the Americas for refusing to submit to their culture.

Genocidal? The indigenous people are still there. And so do millions of their descendants live on, albeit in diluted form, in the faces of tens of millions of Brazilians. Some genocide.

And finally to all of you: what do you all think about what Isobel and Professor Klor de Alva have said? 'Cos it's all pretty interesting, isn't it? :)

Tchau
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 03:19:19

Message:
>So you're telling me that the National Socialist Workers' Party, known as the "Marxist heresy", is left wing?

Correction:

So you're telling me that the National Socialist Workers' Party, known as the "Marxist heresy", is RIGHT wing?...



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 05:10:51

Message:
>thanks for bolstering my position immeasurably in pasting this excerpt, although for some rediculous reason you seem to be supporting me inadvertently.

Care to explain, since it doesn't.

I pasted it. I got it online through the Chicago Public Library. I would have posted the URL but you need a Chicago Public Library card to access it.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 05:26:25

Message:
Here's an excerpt from an interesting article by the Canadian commentator Mark Steyn which has some relevance to your contentions about the meaning of left wing and right wing, Mr Paul:

'The day after, the French election attention turned to the Netherlands. Like President Chirac, Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok had declared that his principal opponent, Pim Fortuyn, was someone who was beneath debate. So on Monday someone shot him dead. A militant vegan, if reports are to be believed. From across the North Sea, Tony Blair issued a heartfelt tribute to the first victim of political assassination in Holland in 350 years: "No matter what feelings political figures arouse, the ballot box is the place to express them."

'In Rotterdam, voters had done just that: 35 percent of electors in the Netherlands' second-largest city had cast their ballots for Pim Fortuyn. Yet that wasn't enough to get him a debate with Wim Kok, and even in death he remained, at least to the grudging Blair, beyond the pale (to coin a phrase). Fortuyn and Le Pen had virtually nothing in common: Le Pen's a Vichy nostalgist; Fortuyn was a flamboyant gay sociology professor, a beneficiary of Dutch liberalism who boasted about the ethnic diversity of his many lovers. Le Pen's a left-wing protectionist; Fortuyn was a Thatcherite on economic issues. But in the shorthand of European politics both were dismissed as "extreme," "hateful" and, naturally, "right-wing." [You must be very interested in European politics, Mr Paul! :)]

'A recent poll in Canada revealed that 75 percent of people have no idea what the terms "left" and "right" mean, and who can blame them? But here's a layman's guide: "left" is redundant, you never hear it any more; and "right" just means the side you're meant to dislike. Die-hard Maoist Commies in Red China are "hardline conservatives" just as much as John Ashcroft is.'


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 05:44:46

Message:
>Care to explain, since it doesn't.

Er...jusk keep reading it a few times, mate. Or ask one of the others to explain it to you. :)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 06:03:13

Message:
<Er...jusk keep reading it a few times, mate. Or ask one of the others to explain it to you. :)

HAHA I figured. I could have guessed your response. It being quite obvious that you cannot explain it yourself. This is an old, and of course useless, form of debate. Now, you are officially sunk. Luckily the topic has changed and you won't have to actually come up with an excuse. Lucky you.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 06:18:51

Message:
It is good to see that you have the "left vs. right" definitions so stringently defined, especially when they suit your purpose. Wouldn't want anyone from other places thinking differently now would we? However, your statement below seems a bit umm hypocritical or something. Perhaps I should have one of the other posters explain it to me.

>You're an American and so you should understand the word liberal as I meant it and how it is normally used in your country, as denoting a left-leaning progressive and radical world view. Your misunderstanding was wilful.

You need to be more upfront in your definition of terms, since only your definitions of the terms apply. How are we supposed to know what we are supposed to be thinking without your guidance?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 06:59:54

Message:
Oh yeah, hat's off to Aussie innovation and technology. Ya'll have the Department of Defense and Rumsfeld, in particular, in a twitter. He even canceled a weapons system in lieu of all this. I thought this was a joke at first, but it apparently isn't...a weapon with no moving mechanical parts that can fire one million rounds per minute? Cannons that can fire 7600 grenades five yards apart over a two mile area in a matter of minutes? Amazing. Check it out at www.metalstorm.com
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Cleusa
On Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 11:32:07

Message:
"the Brazilians are a bunch of mind-melted social conformists because they are homogenous."

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are an ignorant baby.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 14:46:27

Message:
EL HOMBRE:

VÁ CAGAR, VÁ PLANTAR BATATAS NO ASFALTO, VÁ CAÇAR SERVIÇO ZÉ BURRÅO!!

BOTA ROLHA NO SEU CU PORQUE VOCÊ ESTÁ DANDO TANTO GAS TÃO FEDERENTO!!

VOCÊ NÃO SABE NADA E GOSTA DE MOSTRAR SUA IGNORÂNCIA, SUA BABQUICE!!

VÁ CAÇAR SERVIÇO NO CIRCO, PORQUE VOCÊ É A ÚNICA PESSOA DO MUNDO QUE PODE ESCREVER E FALAR COM SEU PRÓPRIO CU!!!!!!!!!!!!1
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 18:04:18

Message:
El Wannabee wrote:

>Genocidal? The indigenous people are still there. And so do millions of their descendants live on, albeit in diluted form, in the faces of tens of millions of Brazilians. Some genocide.

As genocide is a crime against humanity, it is easily defined. This definition is taken from Article 2 of The Convention Against Genocide:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

There is no requirement that it completely eliminate all members of a group. By your [il]logic, the fact that Jews and Gypsies still exist excuses the Nazis of genocide. I guess it's an acceptable act for you to excuse the genocidal acts of some provided they possess the culture that appeals to you. By the way, according to two sources (the CIA World Factbook 2001 and www.atlapedia.com) the Amerindian population of Brazil is about .1% of the population, which, assuming a population of 170,000,000 is 170,000. Estimates of up to five million indigenous people lived in what is now Brazil at the time of Cabral's arrival. Some genocide, indeed.

>So saving the Chilean people from socialism and utter poverty and from the murder by their government of far more Chileans than was the case under Pinochet is a "crime against humanity"? Figures. You did, after all, work for Amnesty International for fifteen years, that "guarantor" of "human rights" (snicker!). I guess the Americans in defeating Germany and Japan in the Second World War was not campaigning against the evils of totalitarianism but was, in doing so, actually engaging in "crimes against humanity"?

Proof that you are the king of non-sequitors. The fact that he is facing innumerable lawsuits and has been stripped of his parliamentary immunity proves my point.

>But big, authoritarian, despotic government is, by definition, left wing.

I'm sure Pinochet, Hugo Banzer, the Argentinean Junta, the Brazilian Junta would find it risible that you think that they were left-wing. On the other hand, they would probably just consider the source and shake their heads.

>The extreme end of the right wing is represented by anarchism, because the government there is so small, whereas the extreme left is represented by totalitarianism, because the government there is just so darn big.

Wrong again. Franco fought left wing anarchists who were anti-clerical. Franco declared "In Spain, you are Catholic or you are nothing." I'm sure that there will be an earthquake in the Vale de Los Caidos resulting from Franco spinning in his grave. There are such things as right-wing authoritarians.

>So you're telling me that the National Socialist Workers' Party, known as the "Marxist heresy", is left wing? I guess, then, that the Pope is a Lesbian drag-queen militant Green Peace activist who rides a Harley and belongs to the group Hell's Angels, and who also likes listening to Madonna (and even has her autograph!), is part of the dance-choreography team for Brittany Spears' next world tour, and will be the Vatican state's entry this year for the Miss Universe Beauty Pageant (wait till you see him in a swimsuit!).

No, as usual I'll type slowly so that you understand. Extremists, regardless of their political leanings of left or right have much more in common in terms of the brutality and severity of their tactics and strategies than they do in terms of their political points of view. Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was Ronald Reagan's US Ambassador to the UN buddied up to the Argentine junta members as well as your beloved Pinochet praising them for controlling leftists, while decrying justifiably, but hypocritically, human rights abuses committed by leftist governments. This prompted Jacobo Timmermann, the famous Jewish emigre Argentinean newspaper publisher critical of both the brutal tactics of the left and right in Argentina to ask Ms. Kirkpatrick if it was less painful, less degrading, less humiliating to be tortured by a right-wing authoritarian government than a left-wing totalitarian government. I don't think that she could ever answer him.

>An example: if it wasn't for the civil-rights movement, would there be a homosexual-rights movement today? Whatever you think of homosexuality, you have to admit that it is behaviour which has until relatively recently been universally considered an abomination of the highest regard -- that is, until desegragation and integration. When the homosexuals view the civil-rights movement as their inspiration, what are they saying? And what does it say about the way your people think that they should generally (albeit unconsciously) see acceptance of such behaviour as the natural succession of the civil-rights movement? Again, whether you think homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy or whether you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to admit that nobody would have thought of agitating for the legalisation of homosexual marriages if the laws against interracial marriages were still in place. Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether consciously or unconsciously), and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?"

That's not cause and effect. That's just you giving off more gas.

>Yes, I have. I believe that the warped mindset that endeavours to revive and imitate a Hellenistic-paganistic idea of homo-eroticism and militarism just very well may be the same one that is able and willing to engage in an insane effort to eliminate from the face of the earth the Jewish people.

The Nazis were also trying to eliminate homosexuals (they made them wear pin triangles) as they were obsessed with deviancy. Gosh, you do have a lot in common with them.

I wrote:

>Show me an easily accessible source that shows that NOT ONE CASE OF AIDS in Africa has resulted from homosexual contact.

To which Sir Flatulence responded:

>I'll re-post (slowly) a previous quotation of mine, this time with some added emphasis:

>"But how could I possibly be homosexual? I'm from Africa, and we don't have any homosexuals there -- EXCEPT FOR A NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF IMMITATORS."

Once again, your opinion is not fact. I urge you to disabuse yourself of that notion.

>I'll re-post (SLOWLY) a previous quotation of mine, this time with some added emphasis:

You're even bereft of originality.

Enough already. You bore me. You're just a wannabee. You are the classic example of someone whose self-esteem is so low that you exist in denial: claiming that those who do not share in your view of only one culture existing in the world should "civilize or perish" (as if you are the apotheosis of civilization)and your self-loathing latency. Keep thinking that you're special. Keep thinking that you're straight. When the pain of reality is too much, I guess it's good to hide in your fantasies.

Até nunca!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 01:29:33

Message:
>Enough already. You bore me.

Then is this goodbye...forever? :'-(

But before you leave -- care to comment on Professor Klor de Alva and the (I'm sure) lovely Isobel?

>You are an ignorant baby.

Cleusa-baby -- DO pay attention, will you? Go back and re-read that post; you got it WAY out of context. That comment was a bit of sarcasm relating to what Sick had said before. Are you related to Sick, by the way?

And Cleusa-baby -- what do YOU think about what Professor Klor de Alva and the (I'm sure) lovely Isobel have said? I'd appreciate your comments on that, dear.

>Amazing. Check it out at...

Amazing? That's un understatement! That's brilliant! All I need now is the money for the shares! Another addition to Aussie innovation.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 03:57:00

Message:
>As genocide is a crime against humanity

What standard is it that you're using, anyway? Is it a universal, objective standard that is binding on everyone? If it's universally binding, from where does this standard receive its authority?

>Estimates of up to five million indigenous people lived in what is now Brazil at the time of Cabral's arrival. Some genocide, indeed.

Gee, I'd think there's a lot more than that left today, seeing as tens of millions of Brazilians are partly indigenous

>Proof that you are the king of non-sequitors. The fact that he is facing innumerable lawsuits and has been stripped of his parliamentary immunity proves my point.

So you'd have preferred Allende? The uncomfortable reality about the real world is that you have to make tough decisions, such as choosing to support the lesser of two evils, rather than living in an absurd Amnesty International Cloud Cuckoo world.

>I'm sure Pinochet, Hugo Banzer, the Argentinean Junta, the Brazilian Junta would find it risible that you think that they were left-wing.

Just because some government has a tiny aspect of it's policy that's right wing (such as Pinochet's free-market economics) doesn't mean that it is significantly right wing to merit that label. I suppose since China allows capitalism it is therefore not a left-wing communist government. Sheesh!

>There are such things as right-wing authoritarians.

Nope. There IS such a thing as RELATIVELY right-wing authoritarians.

>Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was Ronald Reagan's US Ambassador to the UN buddied up to the Argentine junta members as well as your beloved Pinochet praising them for controlling leftists, while decrying justifiably, but hypocritically, human rights abuses committed by leftist governments.

It's that thing called reality again: having to choose the lesser of two evils when no other choice is available.

>...if it was less painful, less degrading, less humiliating to be tortured by a right-wing authoritarian government than a left-wing totalitarian government.

The question is really one of which is better for the people's children and grandchildren: to endure a less left-wing government or a more left-wing one? Again, the lesser of two evils, mate.

>That's not cause and effect.

Oh? Then permit me to ask this much shorter version of the said question: if it wasn't for the civil-rights movement, would there be a homosexual-rights movement today? That's nice, short and sweet -- care to answer it?

>The Nazis were also trying to eliminate homosexuals (they made them wear pin triangles) as they were obsessed with deviancy.

If you cared to pay any attention to what I said you'd have realised that they made a distinction between effeminate homosexuals, whom they couldn't stand, and ultra-butch homosexuals in the vein of Alexander the Great, their beau ideal. Didn't you read that?

>Once again, your opinion is not fact.

Oh, come on! Everybody knows that AIDS in Africa is not a homosexual disease as is the case in the Western world. If there was homosexuality of any significance, then wouldn't they constitute the majority of those who are infected with the disease? I mean, if in a country like Australia such a small minority as homosexuals can represent 80% of those with the disease, then doesn't the absense of infected homosexuals in Africa mean that there are hardly any there? Unless, of course, African homosexuals are very chaste!

>You're even bereft of originality.

Oh give me a chance, man! How could I ever be expected to keep up with YOUR originality?

>You're just a wannabee.

A "wannabee" what?

>Keep thinking that you're special. Keep thinking that you're straight. When the pain of reality is too much, I guess it's good to hide in your fantasies.

(Sniff)...that hurt. :'(

>You bore me.

I guess, then, that means I'll be seeing a lot more of your friend Sabedoria. ;-)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 08:27:20

Message:
Geez Hombre, you finally get the article posted and I ask for a simple explanation and you refuse? It's right there, explain how what Klor de Alva said supports your argument. And don't tell me to read more slowly, or ask for help. I want YOU to explain, not Isobel, not a previous post of yours, I want your words. Indulge me. It's the least you can do, look how we indulged you. It's only fair. So have a go at it mate.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 08:39:41

Message:

>Of the first I have only read excerpts on-line, but enough to get the gist of it. But I definitely intend to purchase and read the first book, . . .

>So -- naturally -- my response speaks volumes . . .

Your responses take volumes, but it looks pretty much like you never read any.
You confine yourself to magazine articles and get gists from "excerpts on-line."
No doubt the mothership sends you messages as well.

By the way, frango, in "The Mind of Adolf Hitler," which is the book form of the OSS profile by psychiatrist Walter Langer, the author states that paranoia is inseparable from homosexuality . . . and Sick is Cleusa and Sabedoria is Randy . . . Sure they are, Hombre, sure they are . . . click, click, clickety-click, click . . .


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 22:33:04

Message:
>You confine yourself to magazine articles and get gists from "excerpts on-line."

Care to tell me what the "Pink Swastika" is all about if I've gotten it wrong?

>...Sabedoria is Randy...

When did I ever say that Sabedoria is Randy? All I said was Sabedoria was Randy's friend. Just like Pervert Gringo is Nadelstich's friend and just as either Troll-la-la is your friend or Nady-boy's. We all have friends, you see. But admittedly, I hadn't suspected that Cleusa was anyone else's friend. And maybe Isobel is MY friend! :)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 23:15:22

Message:

>Just like Pervert Gringo is Nadelstich's friend . . .

They are all my friends, if only for the laudable reason that they do not seem to be yours.

>And maybe Isobel is MY friend! :)

On the basis of your recent exhibitions of homophilial agitation, it would not come as a surprise if your alter ego were a woman. I believe your slip is showing, in more ways than one.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 23:30:22

Message:
>They are all my friends...

And to hear some of the language your "friends" use! :-0
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, May 16, 2002 at 00:47:48

Message:
>Geez Hombre, you finally get the article posted and I ask for a simple explanation and you refuse? It's right there, explain how what Klor de Alva said supports your argument. And don't tell me to read more slowly, or ask for help. I want YOU to explain, not Isobel, not a previous post of yours, I want your words. Indulge me. It's the least you can do, look how we indulged you. It's only fair. So have a go at it mate.

Oh dear, I guess I will have to condescend to help you, Sick. I'll post two paragraphs of Professor Klor de Alva's on which I want you to give your utmost concentrate. Ready? Here we go:

"I'm not sure. The answer goes to the very core of the difference between Latinos and blacks and between Cornel and myself: I am trying to argue against the utility of the concept of race. Why? Because I don't think that's the dominant construct we need to address in order to resolve the many problems at hand. Cornel wants to construct it in the language of the United States, and I say we need a different kind of language. Do you know why, Earl? Because we're in the United States and blacks are Americans. They're Anglos."

"Poor whites similarly trapped on the underside of America are also Anglos. Latinos are in a totally different situation, unable to be captured by the government in the "five food groups" of racial classification of Americans. The Commerce Department didn't know what to do with Latinos; the census takers didn't know what to do with Latinos; the government didn't know what to do with Latinos, and so they said, "Latinos can be of any race." That puts Latinos in a totally different situation. They are, in fact, homologous with the totality of the United States. That is, like Americans, Latinos can be of any race. What distinguishes them from all other Americans is culture, not race. That's where I'm going when I say that Cornel is an Anglo. You can be a Latino and look like Cornel. You can be a Latino and look like you, Earl, or like me. And so, among Latinos, there's no surprise in my saying that Cornel is an Anglo."

Now THINK about it, Sick, THINK!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, May 16, 2002 at 01:45:58

Message:
The genetic difference, Sick, between you and Einstein is one tenth of one percent -- so there's no excuse!

Also, would you be kind enough as to post the whole of that colloquy? I'd like to copy and paste it elsewhere and print it out. I reckon it would be good also for everyone to read the rest of it. Much appreciated in anticipation.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Thursday, May 16, 2002 at 07:05:14

Message:

>Care to tell me what the "Pink Swastika" is all about if I've gotten it wrong?

It’s >your< obsession; you figure out what you’ve gotten wrong. : -)


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Thursday, May 16, 2002 at 10:55:10

Message:
No no. I asked you to explain it in your own words. I want to hear you say it hombre. I want you to put me in my place. I want to be enlightened, so enlighten me. I want to hear you actually back up a claim of yours without you saying "just LOOK at them" or "just THINK about it". I gave you all you need to do this, I'm just asking you to do it.

Anyone want to take side bets that he can't do it?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Thursday, May 16, 2002 at 13:30:41

Message:
Sick,

That's a sucker's bet if I ever saw one!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, May 17, 2002 at 22:50:33

Message:
>It’s >your< obsession; you figure out what you’ve gotten wrong. : -)

My obsession with trying to come to terms with the madness and evil the Holocaust represented? I guess there's something wrong with that, eh?

Here are some more reviews of the book:

“A landmark book for those who have trouble understanding Hitler, the Holocaust...Previous books and movies, however high their quality, have left me mystified as to how the Nazi leaders could have done the things they did. This short book gets closer to the truth than anything I know of.”

John Hully, Former Senior Economist, the World Bank

“A well researched book. The central theme that the Nazi movement was riddled with homosexuals is certainly true.”

Hillmar von Campe, Historian, Halle, Germany

“As a Jewish scholar who lost hundreds of her family in the Holocaust, I welcome The Pink Swastika as courageous and timely . . . Lively and Abrams reveal the reigning “gay history” as revisionist and expose the supermale German homosexuals for what they were - Nazi brutes, not Nazi victims.”

Dr. Judith Reisman, Institute for Media Education

Obviously all those quoted are not so much concerned with trying to understand the mindset of the Nazis that led them to do the things they did but are in fact merely struggling with their latent homosexuality.

>No no. I asked you to explain it in your own words. I want to hear you say it hombre. I want you to put me in my place. I want to be enlightened, so enlighten me. I want to hear you actually back up a claim of yours without you saying "just LOOK at them" or "just THINK about it". I gave you all you need to do this, I'm just asking you to do it.

If you say so. Just go back to the top of this thread, Sick, and read everything I've said from the beginning. That way you'll get an explanation in my "own words".

By the way, how come it's only you who's having trouble understanding what Professor Klor de Alva is saying? It seems every one else has grabbed the significance of his comments; why not you?

>That's a sucker's bet if I ever saw one!

Care to tell me what problems you have with Professor Klor de Alva's comments, Mr Paul? If it's unanimous that y'all don't get what he's saying, then I can add my commentary to his sentences line by line. But I'm not gonna repeat myself from the beginning just for one person who isn't willing to pay any attention.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Saturday, May 18, 2002 at 00:25:19

Message:

I must commend you on your scholarship. A fine bibliography of dust jackets, magazine articles you are unable to comprehend and an online book that you would like someone to read to you. If I have my choice of scholars, it will have to be the mystery woman, Cleusa. At least she’s clear, and her assertions are easily documented.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, May 18, 2002 at 02:36:15

Message:
>I must commend you on your scholarship. A fine bibliography of dust jackets, magazine articles you are unable to comprehend and an online book that you would like someone to read to you. If I have my choice of scholars, it will have to be the mystery woman, Cleusa. At least she’s clear, and her assertions are easily documented.

"...magazine articles [I am] unable to comprehend..." Oh? Just HOW do I fail to comprehend what Klor de Alva says? Your dishonesty is amazing, Nady-boy! "...[D]ust jackets..."? Where else do you suggest I should get these reviews? Do you suppose that just because they are found there that they are not true? Did Lively and Abrams make up these reviews?

>...her assertions are easily documented.

Fair dinkum?

Enough of this prevaricating, Nady-boy. What do you, Nady-boy, think about what Isobel and our professor have to say? Anything to say on that, mate? Perhaps your friend Troll-la-la might have something to say on it -- but ask him to give it in clean language, please! What if Cleusa is a lady, eh?

Any of you...? What is your reaction to Isobel and Klor de Alva? Indeed, for that matter, what is your reaction to Gilberto Freyre? Or to the fact that the majority of the 170 million population of Brazil is mezclado, and all this appearing quite natural and normal to them, so much so that it seems to have occured without any conscious thought on their part. What do y'all reckon?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Saturday, May 18, 2002 at 08:26:11

Message:

And so all this huff 'n puff just to prove Sick right.

>Anyone want to take side bets that he can't do it?

:))
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Saturday, May 18, 2002 at 09:00:39

Message:
Pay up suckers.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Sunday, May 19, 2002 at 00:31:55

Message:

I would happily pay what I owe, but I have run a little short this week . . . Oh, wait, I have some currency left over from my recent trip to NeverNeverland. They denominate their debts -- or is it, "enumerate" their "shortcomings" -– (I’m never quite sure how that translates) -- in "hombres." Will those do?

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Sunday, May 19, 2002 at 04:14:33

Message:
HA! I will let the debts slide. I've been shorting the hombre currency since he compared genocide to nudity...dropping faster than a dotcom. I'm rich.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Sunday, May 19, 2002 at 11:47:04

Message:

I guess that explains why Hombre's ideas can't gain currency on this forum.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, May 20, 2002 at 22:27:35

Message:
Come on, fellas,...you can do better than that. :)

If you can't answer the questions then say so. Y'all know (except for poor Sick) that I have been vindicated big-time, so just run away and hide instead of maintaing the pretense. Y'all are making a truly pathetic sight...
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, May 20, 2002 at 22:53:00

Message:
If it's unanimous that y'all don't get what he's saying, then I can add my commentary to his sentences line by line.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Monday, May 20, 2002 at 23:28:56

Message:
>>If you can't answer the questions then say so.

Do you ever take your own advice?

>>If it's unanimous that y'all don't get what he's saying, then I can add my commentary to his sentences line by line.

I would really enjoy that. Here's your chance for greatness. But before you pop open the Champagne, please await my reply.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Monday, May 20, 2002 at 23:51:39

Message:
Here's the entire article. Please take careful note of the NAME of the article and it's context. Good luck, Hombre.

Our Next Race Question: The Uneasiness Between Blacks and Latinos

The angry and confused discourse about American race relations that followed the O.J. Simpson trial may have been passionate, but it blindly assumed (as if the year were 1963 or 1861) that the only major axis of racial division in America was black-white. Strangely ignored in the media backwash was the incipient tension between the country's largest historical minority, blacks, and its largest future one, Latinos.

In fifteen years, Latinos (known to the U.S. Census as Hispanics) will outnumber blacks, as they already do in twenty-one states. Each group constitutes an ever greater percentage of the total population; each is large enough to swing a presidential election. But do they vote with or against each other, and do they hold the same views of a white America that they have different reasons to distrust?

Knowing that questions of power and ethnicity are no longer black-and-white, Harper's Magazine invited three observers--a black, a Latino, and a white moderator--to open the debate.

EARL SHORRIS: To begin, would you both answer one question with a yes or no, no more than that? Cornel, are you a black man?

CORNEL WEST: Yes.

SHORRIS: Jorge, do you think Cornel is a black man?

JORGE KLOR DE ALVA: No, for now.

SHORRIS: Apparently we have something to talk about. Jorge, can you tell me why you say, "No, for now?".

KLOR DE ALVA: To identify someone as black, Latino, or anything else, one has to appeal to a tradition of naming and categorizing in which a question like that can make sense--and be answered with a yes or a no. In the United States, where unambiguous, color-coded identities are the rule, Cornel is clearly a black man. Traveling someplace else, perhaps in Africa, Cornel would not necessarily be identified as black. He might be seen as someone of mixed African descent, but that's different from being identified as black. Cornel is only black within a certain reductionist context. And that context, where color is made to represent not so much the hue of one's skin as a set of denigrated experiences--and where these experiences are applied to everyone who ever had an African ancestor--is one I consider to be extremely negative.

WEST: I think when I say I am a black man, I'm saying first that I am a modern person, because black itself is a modern construct, a construct put forward during a particular moment in time to fit a specific set of circumstances. Implicit in that category of "black man" is American white supremacy, African slavery, and then a very rich culture that responds to these conditions at the level of style, mannerism, orientation, experimentation, improvisation, syncopation--all of those elements that have gone into making a new people, namely black people.

A hundred years ago I would have said that I was a "colored man." But I would still have been modern, I'd still have been New World African, I'd still have been dealing with white supremacy, and I would still have been falling back on a very rich culture of resistance, a culture that tried to preserve black sanity and spiritual health in the face of white hatred and job ceilings. I think Jorge and I agree that we're dealing with constructs. And I think we agree in our objections to essentialist conceptions of race, to the idea that differences are innate and outside of history.

KLOR DE ALVA: What advantage has it been, Cornel, for blacks to identify themselves as blacks?

WEST: For one, that identification was imposed. We were perceived as a separate people--enslaved, Jim Crowed, and segregated. To be viewed as a separate people requires coming to terms with that separateness. This category "black" was simply a response to that imposition of being a separate people, and also a building on one's own history, going back to Africa, yes, but especially here in the United States. So when I say, for example, that jazz is a creation of black people, I'm saying that it's a creation of modern people, New World African people. And we've come up with various categories, including black, as a way of affirming ourselves as agents, as subjects in history who create, initiate, and so forth. So in that sense there have actually been some real benefits.

KLOR DE ALVA: When the Europeans arrived in Mexico, they confronted people whose level of social organization was not unlike that of the Romans. Before millions died from newly introduced diseases, the Europeans called them naturales, or "natural people." Afterwards the survivors came to be called "Indians," a term the natives did not use until the nineteenth century, preferring to identify themselves by their tribal group. And to the extent that they were able to do that, they managed to maintain a degree of cultural integrity as separate groups. When that ended, they were all seen as despised Indians.

The general label only helped to promote their denigration. Now, I agree that group designations help build a sense of community, but as free and enslaved Africans took on the general labels that oppressed them, they also helped to legitimize their being identified as one irredeemable people. In the United States this unwillingness to challenge what has come to be known as the one-drop rule--wherein anyone who ever had an African ancestor, however remote, is identifiable only as black--has strengthened the hand of those who seek to trap them, and other so-called people of color, in a social basement with no exit ladder.

WEST: When we talk about identity, it's really important to define it. Identity has to do with protection, association, and recognition. People identify themselves in certain ways in order to protect their bodies, their labor, their communities, their way of life; in order to be associated with people who ascribe value to them, who take them seriously, who respect them; and for purposes of recognition, to be acknowledged, to feel as if one actually belongs to a group, a clan, a tribe, a community. So that any time we talk about the identity of a particular group over time and space, we have to be very specific about what the credible options are for them at any given moment.

There have been some black people in America who fundamentally believed that they were wholehearted, full-fledged Americans. They have been mistaken. They tried to pursue that option--Boom! Jim Crow hit them. They tried to press that option--Boom! Vanilla suburbs didn't allow them in. So they had to then revise and recast their conception of themselves in terms of protection, association, and recognition. Because they weren't being protected by the police and the courts. They weren't welcome in association. Oftentimes they were not welcome in white suburbs. And they weren't being recognized. Their talents and capacities were debased, devalued, and degraded. "Black" was the term many chose. Okay, that's fine, we can argue about that. But what are the other options? "Human being?" Yes, we ought to be human beings, but we know that's too abstract and too vague. We need human communities on the ground, not simply at the level of the ideal.

CONSTRUCTING HUMANS

KLOR DE ALVA: Nobody is born black. People are born with different pigmentation, people are born with different physical characteristics, no question about that. But you have to learn to be black. That's what I mean by constructedness.

WEST: But are people born human? Is "human" itself constructed, as a category?

KLOR DE ALVA: Certainly as a category, as a social, as a scientific category, of course it's a construct. The species could have been identified in some other fashion. Since Columbus's landfall you had very extensive debates as to whether indigenous peoples in the Americas were human, like Europeans, or not. The priest Montesinos posed that question to the Spanish colonists in 1511, and Las Casas, a fellow priest, and the theologian Sepúlveda debated the issue at mid-century before Emperor Charles V.

WEST: You see, this historical process of naming is part of the legacy not just of white supremacy but of class supremacy. Tolstoy didn't believe his peasants were actually human until after he underwent conversion. And he realized, "My God, I used to think they were animals, now they're human beings, I have a different life and a new set of lenses with which to view it." So it is with any talk about blackness. It's associated with subhumanness, and therefore when we talk about constructed terms like "black" or "peasant" or "human," it means that the whole thing's up for grabs in terms of constructedness. And if that's so, then all we have left is history.

KLOR DE ALVA: All identities are up for grabs. But black intellectuals in the United States, unlike Latino intellectuals in the United States, have an enormous media space within which to shape the politics of naming and to affect the symbols and meanings associated with certain terms. Thus, practically overnight, they convinced the media that they were an ethnic group and shifted over to the model of African-American, hyphenated American, as opposed to being named by color. Knowing what we know about the negative aspects of naming, it would be better for all of us, regardless of color, if those who consider themselves, and are seen as, black intellectuals were to stop participating in the insidious one-drop-rule game of identifying themselves as black.

WEST: If you're saying that we are, for the most part, biological and cultural hybrids, I think you're certainly right. But at the same time there's a danger in calling for an end to a certain history if we're unable to provide other options. Now, because I speak first and foremost as a human being, a radical Democrat, and a Christian, I would be willing to use damn near any term if it helped to eliminate poverty and provide adequate health care and child care and a job with a living wage, some control at the workplace, and some redistribution of wealth downward. At that point, you can call all black people colored. That's fine with me.

SHORRIS: Are you saying that you're willing to disappear?

WEST: Well, I would never disappear, because whatever name we would come up with, we're still going to have the blues and John Coltrane and Sarah Vaughan and all those who come out of this particular history. And simply because we change the name wouldn't mean that we would disappear.

KLOR DE ALVA: I think that's the wrong emphasis. I think what has happened is that much of the cultural diversity that Cornel mentions has, in fact, disappeared behind this veil that has transformed everybody with one drop of African blood into black. That reductionism has been a much more powerful mechanism for causing diversity to disappear.

WEST: Well, what do you mean by disappearance at this point?

KLOR DE ALVA: Let me answer your question from a slightly different perspective. We have, in the United States, two mechanisms at play in the construction of collective identities. One is to identify folks from a cultural perspective. The other is to identify them from a racial perspective. Now, with the exception of black-white relations, the racial perspective is not the critical one for most folks. The cultural perspective was, at one time, very sharply drawn, including the religious line between Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Protestants, Jews and Catholics, Jews and Christians. But in the course of the twentieth century, we have seen in the United States a phenomenon that we do not see anyplace else in the world--the capacity to blur the differences between these cultural groups, to construct them in such a way that they became insignificant and to fuse them into a new group called whites, which didn't exist before.

WEST: Yes, but whiteness was already in place. I mean, part of the tragedy of American civilization is precisely the degree to which the stability and continuity of American democracy has been predicated on a construct of whiteness that includes the subordination of black people, so that European cultural diversity could disappear into American whiteness while black folk remain subordinated.

KLOR DE ALVA: But everything, even whiteness, must be constructed and is therefore subject to change.

WEST: Categories are constructed. Scars and bruises are felt with human bodies, some of which end up in coffins. Death is not a construct. And so, when we're talking about constructs having concrete consequences that produce scars and bruises, these consequences are not constructed, they're felt. They're very real. Now, in light of that, I would want to accent the strengths of the history of black resistance. One of the reasons why black people are so integral a part of American civilization is because black people have raised a lot of hell. That's very important, especially in a society in which power and pressure decide who receives visibility. By raising hell I mean organization, mobilization, chaosproducing capacity, as in rebellion. That's a very important point. Why is it important? It's important for me because what's at stake is the quality of American civilization, whether it actually survives as a plausible idea.

That's why a discourse on race is never just a discourse on race. Richard Wright used to say that the Negro is America's metaphor. It means you can't talk about one without talking about the nature of the other. And one of the reasons we don't like to talk about race, especially as it relates to black folk, is because we're forced to raise all the fundamental questions about what it means to be an American, what it means to be a part of American democracy. Those are exhausting and challenging questions.

The best of the black intellectual and political tradition has always raised the problem of evil in its concrete forms in America. People like Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, and Ella Baker never focused solely on black suffering. They used black suffering as a springboard to raise issues of various other forms of injustice, suffering, and so forth, that relate to other groups--black, brown, white workers, right across the board, you see. During the Eighties, the major opposition to right-wing Reaganism was what? Jesse Jackson's campaigns. Opening up to workers, gay brothers, lesbian sisters, right across the board. Black suffering was a springboard. Why? Because a question of evil sits at the heart of the American moral dilemma. With the stark exception of its great artists--Melville, Faulkner, Elizabeth Bishop, Coltrane, Toni Morrison--American society prefers to deny the existence of its own evil. Black folk historically have reminded people of the prevailing state of denial.

ANGLOS MAY BE OF ANY RACE

SHORRIS: We've just demonstrated one of the tenets of this conversation. That is, we have discussed almost exclusively the question of blacks in this society. But we started out saying we would have a black-brown dialogue. Why does that happen? And not only in the media. Why did it happen here, among us?

KLOR DE ALVA: Part of the answer, as Cornel was pointing out, is that blacks are the central metaphor for otherness and oppression in the United States. Secondly, in part I take your question, when focused on Latinos, to mean, Don't Latinos have their own situation that also needs to be described if not in the same terms, then at least in terms that are supplementary?

I'm not sure. The answer goes to the very core of the difference between Latinos and blacks and between Cornel and myself: I am trying to argue against the utility of the concept of race. Why? Because I don't think that's the dominant construct we need to address in order to resolve the many problems at hand. Cornel wants to construct it in the language of the United States, and I say we need a different kind of language. Do you know why, Earl? Because we're in the United States and blacks are Americans. They're Anglos.

WEST: Excuse me?

KLOR DE ALVA: They're Anglos of a different color, but they're Anglos. Why? Because the critical distinction here for Latinos is not race, it's culture.

WEST: Speaking English and being part of American culture?

KLOR DE ALVA: Blacks are more Anglo than most Anglos because, unlike most Anglos, they can't directly identify themselves with a nation-state outside of the United States. They are trapped in America. However unjust and painful, their experiences are wholly made in America.

WEST: But that doesn't make me an Anglo. If I'm trapped on the underside of America, that doesn't mean that somehow I'm an Anglo.

KLOR DE ALVA: Poor whites similarly trapped on the underside of America are also Anglos. Latinos are in a totally different situation, unable to be captured by the government in the "five food groups" of racial classification of Americans. The Commerce Department didn't know what to do with Latinos; the census takers didn't know what to do with Latinos; the government didn't know what to do with Latinos, and so they said, "Latinos can be of any race." That puts Latinos in a totally different situation. They are, in fact, homologous with the totality of the United States. That is, like Americans, Latinos can be of any race. What distinguishes them from all other Americans is culture, not race. That's where I'm going when I say that Cornel is an Anglo. You can be a Latino and look like Cornel. You can be a Latino and look like you, Earl, or like me. And so, among Latinos, there's no surprise in my saying that Cornel is an Anglo.

WEST: But it seems to me that "Anglo" is the wrong word.

KLOR DE ALVA: Hey, I didn't make it up, Cornel.

WEST: "Anglo" implies a set of privileges. It implies a certain cultural formation.

KLOR DE ALVA: I'm trying to identify here how Chicanos see "Anglos.".

WEST: But I want to try and convince those Latino brothers and sisters not to think of black folk as Anglos. That's just wrong. Now, they can say that we're English-speaking moderns in the United States who have yet to be fully treated as Americans. That's fine.

KLOR DE ALVA: My friend, Cornel, I was speaking of one of the more benign Latino names for blacks.

WEST: Let's hear some of the less benign then, brother.

WHAT COLOR IS BROWN?

KLOR DE ALVA: Do you think of Latinos as white?

WEST: I think of them as brothers and sisters, as human beings, but in terms of culture, I think of them as a particular group of voluntary immigrants who entered America and had to encounter this thoroughly absurd system of classification of positively charged whiteness, negatively charged blackness. And they don't fit either one: they're not white, they're not black.

SHORRIS: What are they?

WEST: I see them primarily as people of color, as brown people who have to deal with their blackness-whiteness.

SHORRIS: So you see them in racial terms.

WEST: Well, no, it's more cultural.

SHORRIS: But you said "brown.".

WEST: No, it's more cultural. Brown, for me, is more associated with culture than race.

SHORRIS: But you choose a word that describes color.

WEST: Right. To say "Spanish-speaking" would be a bit too vague, because you've got a lot of brothers and sisters from Guatemala who don't speak Spanish. They speak an indigenous language.

KLOR DE ALVA: You have a lot of Latinos who aren't brown.

WEST: But they're not treated as whites, and "brown" is simply a signifier of that differential treatment. Even if a Latino brother or sister has supposedly white skin, he or she is still Latino in the eyes of the white privileged, you see. But they're not treated as black. They're not niggers. They're not the bottom of the heap, you see. So they're not niggers, they're not white, what are they? I say brown, but signifying culture more than color. Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, El Salvadorans all have very, very distinctive histories. When you talk about black, that becomes a kind of benchmark, because you've got these continuous generations, and you've got very common experiences.

Now, of course, blackness comprises a concealed heterogeneity. You've got West Indians, you've got Ethiopians. My wife is Ethiopian. Her experience is closer to browns'. She came here because she wanted to. She was trying to get out from under a tyrannical, Communist regime in Ethiopia. She's glad to be in a place where she can breathe freely, not have to hide. I say, "I'm glad you're here, but don't allow that one side of America to blind you to my side.".

So I've got to take her, you know, almost like Virgil in Dante's Divine Comedy, through all of this other side of America so that she can see the nightmare as well as the dream. But as an Ethiopian, she came for the dream and did a good job of achieving it.

KLOR DE ALVA: So you are participating in the same process as the other Americans, other Anglos--to use that complicated term--that same song and dance of transforming her into a highly racialized American black.

WEST: It wasn't me. It was the first American who called her "nigger." That's when she started the process of Americanization and racialization. She turned around and said, "What is a nigger?".

KLOR DE ALVA: And you're the one who explained it.

LBJ'S OTHER DILEMMA

SHORRIS: How do you see yourself, Jorge?

KLOR DE ALVA: I'm an American citizen. What are you, Cornel?

WEST: I am a black man trying to be an American citizen.

KLOR DE ALVA: I'm an American citizen trying to get rid of as many categories as possible that classify people in ways that make it easy for them to be oppressed, isolated, marginalized. Of course, I'm a Chicano, I'm a Mexican-American. But for me to identify myself that way is not much help. More helpful is my actually working to resolve the problems of poor folks in the United States.

If I were black, I would heighten the importance of citizenship. Why? Because every time we've seen huge numbers of immigrants enter the United States, the people most devastated by their arrival, in terms of being relegated to an even lower rung on the employment ladder, have been blacks.

SHORRIS: Are you defining "black" and "Latino" as "poor"?

KLOR DE ALVA: No, no. I'm not defining them that way at all.

WEST: What's fascinating about this issue of race is the degree to which, in the American mind, black people are associated with instability, chaos, disorder--the very things that America always runs from. In addition, we are associated with hypersexuality, transgressive criminal activity--all of the various stereotypes and images.

SHORRIS: We all know LBJ's comment about affirmative action. He said that it's the right thing to do but that it will destroy the Democratic Party. There certainly is every likelihood that it has destroyed the Democratic Party as it's traditionally been understood, that the Democratic Party's base in the South has disappeared, that the white South now votes Republican and many blacks don't vote at all. What does this mean about America and the likelihood of any kind of affirmative action, or any program for social justice, succeeding, either for blacks or for Latinos?

KLOR DE ALVA: No matter what kind of policy you set in place, there has to be something in it for everybody or the policy is not going to last very long. And I'm not even going to get into the issue that affirmative action has been essentially an African-American thing, not a Latino thing.

WEST: But who have the major beneficiaries been? White women. And rightly so. More of them have been up against the patriarchy than black and brown people have been up against racism.

KLOR DE ALVA: If you're right that white women are the main beneficiaries, and if I'm right that African-Americans were meant to be the primary beneficiaries, then we have to ask if affirmative action is an effective strategy for the resolution of the Latinos' problems. And has the failure of class organization been due primarily to the racial divisions in the society? If so, then race is a lamentable category for any kind of progressive organization, and we need an alternative to affirmative action. I would remove the government from participation in the naming game and its divisive racializing of identities.

WEST: To the degree to which the Democratic Party cuts against a strong white supremacist grain in America and identifies with black people unequivocally, it will be destroyed. That's essentially what the Republican strategy has been since 1968. The question then becomes, How do we talk about these issues of class while also recognizing that any silence with respect to the de facto white supremacy results in institutions that ought to be changed because they have little moral content to them? If you're going to have a spineless, milquetoast Democratic Party that can't say a word against racism, it doesn't deserve to exist anyway.

KLOR DE ALVA: Affirmative action has had the capacity to create a black middle class. Many of these folks also have been the dominant group in the civil rights arena and in other human rights areas. The net effect has been to create a layer, essentially of African-Americans, within the public sphere that has been very difficult for Latinos to penetrate and make their complaints known.

WEST: That's true, and I think it's wrong. But at the same time, blacks are more likely to register protests than Latinos are. That's what I mean by raising hell, you see. Black people are more likely to raise hell than brown people.

KLOR DE ALVA: But having been blocked from the public sector, I am concerned that Latinos turning to the private one will buy deeply into U.S. concepts of race and will be even less willing than Anglos to employ blacks. So for me, any new social or public policy must begin with dismantling the language of race.

WEST: It's important not to conflate overcoming racial barriers with dismantling racial language. I'm all for the former; I'm not so sure about the latter, because it ignores or minimizes the history of racism. Most of human history is a history of oligarchs, unaccountable elites, manipulating anger, rage, setting working people against one another to enable those elites to maintain their position. That's why democracies are so rare in human history.

SHORRIS: Let me ask you a question about oligarchies. There are wealthy blacks, middle-class blacks, and many poor blacks. There are wealthy browns, middle-class browns, many poor browns. Are we talking about two groups or six? Are we talking about economic self-interest being greater than any kind of cultural or racial self-interest?

WEST: There is always going to be self-interest operating. The question is, How does it relate to the common good and contribute to the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services so that there's some relative equality? Now, the six groups that you're talking about have to do with class divisions within brown and black America. The class divisions are there. And they're going to increase, there's no doubt about that. We're going to see more conservatives in black America, more conservatives in brown America, because the country in general is tilting in that direction and it's nice to be on the bandwagon. Even though we claim to be with the underdog, it's very American to want to be with the winners. So as those class divisions escalate, you're going to get class envy and class hatred within brown America as well as within black America. One of the purposes of a black-brown dialogue is to head off precisely these kinds of hatreds and various forms of bigotry.

KLOR DE ALVA: At the level of the working class, we're seeing a great deal of cooperation, but as you move up the economic scale you have progressively more turf wars--how many slots blacks get for this, how many slots Latinos get for that. Once you get to mayors of towns or cities, you have Latinos who aren't going to do terribly much for the black community or, if they're black, not very much for the Latino community. Hence my emphasis on a solution that addresses economics rather than race.

WEST: We do have some data in terms of voting behavior when it comes to brown-black contrast. Ninety percent of whoever votes in the black community still votes Democratic, right? Cubans, a million Cubans in America, vote for Republicans. We have 2.8 million Puerto Ricans. They vote for Democratic roughly 60-40. We have 17.1 million Mexicans. They vote, the majority, for the Democratic Party. Black Americans tilt much more toward the Democratic Party than any other group, à la LBJ's idea: It's going to destroy this party, all these black folk over here. You see, once you get that racial divide, you can promote white anxieties and white fears, and you can use that for all it's worth. And the Republicans are going to use that into the twenty-first century. There's no doubt about it.

KLOR DE ALVA: Cornel, you're going back to the question of this evil empire.

WEST: No, it's not evil. It's a civilization in which there is a problem of evil.

KLOR DE ALVA: All civilizations have a problem with evil.

WEST: But some--like the United States--are in sustained denial even as they view themselves as the embodiment of good.

KLOR DE ALVA: I don't agree with that. I would say that one of the significant idelogical possibilities, a door that's always open in the United States--and it goes back to that old contrast between Mexico and the United States--is that the United States has an epic vision, a vision of good against evil. Latinos supposedly have a tragic vision--a conflict between two goods. But in the United States, evil is always right there, and its defeat, like its creation, can therefore be imagined. Cornel, you represent evil if you take off your three-piece suit and walk out into the street at three o'clock in the morning.

WEST: Brother, I represent evil now, as a savage in a suit. Because this is black skin, what we started with. So I don't need to take off my suit. But the difference is this: The tragic view--of Unamuno or Melville or Faulkner or Morrison or Coltrane--is a much more morally mature view of what it is to be human. The triumphant view of good over evil, which is Manichaean, is sophomoric, childish. It has been dominant in America because our civilization is so spoiled.

KLOR DE ALVA: I would like to agree with you were it not for the fact that that tragic vision is also a kind of Hamlet vision. It makes it very difficult to move, to overcome evil.

WEST: But better Hamlet than Captain Ahab in Moby-Dick. And that's precisely what Melville was getting at--this tremendous voluntaristic view of the world in which a will to power, based on an absolute conception of good over evil, allows one to lead toward what? Nihilism, self-destruction. I'd go with Hamlet any day.

KLOR DE ALVA: Not me, not at the price of indecision and paralysis.

WEST: Now, Martin Luther King was neither Hamlet nor Captain Ahab, you see. King was something else. King actually comes out of a black tradition with a profound sense of the tragic. When he has Mahalia Jackson sing "Precious Lord," that's not triumphalism. That is the deepest sense of the tragic nature of this civilization, the same tragic sense at work in the spirituals and the blues and jazz. King was not in any way a triumphalist. The great King insight is that because he rejects triumphalism he knows that the evil is not simply external, that it's in him. He knew that there was white supremacy in him. That's what allowed him to love Bull Connor even as he opposed Connor's white supremacy. That's the great Christian insight.

KLOR DE ALVA: I agree with you. The evil is here in the United States, but it can be challenged.

ONE NIGHT OF LOVE

SHORRIS: Cornel, what do you most worry about in the future?

WEST: I think my fundamental concern is the disintegration of American civilization as black people become more and more insulated, isolated, targeted, and hence subjected to the most brutal authoritarian rule in the name of democracy. And that's exactly where we're headed, so it's not just a fear.

KLOR DE ALVA: I would say that what you've described for America would be true of just about any nation I know, particularly any multicultural nation. It's not something that's unique to the United States. My biggest fear, as this nation moves into an inevitable browning, or hybridization, is that there will be a very powerful minority, overwhelmingly composed of Euro-Americans, who will see themselves in significant danger as a consequence of the way democracy works: winner-take-all. And they will begin to renege on some of the basic principles that created the United States and made it what it is.

SHORRIS: We've been talking about conflicts. Let's stipulate, unless you disagree, that the advantage to the people in power of keeping those at the bottom at each other's throats is enormous. That's the case in all societies. So we have blacks and browns, for the most part, at the bottom. And they are frequently at each other's throats. They're fighting over immigration, fighting over jobs, and so on. A group of young people comes to you and says, "Tell us how to make alliances, give us a set of rules for creating alliances between blacks and browns." What would you answer?

WEST: I'd appeal to various examples. Look at Ernesto Cortés and the Industrial Areas Foundation in Texas or the Harlem Initiatives Together in New York City, which have been able to pull off black-brown alliances of great strength, the "breaking bread" events of the Democratic Socialists of America. Or I'd talk about Mark Ridley-Thomas in South-Central Los Angeles and look at the ways in which he speaks with power about brown suffering as a black city councilman, the way in which he's able to build within his own organization a kind of black-brown dialogue. Because what you really see then is not just a set of principles or rules but some momentum at work.

SHORRIS: But how do you do that? What's the first step?

WEST: Well, it depends on what particular action you want to highlight. You could, say, look at the movement around environmental racism, where you have a whole host of black-brown alliances. With Proposition 187 you had a black-brown alliance among progressives fighting against the conservatives who happened to be white, black, and brown. In the trade-union movement, look at 1199, the health-care workers union, here in New York City. You've got brown Dennis Rivera at the top, you've got black Gerry Hudson third in charge, running things. That's a very significant coordinated leadership of probably the most important trade union in the largest city in the nation. So it depends on the particular issue. I think it's issue by issue in light of a broad vision.

SHORRIS: What is the broad vision?

WEST: Democracy, substantive radical democracy in which you actually are highlighting the empowering of everyday people in the workplace and the voting booth so that they can live lives of decency and dignity. That's a deeply democratic sensibility. And I think that sensibility can be found in both the black and brown communities.

KLOR DE ALVA: Unless there's a dramatic shift in ideology, linkages between people who are identified as belonging to opposing camps will last only for the moment, like the graffiti I saw during the L.A. riots: "Crips. Bloods. Mexicans. Together. Forever. Tonite (sic)," and then next to that, "LAPD" crossed out and "187" underneath. That is, the alliances will work only as long as there's a common enemy, in this case the L.A.P.D., whose death the graffiti advocated by the term "187," which refers here to the California Criminal Code for homicide.

As long as we don't have a fundamental transformation in ideology, those are the kinds of alliances we will have, and they will be short-lived and not lead, ultimately, to terribly much. Clearly, the progressive forces within the United States must be able to forge ideological changes that would permit lasting linkages. At the core of that effort lies the capacity to address common suffering, regardless of color or culture. And that cannot be done unless common suffering, as the reason for linkages across all lines, is highlighted in place of the very tenuous alliances between groups that identify themselves by race or culture.

SHORRIS: Let's see if anything happened in this conversation. Cornel, are you a black man?

WEST: Hell yes.

SHORRIS: Jorge, is he a black man?

KLOR DE ALVA: Of course not.

Added material.

JORGE KLOR DE ALVA is the Class of 1940 Professor of Comparative Ethnic Studies and Anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author or editor of fourteen books on anthropology, history, and interethnic relations in the Americas. He is presently at work on The Norton Anthology of Indigenous Mesoamerican Literature.

EARL SHORRIS is a contributing editor of Harper's Magazine and the author of ten books, including Latinos: A Biography of the People; Ofay, a 1966 novel about a black-white love affair; and Under the Fifth Sun, a Novel of Pancho Villa.

CORNEL WEST is a professor of Afro-American Studies and Philosophy of Religion at Harvard University. He is the author of eleven books on philosophy, African-American studies, and religion, including Race Matters. His latest book is The Future of the Race, co-authored with Henry Louis Gates Jr.

This conversation took place at the Colombe d'Or restaurant in Manhattan.

(TABLES)
MEDIAN AGE: HISPANIC 26 BLACK 29 WHITE 33
MEDIAN INCOME: HISPANIC $23,912 BLACK $21,548 WHITE $39,308
FAMILIES BELOW THE POVERTY LINE: HISPANIC 26.2% BLACK 31.3% WHITE 9.4%
PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES IN LARGE FEDERAL AGENCIES WHO ARE: HISPANIC 6 BLACK 18
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL U.S. POPULATION 73.6% OF HISPANICS DEFINE THEMSELVES AS "HISPANIC FIRST--AMERICAN SECOND 23.4% OF HISPANICS SAY THEY ARE "MOST COMFORTABLE" SPEAKING ENGLISH
51.7% OF '90 CENSUS RESPONDENTS WHO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS OF "HISPANIC ORIGIN" ALSO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS WHITE.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 21, 2002 at 01:39:30

Message:
So what difficulty do you have understanding that article? The issue here is where Klor de Alva was coming from when he was questioning the utility of a race-based identity. Implicit throughout Klor de Alva's contribution is the suggestion that if y'all were Latin, there wouldn't be these racial problems in the first place. The reason these racial problems and divisions exist in the first place is because y'all insist on making distinctions between people on the basis of something called race, so that West is a "black" man and forever different from you, even though his ancestors have lived in America for hundreds of years, have spoken English as their only language and are, as far as we culturalists are concerned, Anglo-Saxons. Lack of culture is the source of the problem. And you can't fix the problem without, well, fixing the problem -- which is lack of culture.

Tchau.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 21, 2002 at 04:04:00

Message:
PS: Thanks for posting the whole piece. :)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Tuesday, May 21, 2002 at 04:58:16

Message:
>>So what difficulty do you have understanding that article?

Go stand in front of a mirror and pose that question again.

>>Implicit throughout Klor de Alva's contribution is the suggestion that if y'all were Latin, there wouldn't be these racial problems in the first place.

Please cite at least one example from the article so that a reasonable person can see how you draw that conclusion. Please be specific.

>>The reason these racial problems and divisions exist in the first place is because y'all insist on making distinctions between people on the basis of something called race, so that West is a "black" man and forever different from you, even though his ancestors have lived in America for hundreds of years, have spoken English as their only language...

Thank you Master of the Obvious.

>>...and are, as far as we culturalists are concerned, Anglo-Saxons.

Klor de Alva is not a culturalist (he even says so) in your view of the term and that is not why he called West an Anglo. Maybe you should re-read. This time, keep in mind the concept of "context", unless of course you have a new and imagined definition of it.

>>Lack of culture is the source of the problem. And you can't fix the problem without, well, fixing the problem -- which is lack of culture.

How do you know? You can't even define culture, remember?

>>If it's unanimous that y'all don't get what he's saying, then I can add my commentary to his sentences line by line.

No no. The problem isn't a failure to understand Klor de Alva, the man is quite clear and persuasive. The problem is a failure to understand El Hombre, who is quite vague and refuses to respond with specifics when questioned or criticized and, needless to say, quite unpersuasive.

I am confident this point of view is held in unanimity.

>>PS: Thanks for posting the whole piece. :)

You're welcome. I did it in hopes you would focus on the final two sections of the article entitled "LBJ's Other Dilemma" and "One Night of Love". Obviously, you didn't. Anyway, that is where you will find the main gist as to why Klor de Alva called West an Anglo and why he wants to dismantle distinctions based on race as well as CULTURE. In other words, the context in which he speaks.

It has now come down to specifics that everyone can see. Therefore, I am sure you won't respond.

Anyone wanna try to win their money back?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 21, 2002 at 05:10:11

Message:
Well do you mind telling me how you interpret what Klor de Alva was saying?

I've been asking this of all of you all along. I've repreatedly asked all to comment on not only what Klor de Alva had to say but what the lovely Isobel said also.

So what is your understanding of what Klor de Alva (and Isobel!) said?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 21, 2002 at 05:32:31

Message:
>And that cannot be done unless common suffering, as the reason for linkages across all lines, is highlighted in place of the very tenuous alliances between groups that identify themselves by race or culture.

This must be what you're referring to, Sick. Then mind telling me WHY Klor de Alva calls West an Anglo if he himself eschews culture-based identities?

The point I was trying to make was that Klor de Alva's reference to how Chicanos view so-called "blacks" was evidence of the fact that Latins have little regard for something called race when making distinctions and instead prefer culture; which is why they see "Anglos" instead of "blacks". They are culture people and not race people.

Whatever else Klor de Alva says is irrelevant to what I've been talking about. What he says should be enough to demonstrate that Latins have a profoundly different way of thinking to, say, Anglo-Saxons.




RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Tuesday, May 21, 2002 at 06:29:15

Message:
>Whatever else Klor de Alva says is irrelevant to what I've been talking about. What he says should be enough to demonstrate that Latins have a profoundly different way of thinking to, say, Anglo-Saxons.

[BIG YAWN]
[BOCEJÃO]
[BOSTEZON]
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Tuesday, May 21, 2002 at 07:51:17

Message:
I went to www.dictionary.com to make clear the meaning of the word Chicano which you think is somehow synonymous with Latins in general. Please read.

Chi·ca·no Pronunciation Key (ch-käno, sh-) n. pl. Chi·ca·nos : A Mexican American.

[American Spanish chicano, dialectal variant of mexicano, Mexican, from México, Mexico.]

Chi·cano adj.
Usage Note: Chicano is used only of Mexican Americans, not of Mexicans living in Mexico. It was originally an informal term in English (as in Spanish), and the spelling of the first recorded instance in an American publication followed the Spanish custom of lowercasing nouns of national or ethnic origin. However, the literary and political movements of the 1960s and 1970s among Mexican Americans established Chicano as a term of ethnic pride, and it is properly written today with a capital. While Chicano is a term of pride for many Mexican Americans, it remains a word with strong political associations. Since these politics are not necessarily espoused by all Mexican Americans, and since usage and acceptance of this word can vary from one region to another, an outsider who is unfamiliar with his or her audience may do well to use Mexican American instead.

Klor de Alva is not talking about how Central and South Americans (Latin Americans) draw distinctions within a society. The entire focus is on how the US draws distinctions. Klor de Alva would like to get rid of all distinctions, that is why he defined himself as an "American citizen", meaning US citizen. He is not referring to the entirety of the Americas.

His point is basically this, no matter what distinctions are drawn, groups get squeezed out, marginalized, favored or it causes friction between the groups. Thus the point and name of the article. Thus the CONTEXT.

He called West an Anglo based on the distinction imposed upon Hispanic-Americans by the US government. Again, he doesn't imply a Latin American point of view, since that isn't what is being discussed. What he means is, Hispanic-Americans view blacks as the targeted group for US policy in regards to social programs. Therefore, Hispanic-Americans are marginalized because of the CULTURAL distinction imposed on them by the US government. Klor de Alva turned the distinction around on West to make his point. The point being, the uneasiness between blacks and Latinos caused by these imposed distinctions. So he invoked one of the "more benign" insults Latinos reserve for blacks. One that I am sure he knew would get West riled, and it did.

As far as Isobel, well, it is my opinion that she has fallen hook, line and sinker for Freyre's mythical racial democracy. Hombre, it appears you have too. Not all Brasilians agree with you and Isobel, by the way, just review the responses on that thread. I guess you are now fully behind the class system theory to explain the darker hues of skin at the lower rungs of the social strata. I am not sure when you made this flip-flop, remember when you said this?:

Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002 at 01:17:34

>You ignore social class which is an equally important factor in Latin American society.

Relevance? I was merely speaking of the future cultural influence of Brazil and by way of explanation mentioned that a less race-conscious mindset is an indication of culture while a race-obsessed mindset evidences lack of culture. I never talked about class and I'm not sure what it has to do with anything.

You and Isobel are not alone, so don't feel bad, remember nearly half of all Afro-Brazilians surveyed agreed with the statement "Good blacks have white souls".

Here is another Latin diddy provided by a Brasilian on his personal website about ra---err I mean color and class:

The Brazilian social problem has more to do with social classes than with skin melanin. A colorful French Caribbean proverb perfectly illustrates the situation:

"Mulatres pauvres ce negres. Negres pauvres ce mulatres" (Rich Blacks are white, Poor Whites are black).

Charming eh? Somehow this clueless Brasilian is unable to see the negation of the color "black" and the social implications that brings, which was also discussed in that article. The mindless dolt sees it merely as a "colorful" proverb. Talk about irony...I think it's called denial. That proverb seems to imply that race is mutable, by the way.

How about this one mentioned by the Brasilian poet Elisa Lucinda, another charming Brasilianism:

"Mulata ou negra, é pra cama. Casar, é com branca."

Mulata or black woman is for the bed. To marry is with the white woman.

Naw, not race conscious at all. But it is quite clear that many Latins see white as good and black as bad. In more stark terms: white is superior, black is inferior. Sound familiar? Blaming the class system is just a facade to mask institutionalized racism, and the statistics show it.

I'll leave you with some of Ms. Lucinda's words and the translation that appeared on the website. Take heed, Hombre:

Olha aqui meu senhor:
Eu me lembro de senzala
e tu te lembras da Casa-Grande
e vamos juntos escrever sinceramente outra história

Look here my master
I remember the shack
and you remember the Big House
let’s get together and sincerely write another history.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 21, 2002 at 22:25:45

Message:
My, my, Sick... You really do miss the significance and implications of things, don't you?

The glaring reality remains that the majority of Brazilian people, like in many other Latin American countries, are mezclado. The same cannot be said of Anglo-Saxon Americans, despite their having existed on the continent for centuries. There are reasons for this, which are the way Anglo-Saxons look at themselves and how they view the world and the people in it.

This damning reality remains, regardless of your misinterpretations of some harmless, jocular ditties.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 21, 2002 at 23:06:16

Message:
>As far as Isobel, well, it is my opinion that she has fallen hook, line and sinker for Freyre's mythical racial democracy. Hombre, it appears you have too.

Well I guess it makes you feel a whole lot better about yourself believing that.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Wednesday, May 22, 2002 at 06:10:49

Message:
>My, my, Sick... You really do miss the significance and implications of things, don't you?

>The glaring reality remains that the majority of Brazilian people, like in many other Latin American countries, are mezclado. The same cannot be said of Anglo-Saxon Americans, despite their having existed on the continent for centuries. There are reasons for this, which are the way Anglo-Saxons look at themselves and how they view the world and the people in it.

>This damning reality remains, regardless of your misinterpretations of some harmless, jocular ditties.

Alguém peidou aqui? Tem cheiro de pum muito fedorento . . .
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Trollenstein
On Wednesday, May 22, 2002 at 07:08:09

Message:
"Der Narzißmus der Mututsischen Männer ist vor allem der Hauptgrund dafür, daß die Mehrzahl gleichgeschlechtlich eingestellt ist. Die Männer werden durch den brennenden Lust getrieben, sich in eigene Spiegelung zu verlieben, die nur ein anderer Mann anbieten kann. Der Mann wird deswegen in der Gesellschaft der Mututsien so hoch erhoben wie die Frau gleichermassen verachtet wird."

The narcissism of the Mututsi men(husbands) is first of all the principal reason for the fact that the majority is put homosexually. The men(husbands) are driven(done) by the burning desire to fall in love with own reflection, which only another man(husband) can offer. Therefore the man(husband) is raised in the society(company) of the the Mututsis as high as the woman(wife) is despised equally.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Wednesday, May 22, 2002 at 10:20:57

Message:
Ha. Your typical responses. You graduated uni?

You are also the Master of Obfuscation.

>>There are reasons for this, which are the way Anglo-Saxons look at themselves and how they view the world and the people in it.

If it makes you feel better about yourself believing that, more power to you.

I would like to ask you one question though. Since you claim you are Latin, I want you to answer yes or no to this question:

Do you believe good blacks have white souls?


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Wednesday, May 22, 2002 at 22:22:02

Message:

>"Der Narzißmus der Mututsischen Männer ist vor allem der Hauptgrund dafür . . . so hoch erhoben wie die Frau gleichermassen verachtet wird."

>The narcissism of the Mututsi men(husbands) is first of all the principal reason for the fact that the majority is put homosexually . . .

What on earth!!? . . . One can only attribute such butchery to the barbarity of translation software, though the original is a bit quaint as well. Regardless, it is deserving of a slightly more prosaic rendering. Allow me:

The chief reason for the homosexual orientation of the majority of Mututsi men is narcissism. The males are driven by a burning desire to fall in love with their own image, which can only properly be supplied them [for this purpose] by another man. [Or, one might add, a mirror – translator’s note] As a result, the male in the Mututsi society is exalted to the same degree that the female is correspondingly denigrated.

Sir, Trollenstein, pray violate the canons of troll ethics and divulge the source of this excellent passage. You have it in quotes. Even the remote possibility that this is authentic presents an opportunity too delicious to pass up. Please, please, please, let this be from the dust jacket of some obscure nineteenth century text!!! - - Better still, a translation into the German language of an article by Klor de Alva.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, May 22, 2002 at 22:53:45

Message:
So...you guys Latin or what? If not, are ya gonna become Latins or what?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 00:14:01

Message:
I am not the type to disrespect an entire culture by viewing it as a sort of country club in which one becomes a member simply by filling out an application then behaving in a specific manner. Culture is something that has to be experienced. Culture is something that has to be lived. A six week vacation does not meet those standards. And Since I have never lived in a Latin culture I guess that disqualifies me, and I won't insult that culture by declaring myself a member.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 00:21:35

Message:
Then what is your identity? Are you a colour?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 00:24:08

Message:
I'll go with Klor de Alva, I'm an American(US) citizen. :)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 00:50:44

Message:
Do you have an ethnic identity? If not, is there such a think as an ethnic identity? On the census, what do you put yourself down as, ethnically speaking?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 00:59:56

Message:
I'm white, of Irish descent.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 01:43:14

Message:
What do you understand the word intermarriage to mean?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 02:03:36

Message:
It can mean a lot of things. A marriage of a couple from two different cultures, religions, ethnicities, etc. And yes, it is often used to refer to marriage between races. I agree with you that race does not really exist, the natural sciences have proven that. However, it is a cultural fact, especially in the US, so the phrase is used in that sense as well. Depending where you live, like Chicago for instance, intermarriage between white ethnic groups is often a very big deal to this day. Chicago is one of the more segregated cities in this nation, if not the most segregated. I tend to agree with Klor de Alva, classification systems that keep groups separate is only counterproductive, especially if those classifications are imposed by the state.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 02:29:34

Message:
>However, it is a cultural fact, especially in the US...

Really??? Now I wonder why???

>...classification systems that keep groups separate is only counterproductive, especially if those classifications are imposed by the state.

Now WHY, Sick, do these classification systems exist in the first place? And, no, I don't think that they are imposed by the state, for they already exist; no, the state only institutionalises them. The state recognises the existing reality and institutionalises it, like it did with slavery and segregation. Both these institutions were removed by OTHER states (federal government) that did not exist under the same circumstance or have the same mindset. But the mindset is not created by the state ex nihilo; it is a recognition by the state of the way things are.

Since you're doing a good job of answering my questions (you're the only one with the will to do so), here's another one: do you think that intermarriage is unnatural?

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 03:02:01

Message:
>>Really??? Now I wonder why???

You know why, it's only been explained to you about 20 times.

>>Now WHY, Sick, do these classification systems exist in the first place?

So those in power can stay in power. Just like every other place on the planet, and just like it has been explained to you several times.

>>The state recognises the existing reality and institutionalises it, like it did with slavery and segregation.

Wrong. See below.

>>But the mindset is not created by the state ex nihilo; it is a recognition by the state of the way things are.

If you think the state has no influence over the mindset of the society it rules, then you are truly lost.

<<do you think that intermarriage is unnatural?

No, nor is it natural. It's neutral. It's an individual choice. A matter of taste.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 03:44:13

Message:
>You know why, it's only been explained to you about 20 times.

What, some conspiracy of titanic proportions carried out by Masonic fiends in secret basements running the world for their own inscrutable, evil ends?

>So those in power can stay in power.

What ARE you talking about, Sick? Are you crazy or something? I happen to know for a fact that the United States is a representative democracy, and perhaps the most representative in the world. I have worked on a voluntary and casual basis at the electorate offices of two federal politicians in this country. I can tell you of how transparent and responsive representative systems like ours are. Our politicians are so obsequious that it's not funny. I almost felt uncomfortable seeing how far the politician I worked for would go to make the life of whatever bozo called or wrote some stupid letter better. I was simply astounded. So such silly conspiracy theories as you seem to be propounding are really out of the question and are perhaps better suited to the National Enquirer.

>If you think the state has no influence over the mindset of the society it rules, then you are truly lost.

Er...we're talking about the United States here. Again: REP-RE-SEN-TA-TIVE DE-MO-CRA-CY. Get it? Very transparent in countries such as ours. Very responsive. Get it?

>No, nor is it natural. It's neutral. It's an individual choice. A matter of taste.

Neutral? Then why the prefix "inter"? And by the way, I'm talking about how the majority of the people in your country use and understand the word intermarriage.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 05:37:17

Message:
>>What, some conspiracy of titanic proportions carried out by Masonic fiends in secret basements running the world for their own inscrutable, evil ends?

Decidedly not clever.

>>What ARE you talking about, Sick? Are you crazy or something? I happen to know for a fact that the United States is a representative democracy, and perhaps the most representative in the world. I have worked on a voluntary and casual basis at the electorate offices of two federal politicians in this country. I can tell you of how transparent and responsive representative systems like ours are. Our politicians are so obsequious that it's not funny. I almost felt uncomfortable seeing how far the politician I worked for would go to make the life of whatever bozo called or wrote some stupid letter better. I was simply astounded. So such silly conspiracy theories as you seem to be propounding are really out of the question and are perhaps better suited to the National Enquirer.

Ah I see, so during slavery and the segregation that followed, the US was a representative government. Are you sure? Well I guess technically it was, afterall, those elected to office WERE representing voters. But was it representative of society, especially in the south? Perhaps you should think about this some more.

>>Er...we're talking about the United States here. Again: REP-RE-SEN-TA-TIVE DE-MO-CRA-CY. Get it? Very transparent in countries such as ours. Very responsive. Get it?

HAHA. Thanks for the theory, perhaps you should try reality. US politicians can be very responsive on certain issues. Small issues, ones that don't threaten their elected office or their donors. In other words, their real consituencey. Who were the big donors and holders of power following reconstruction? Hmmm, let's think...possibly those people that got rich from slave labor? The same ones who used propaganda to justify slavery by influencing the mindset of southerners (and northerners) that blacks were inferior? The same ones who threw bones to poor white southerners to keep them from assisting slaves in revolts, or revolting themselves? Could it have been those guys? Since there were so many ex-slaves, who if allowed to vote could easily unseat them from power, (and some were unseated during reconstruction) what do you think those in power did to keep it? Gee, I think it was called Jim Crow laws or something (wouldn't want that little "reconstruction" experiment to come back and bite them in the ass again). They had already convinced southerners (and many northerners) that blacks were inferior, who was going to stop them? When the civil rights movement began, was the federal government taking polls to gauge the mindset of the country to see if it should take action or not? Hmm, I am thinking they didn't and thank god they didn't. Not to mention the fact that when policies are decided upon it is then the duty of the elected representative to make his or her case before the constituency. I suppose you think the US government didn't have to sell it's case to go to war in Korea or Viet Nam. How about WWII? Many believe FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to be bombed to change the isolationist mindset of the public. Transparency! HAHA get real. Don't tell me the government doesn't or can't influence mindsets, because you're wrong. By the way, your boy Freyre understood this completely and invented the myth of a racial democracy to instill a mindset amongst Brasilians (You know, white is good, black is bad). Of course, the entire point of that was to keep the white elites in power and ultimately rid Brasil of blacks by "whitening" the population through miscegnation and immigration. It hasn't really worked out, just like all theories that attempt to predict the behavior of humans. But the whites are still in power, so it was half way successful. Get it?

>>Neutral?

Neutral, because who one marries is a choice based on preference and taste, and had I just answered no I am sure, in your absolutist mind (if something isn't one thing then it is the exact opposite) you would have declared me to believe that it is natural. Thus proving your point in some irrational way.

Then why the prefix "inter"?

Why not?

And by the way, I'm talking about how the majority of the people in your country use and understand the word intermarriage.

It is probably used most often in terms of race and ethnicity. I suppose that proves your theory too. HAHA.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 11:19:22

Message:

> the homosexual orientation of the majority of Mututsi men

Ah, so "ebullience" is just a code word then. :-)


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 23:31:57

Message:
This is an article that appears on the Brasilian Ministry of Foreign Relations website. Go to http://www.mre.gov.br so you can see it is the official site and you can choose English or Portuguese, lest you accuse me of seeking out North American or racialist Brasilian propaganda.

Here is the direct link to the article.

http://www.mre.gov.br/revista/numero06/ingles/facenegra-i.htm

If this doesn't convince you that Latins have a mindset similar to the rest of the human race and not the "culturalist" mindset of your fantasies then nothing ever will.

Looking forward to your comments about this article.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, May 24, 2002 at 15:52:03

Message:
Read the article. Here's my response to it:

Once upon a time their existed this country of culturalists called Brazil where people base their identity on culture. But one day there came these Americans who were rich and successful and started telling the Brazilians that they weren't in actual fact culture people but were race people like them. In fact, they said, all the people of the world were race people regardless of evidence, such as that presented by Brazil, to the contrary. The Brazilians couldn't understand what they were saying at first but the Americans persisted. They said that the Brazilians were different from each other and had been engaging in large-scale intermarriage. They said some Brazilians were inherently different from others and that the people should therefore begin to act accordingly. Since the Americans were so rich and respected many Brazilians thought it silly to disagree with such people, especially when many wanted to emulate them. Indeed they started to notice these differences themselves and could see what the Americans had been talking about; and of course the plethora of injustices that had all along existed began to come to light. Some of these new racial Brazilians reacted to this new awareness by living by the principle, "birds of a racial feather flock together", which they'd seen the racialistic Germans and Japanese try to do for four to five generations when they arrived in Brazil, while others wanted to right existing injustices. Soon the society began to divide along these racial lines which had never existed before (except for some few Germans/Japanese and a few would-be Germans/Japanese), and balkanisation ensued...

The point is, Sick, I can get just as many people who don't agree with such would-be Americans like Dulce Maria Pereira (and her messianic-state mentality) in Brazil. It's just a matter of choosing who you think is right on the matter. If you choose to go with Ms Pereira, fine. You know where I stand on the issue. Let's agree to disagree.

By the way, wanna know why in Brazil the North is so much poorer than the South? Because those Northerners (mostly of African descent) are semi-pagan. I mean, if they go around worshipping the sea what the heck do you expect? The Southerners, you see, didn't "take" any wealth from anyone else, as the rampant socialism in Brazil seems to suggest, but CREATED it themselves. So for obvious reasons, the German part of Brazil, with its Calvinistic background, is the richest, and for the same reasons but with opposite results, the north-east of Brazil with its paganistic background is the poorest. Nothing to do with some conspiracy, mate.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Friday, May 24, 2002 at 16:51:34

Message:
Ms. Pereira was explaining the position of the elected Brasilian leadership. It wasn't an opinion piece.

>>I can get just as many people who don't agree with such would-be Americans like Dulce Maria Pereira (and her messianic-state mentality) in Brazil.

You haven't provided one, not one. Oh, and Isobel, remember she wasn't participating in this thread so what she thinks of your "theory" is up in the air and I suggest you read the entirety of her post and then compare it to what Ms. Pereira says. Perhaps then you could understand why Isobel has formed such views.

>>Once upon a time...

Talk about conspiracy theories. Are you even aware of the contradictions you type? At least my "conspiracy" theory seems to have the backing of most anyone who has ever written on the subject. In fact, several searches for your "theory", or anything near it, have come up completely empty. And no, you haven't discovered something, because you have never once presented one shred of evidence to prove any aspect of your "theory".

>>Because those Northerners (mostly of African descent) are semi-pagan.

You are no Max Weber. A prime example of a non sequitur. What I expect is for you to provide some evidence that this is the overriding factor leading to the lowly economic development of the north as opposed to denial, based on the color of skin and/or race, of capital, education, opportunities, etc.

>>The Southerners, you see, didn't "take" any wealth from anyone else...

I never made that claim, nor have I read anyone else who makes this claim on this board or anywhere else for that matter.

>>the German part of Brazil, with its Calvinistic background...

Care to provide evidence of this? And I mean evidence of a "calvinist" work ethic tradition as defined by Weber that will explain the differences of economic development in the South and North of Brazil. I would be really interested in seeing that.

>>Let's agree to disagree.

No. I refuse only because that will infer some element of credibility in your theory. I have a conscience.

Now that it is clear you grab explanations to support your "theory" from new threads on this board, I think I shall retire from this one. There is nothing more to say on this subject.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, May 24, 2002 at 18:12:24

Message:
>Ms. Pereira was explaining the position of the elected Brasilian leadership. It wasn't an opinion piece.

Your point?

>You haven't provided one, not one.

Ever heard of Gilberto Freyre? Ever heard of a tenured professor of both Princeton and Berkeley universities called Jorge Klor de Alva? Do you think or not? Now a more pertinent question: ever LOOKED at the people of Brazil? The people of Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico...? I guess you can't have that good a view with your head in the sand. Also, here's an excerpt from a recent article from this very magazine showing that there are plenty of people who disagree with Ms Pereira in Brazil:

"Another argument against affirmative action based on racial preferences is that the bottom line of Brazil's social ills is not racism but ECONOMICS. Critics [like me] point to the disparity of income distribution, the sad state of the health system, and to the failure of public education as examples of inequalities that affect all Brazilians regardless of race.

"According to the United Nations' Human Development Report released in 2001, Brazil ranks fourth among the nations with the highest income concentration in the smallest segment of the population—behind only Swaziland, Nicaragua and South Africa. Brazil's richest 10 percent hold 48.7 percent of the nation's wealth. Based on the per capita income alone, it ranks 57th among 162 countries, but it ranks 79th in education and 95th in health. There are 37 million Brazilians living with less than $2 a day.

"Consequently, admission to public universities based on racial quotas would be unfair to poor Brazilians in general. Moreover, it would not fix the basic problems, such as the lack of good public schools or the high number of school dropouts who often must make a difficult choice between school and work. Even black Brazilians are split on the subject. Recently, the Laboratory of Public Policies at the Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ) conducted a survey among 2,400 UERJ students and professors. The results showed that 57.4 percent of the 2,328 students polled were against the quota system. Among black students, the opposition to quotas was 49.6 PERCENT." [my emphasis]

You know what? I reckon these Brazilians should stop trying to imitate America to such an extent as to adopt a racial mindset in place of their culturalist one. We can see this especially in the incipient "black"-identity movement in Brazil, a silly movement (which understandably hasn't quite caught on) which tries to emphasise race in identity over culture but this in a culturalist society.

Some people take the Americanisation of the world to a risible extent.

>At least my "conspiracy" theory seems to have the backing of most anyone who has ever written on the subject.

See above.

>In fact, several searches for your "theory", or anything near it, have come up completely empty.

Paradigm shift anybody? :) By the way, ever heard of Thomas Kuhn's book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"? Here is an excerpt summarising his observations I found on the Internet. Although my hypothesis is not strictly scientific in the empirical sense, his observations about paradigm shifts (a phrase he coined) has relevance to your (plural) demonstrated puerile intransigence. Also, I'll post a lot of it since y'all don't seem to pay attention:

'A fundamental theme of Kuhn's argument is that the typical developmental pattern of a mature science is the successive transition from one paradigm to another through a process of revolution. When a paradigm shift takes place, "a scientist's world is qualitatively transformed [and] quantitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory."

'Kuhn also maintained that, contrary to popular conception, typical scientists are not objective and independent thinkers. Rather, they are conservative individuals who accept what they have been taught and apply their knowledge to solving the problems that their theories dictate. Most are, in essence, puzzle-solvers who aim to discover what they already know in advance - "The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly."

'During periods of normal science, the primary task of scientists is to bring the accepted theory and fact into closer agreement. As a consequence, scientists tend to ignore research findings that might threaten the existing paradigm and trigger the development of a new and competing paradigm. For example, Ptolemy popularized the notion that the sun revolves around the earth, and this view was defended for centuries even in the face of conflicting evidence. In the pursuit of science, Kuhn observed, "novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."

'And yet, young scientists who are not so deeply indoctrinated into accepted theories - a Newton, Lavoisier, or Einstein - can manage to sweep an old paradigm away. Such scientific revolutions come only after long periods of tradition-bound normal science, for "frameworks must be lived with and explored before they can be broken." However, crisis is always implicit in research because every problem that normal science sees as a puzzle can be seen, from another perspective, as a counterinstance and thus as a source of crisis. This is the "essential tension" in scientific research.

'Crises are triggered when scientists acknowledge the discovered counterinstance as an anomaly in fit between the existing theory and nature. All crises are resolved in one of three ways. Normal science can prove capable of handing the crisis-provoking problem, in which case all returns to "normal." Alternatively, the problem resists and is labeled, but it is perceived as resulting from the field's failure to possess the necessary tools with which to solve it, and so scientists set it aside for a future generation with more developed tools. In a few cases, a new candidate for paradigm emerges, and a battle over its acceptance ensues - these are the paradigm wars.

'Kuhn argued that a scientific revolution is a noncumulative developmental episode in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one. But the new paradigm cannot build on the preceding one. Rather, it can only supplant it, for "the normal-scientific tradition that emerges from a scientific revolution is not only incompatible but actually incommensurable with that which has gone before." Revolutions close with total victory for one of the two opposing camps.

'Kuhn also took issue with Karl Popper's view of theory-testing through falsification. According to Kuhn, it is the incompleteness and imperfection of the existing data-theory fit that define the puzzles that characterize normal science. If, as Popper suggested, failure to fit were grounds for theory rejection, all theories would be rejected at all times.

'In the face of these arguments, how and why does science progress, and what is the nature of its progress? Kuhn argued that normal science progresses because members of a mature scientific community work from a single paradigm or from a closely related set and because different scientific communities seldom investigate the same problems. The result of successful creative work addressing the problems posed by the paradigm is progress. In fact, it is only during periods of normal science that progress seems both obvious and assured. Moreover, "the man who argues that philosophy has made no progress emphasizes that there are still Aristotelians, not that Aristotelianism has failed to progress."

'As to whether progress consists in science discovering ultimate truths, Kuhn observed that "we may have to relinquish the notion, explicit or implicit, that changes of paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from them closer and closer to the truth." Instead, the developmental process of science is one of evolution from primitive beginnings through successive stages that are characterized by an increasingly detailed and refined understanding of nature. Kuhn argued that this is not a process of evolution toward anything, and he questioned whether it really helps to imagine that there is one, full, objective, true account of nature. He likened his conception of the evolution of scientific ideas to Darwin's conception of the evolution of organisms.

'The Kuhnian argument that a scientific community is defined by its allegiance to a single paradigm has especially resonated throughout the multiparadigmatic (or preparadigmatic) social sciences, whose community members are often accused of paradigmatic physics envy. Kuhn suggested that questions about whether a discipline is or is not a science can be answered only when members of a scholarly community who doubt their status achieve consensus about their past and present accomplishments.'

>...as opposed to denial, based on the color of skin and/or race, of capital, education, opportunities, etc.

DENIAL, you say? What on earth is denying them from from educating themselves, generating capital and opportunities for themselves, etc? The reasons they can't do this for themselves is because of their religious background, which is closely associated with magical thinking.

>I never made that claim, nor have I read anyone else who makes this claim on this board or anywhere else for that matter.

The general insinuation, existent not only in your conspiracy theory but evident in the literate discourse of Brazil, is that there needs to be a "redistribution" of wealth. This implies or assumes that the wealth of the rich was either gained at the expense of the poor or simply taken away from them. This is just plain socialism.

>Care to provide evidence of this? And I mean evidence of a "calvinist" work ethic tradition as defined by Weber that will explain the differences of economic development in the South and North of Brazil. I would be really interested in seeing that.

No worries. Southern Brazil, populated to a significant degree by the descendants of Calvinistic Protestants, is the richest part of the country; and the North, populated mainly by the descendants of pagans, who even openly perpetuate paganism today, is the poorest part of Brazil. Free-enterprise capitalism has Christian roots, namely, Calvinistic roots. (See economist Gary North's "An Introduction to Christian Economics", The Craig Press, 1973)

>No. I refuse only because that will infer some element of credibility in your theory. I have a conscience...

>...I think I shall retire from this one. There is nothing more to say on this subject.

You're a schizophreniac, right? :)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Friday, May 24, 2002 at 19:28:56

Message:

Oh what a shame. The non-ebullient Calvinists and the ebullient pagans appear to be working at cross purposes in Brazil. The very "culture" that Hombre insists only needs sufficient economic backing for its spectacular launch into world domination does not seem very well suited to the necessary economic development. Yet too broad an acceptance of the Calvinist work ethic might well extinguish ebullience in that land. Why, it's almost a Catch-22, or just another fine example of Hombrian double-think. Think about it Hombre, the Americans must have the proportions just right after all. Or, do your usual -- don't think about it.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Friday, May 24, 2002 at 20:17:58

Message:
Ah, me dear Nady-boy. You see, those pagans won't be pagans for much longer. All it needs is a concentrated effort of reconstruction of the North upon a proper, viable, covenant-keeping plinth and we should begin to see some positive results in about fifty years. Once the sick man of Brazil is sufficiently rehabilitated, then we should see the predicted cultural dominance take place -- but fortunately with the unpleasent, lubricious aspects of Brazilian culture significantly diluted.

The ebullience of Brazil itself is harmless. If one is gyrating vigourously in a Samba, moving one's pelvis from side to side as opposed to back and forth ought not to convey anything unseemly and untoward.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Sick
On Friday, May 24, 2002 at 21:43:31

Message:
>>Ever heard of Gilberto Freyre?

Oh yes, I have heard of him. His concepts of "Brasilianess", as far as racial issues and his mythical "racial democracy", have been thoroughly dismissed, namely by Brasilian social thinkers. If you ever bothered for once in your life to learn something about it you would know that North American social scientists basically fell in line with Freyre's conclusions until Cardoso and Fernandes decided to add a bit of reality to the subject. That was the entire point of that article. The fact that Brasilians SEE color, a color scheme based on RACE, is no longer in dispute in the Brasilian academics. Not to mention the fact that you seem utterly clueless on what Freyre's vision was and what he was promoting.

>>Ever heard of a tenured professor of both Princeton and Berkeley universities called Jorge Klor de Alva?

Yes, I have heard of him too. I have shown that you have positively no clue what that man was saying. Also, he made clear that a cultural distinction is just as bad as a racial distinction in a multicultural society and this would also apply to Brasil, and he even implies as much. He is no longer at Berkley, by the way.

>>Do you think or not? Now a more pertinent question: ever LOOKED at the people of Brazil? The people of Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico...? I guess you can't have that good a view with your head in the sand.

Yes I think. You see, I DID take note of the different "color composition" (I can't think of a better term for that at the moment) of Latin America, especially Brasil. As opposed to you I did THINK about it and investigated (which you clearly have not) as to why it is the way it is. As well as investigate as to why North America is the way it is. I have explained both to you. The circumstances were not the same and how each region proceeded in regards to this situation was different, to say the least. And no one with an IQ over 70 could possibly draw the conclusions you draw based on the historical evidence of how this all occurred. I am not going to explain it again because I am sick of doing your research for you. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

>>Also, here's an excerpt from a recent article from this very magazine showing that there are plenty of people who disagree with Ms Pereira in Brazil:

Dummy, again you fail to understand the REASONS WHY people with darker skin tend to be at the lower end of the economic strata. Slavery is not the answer. Class is not the answer, which by the way is Marxist analysis, and just like race, class is a social construct. Again, read that article I posted and about anything I have posted about Freyre and you will see why this all occurred. The argument of class is a facade and the government actively has promoted this facade since Freyre posited it, especially during the military dictatorship. So the views expressed in that article you cited could just as easily be ascribed to the EFFECTIVENESS of that government propaganda.

>>...but this in a culturalist society.

You have yet to prove this, based on your definition of the word culturalist.

>>Paradigm shift anybody?

Sure, when you provide a good reason for one.

>>Most are, in essence, puzzle-solvers who aim to discover what they already know in advance -"The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly."

This is an apt description of you. However, you show you clearly have no "existing knowledge". You drew conclusions without bothering to search for facts. So you have to manipulate the tools you use to make your theory valid, i.e. your definition of culture. How is that coming along by the way?

>>'During periods of normal science, the primary task of scientists is to bring the accepted theory and fact into closer agreement. As a consequence, scientists tend to ignore research findings that might threaten the existing paradigm and trigger the development of a new and competing paradigm.

Another apt description of your "scientific technique". You dismiss every counter argument anyone has made lest your paradigm fall apart (which it has anyway).

>>For example, Ptolemy popularized the notion that the sun revolves around the earth, and this view was defended for centuries even in the face of conflicting evidence. In the pursuit of science, Kuhn observed, "novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."

You have provided no "conflicting evidence".

>>However, crisis is always implicit in research because every problem that normal science sees as a puzzle can be seen, from another perspective, as a counterinstance and thus as a source of crisis. This is the "essential tension" in scientific research.

You presented your theory. We disagreed and questioned it's validity. In other words, we accepted this "essential tension" and did our own research. So what did you do? Nothing. You provided nothing to support your theory. You provide no evidence to counter our arguments. You have done absolutely no research on your own theory. Haha.

>>'Crises are triggered when scientists acknowledge the discovered counterinstance as an anomaly in fit between the existing theory and nature. All crises are resolved in one of three ways. Normal science can prove capable of handing the crisis-provoking problem, in which case all returns to "normal." Alternatively, the problem resists and is labeled, but it is perceived as resulting from the field's failure to possess the necessary tools with which to solve it, and so scientists set it aside for a future generation with more developed tools. In a few cases, a new candidate for paradigm emerges, and a battle over its acceptance ensues - these are the paradigm wars.

Racialist Brasilians, psuedo-Germans, the next door neighbors children, the US imposing it's views. All of these are YOUR explanations (labels) of what you perceive as anamoly. Your paradigm is definitely in crises and no new candidate is emerging.

>>'Kuhn also took issue with Karl Popper's view of theory-testing through falsification. According to Kuhn, it is the incompleteness and imperfection of the existing data-theory fit that define the puzzles that characterize normal science. If, as Popper suggested, failure to fit were grounds for theory rejection, all theories would be rejected at all times.

I agree with this. However, I don't find your evidence being a "failure to fit", I find it "failing to exist". .

>>DENIAL, you say? What on earth is denying them from from educating themselves, generating capital and opportunities for themselves, etc?

Discrimination.

>>The reasons they can't do this for themselves is because of their religious background, which is closely associated with magical thinking.

Prove it. While you're at it, explain how "immaculate conception" is not magical thinking. Or miracles. Or ressurections. Or...

>>The general insinuation, existent not only in your conspiracy theory but evident in the literate discourse of Brazil, is that there needs to be a "redistribution" of wealth. This implies or assumes that the wealth of the rich was either gained at the expense of the poor or simply taken away from them. This is just plain socialism.

Your buffoonery knows no bounds, not to mention your ignorance. Nice summation of the historical favortism Latin American countries have shown for Marxist analysis. Thank you Master of the Obvious. I have never called for a "redistribution" of wealth. I am a capitalist and capitalism cannot exist in it's full potential without equal opportunities for all members of society. So now you see why I call the Marxist class analysis used by some Brasilians a facade to mask racism. In other words, a justification for discrimination based on color derived from race. You on the other hand, seem to be in full lock step with this type of Marxist analysis. That is just plain socialist thought. Idiot.

>>No worries. Southern Brazil, populated to a significant degree by the descendants of Calvinistic Protestants, is the richest part of the country; and the North, populated mainly by the descendants of pagans, who even openly perpetuate paganism today, is the poorest part of Brazil. Free-enterprise capitalism has Christian roots, namely, Calvinistic roots. (See economist Gary North's "An Introduction to Christian Economics", The Craig Press, 1973)

Define significant, please provide statistics of immigrant populations and where they came from and when, where they settled, please show their Christian denominations, provide evidence that they did indeed actually spawn from the Calvinist tradition as defined by Weber (Calvinists have several traditions and not all of them capitalistic, please see Scotland) and also explain how much of an effect these Calvinistic Protestants have had on economic development in the Southern region of Brasil, a country historically dominated by mercantilism. I know you won't look into all that because you fear knowledge, but this is a prime example of how you make statements as if they were fact while providing NOTHING to support your claim.

>>You're a schizophreniac, right? :)

No, just bored.
RE: Tutsi Nazi
Posted by Hutu
On Saturday, May 25, 2002 at 13:49:12

Message:

In Rwanda, Hombre’s Mututsi relatives had ensconced themselves exclusively as the overloads of a nation that was largely Muhutu. They tried to cover up this ethnic oppression by declaring there were no racial differences between the two groups; that they were one and the same people. Magically, since there were no differences, there could be no ethnic oppression. (The Muhutu didn’t buy this.)

Hombre is laboring under the influence of a flashback when he says there are no races in Brazil, despite the fact that the Europeans run and own everything. Same scam by another minority that wants to fool a majority. Hombre has even mistaken the "uncivilized" and recalcitrant Brazilian Indians for Muhutus. They must "perish" if they don’t go along with the program.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Saturday, May 25, 2002 at 22:20:18

Message:

Brazil isn’t Japan. Fifty years? The Rockefellers tried once or twice but finally gave up. I can not count the number of times this "Brazil rising" has turned up in magazines, until the magazines gave up, too.

Have you heard of entropy? Maria Theresa, Empress of Austria, having become disconcerted with the non-urgent work habits of her citizenery, imported tens of thousands of industrious Bohemians to provide good examples of the "Calvinistic" work ethic. She hoped that her subjects would rise to the level of the Bohemians. Result: in a few short years, the industrious Bohemian imports fell to the level of the Austrians, and stayed there. Good luck with your fifty year plan.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Sunday, May 26, 2002 at 09:46:16

Message:
>Your point?

>Ever heard of Gilberto Freyre? Ever heard of a tenured professor of both Princeton and Berkeley universities called Jorge Klor de Alva? Do you think or not? Now a more pertinent question: ever LOOKED at the people of Brazil? The people of Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico...? I guess you can't have that good a view with your head in the sand. Also, here's an excerpt from a recent article from this very magazine showing that there are plenty of people who disagree with Ms Pereira in Brazil:


>You know what? I reckon these Brazilians should stop trying to imitate America to such an extent as to adopt a racial mindset in place of their culturalist one. We can see this especially in the incipient "black"-identity movement in Brazil, a silly movement (which understandably hasn't quite caught on) which tries to emphasise race in identity over culture but this in a culturalist society.

>Some people take the Americanisation of the world to a risible extent.

>Paradigm shift anybody? :) By the way, ever heard of Thomas Kuhn's book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"? Here is an excerpt summarising his observations I found on the Internet. Although my hypothesis is not strictly scientific in the empirical sense, his observations about paradigm shifts (a phrase he coined) has relevance to your (plural) demonstrated puerile intransigence. Also, I'll post a lot of it since y'all don't seem to pay attention:

>DENIAL, you say? What on earth is denying them from from educating themselves, generating capital and opportunities for themselves, etc? The reasons they can't do this for themselves is because of their religious background, which is closely associated with magical thinking.

>The general insinuation, existent not only in your conspiracy theory but evident in the literate discourse of Brazil, is that there needs to be a "redistribution" of wealth. This implies or assumes that the wealth of the rich was either gained at the expense of the poor or simply taken away from them. This is just plain socialism.

>No worries. Southern Brazil, populated to a significant degree by the descendants of Calvinistic Protestants, is the richest part of the country; and the North, populated mainly by the descendants of pagans, who even openly perpetuate paganism today, is the poorest part of Brazil. Free-enterprise capitalism has Christian roots, namely, Calvinistic roots. (See economist Gary North's "An Introduction to Christian Economics", The Craig Press, 1973)

>You're a schizophreniac, right? :)


Abre uma janela, pelo amor de Deus, Zé PEID.O!!!!!



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Sunday, May 26, 2002 at 17:39:57

Message:
Nadelstich, O Homem and Sick:

Ignore this guy. He is a dilettante, a dabbler, a poseur, a wannabe.

He is intellectually dishonest. Whenever one of his presumptions gets challenged or disproved, he changes the focus of the discussion and doesn't even have the stones to acknwoledge that he is wrong. He dismisses the points of view of those who do not share his views regardless of the years of research, experience and knowledge they have developed which would dwarf his.

He clings to his misinterpretation of Jorge Klor de Alva's viewpoints to bolster his own lame presumptions.

Mr. Gashumba, if you are so damn sure you know what Klor de Alva intended, I found his e-mail address on the UC Berkeley Web page, somethng which I think even you could have done. Here it is: kd_alva@uclink4.berkeley.edu It may be an old address, but I'm sure it's worth a shot. Why not write him? Perhaps he'll be so stunned by your stunning insights, that he'll quit his research and devote himself to interviewing you to extract all the wisdom he can. I have a hunch, however, that he will simply think you are a gassy little poseur.

Speaking of gas, as for you, Sabedoria, give it a rest. Jesus, you've made you're point, OKAY?!?!?!?

Please ignore both of these clowns. They're not worth the effort.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Zé Sabedoria
On Sunday, May 26, 2002 at 20:53:41

Message:
>Speaking of gas, as for you, Sabedoria, give it a rest. Jesus, you've made you're point, OKAY?!?!?!?

Vá cagar, MACACO BRANCO!!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Randy Paul
On Monday, May 27, 2002 at 08:20:43

Message:
Se voce limpar, vou mesmo, tu mal educado.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Monday, May 27, 2002 at 23:31:19

Message:
>The fact that Brasilians SEE color, a color scheme based on RACE, is no longer in dispute in the Brasilian academics.

Funny, it's just that they act as if they give little regard to it.

>I have shown that you have positively no clue what that man was saying.

"KLOR DE ALVA: They're Anglos of a different color, but they're Anglos. Why? Because the critical distinction here for Latinos is not race, it's culture."

I see you have.

>He is no longer at Berkley, by the way.

That's right. He heads an innovative for-profit university, much to the chagrin of his socialist academic peers -- which, I believe, gives more credence to his opinions.

>If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Hmmm: Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, Guatemala, Mauritius, Honduras...

>The argument of class is a facade and the government actively has promoted this facade since Freyre posited it, especially during the military dictatorship. So the views expressed in that article you cited could just as easily be ascribed to the EFFECTIVENESS of that government propaganda.

Or vice versa. I guess we agree to disagree.

>You have yet to prove this, based on your definition of the word culturalist.

Based on my definition of the word culturalist, I have proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

>Sure, when you provide a good reason for one.

Go back to the top of this thread and start reading.

>You dismiss every counter argument anyone has made lest your paradigm fall apart (which it has anyway).

Which is why you spend so much time trying to "disprove" me.

>You have provided no "conflicting evidence".

Hmmm: Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, Guatemala, Mauritius, Honduras...

>So what did you do? Nothing.

I STARTED THE WHOLE BLOODY THING!

>All of these are YOUR explanations...

REALLY! I clearly underestimated you, Sick!

>However, I don't find your evidence being a "failure to fit", I find it "failing to exist". .

Let me get this straight: there's never been any evidence, except for the evidence that has never existed? Ya.

>Discrimination.

Discrimination? They're the majority up north. Who would be there to discriminate against them, and why? Oh, that's right -- the conspiracy theory. Seen any alien sightings recently? :)

>Prove it. While you're at it, explain how "immaculate conception" is not magical thinking. Or miracles. Or ressurections. Or...

Explain how conspiracy theory is not magical thinking. :)

>I am a capitalist and capitalism cannot exist in it's full potential without equal opportunities for all members of society.

And who makes these opportunities? Where do they come from?

>Define significan[t].

Not insignificant.

>please provide statistics of immigrant populations and where they came from and when, where they settled, please show their Christian denominations, provide evidence that they did indeed actually spawn from the Calvinist tradition as defined by Weber (Calvinists have several traditions and not all of them capitalistic, please see Scotland) and also explain how much of an effect these Calvinistic Protestants have had on economic development in the Southern region of Brasil, a country historically dominated by mercantilism.

And then you'll believe me? Hmmm. What if it ruffles your feathers a bit?

>...NOTHING to support your claim.Hmmm: Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, Guatemala, Mauritius, Honduras...

>No, just bored.

Pity your words do not comport with your actions. :(

>They tried to cover up this ethnic oppression by declaring there were no racial differences between the two groups; that they were one and the same people.

Are you saying, Nadelstich, that there are racial differences between the Hutu and Tutsi?

>...Muhutus.

Bahutu. The prefix "mu" denotes the singular and the prefix "ba" is for the plural: hence, Mututsi (singular) and Batutsi (plural) and Muhutu (singular) and Bahutu (plural). Or better still, say it in English: Hutu (singular), Hutus (plural) and Tutsi (singular), Tutsis (plural).

>despite the fact that the Europeans run and own everything.

Are these "Europeans" you speak of a different race?

>They must "perish" if they don’t go along with the program.

You totally misunderstood me there. I've already explained that that comment only applied to America (US). The "perishing" comes from the decadence brought on by "tolerance" in a vain attempt to be something you're not.

>Brazil isn’t Japan. Fifty years?

Notice I said: "we should begin to see some positive results in about fifty years"? I wasn't saying there'd be a comprehensive transformation by then. Besides, the Japanese just adopted Western technical advancement without the plinth from which that advancement came. The devopment I'm talking about will be more faithful to Calvinistic presuppositions, so that, for example, there will never be any inflation, which comes from apostacy.

>Ignore this guy. He is a dilettante, a dabbler, a poseur, a wannabe.

And what a good job you've done of following your own advice! :)

>Whenever one of his presumptions gets challenged or disproved...

Should I mentioned the fact that y'all, with the sole exception of Sick (and only because he's foolish enough to contend with my points), have assiduosly avoided answering many of my questions, instead preferring to resort to ad hominem, the last refuge of the intellectually vanquished? Hmmm.

>He clings to his misinterpretation of Jorge Klor de Alva's viewpoints to bolster his own lame presumptions.

"KLOR DE ALVA: They're Anglos of a different color, but they're Anglos. Why? Because the critical distinction here for Latinos is not race, it's culture."

Wow. How I misunderstood him indeed!

>if you are so damn sure you know what Klor de Alva intended, I found his e-mail address on the UC Berkeley Web page...

Why don't you? It's you who has the problem. Aren't you tired of my embarrassing you every time you say that I'm making something up or I've interpreted something wrongly? Are you too afraid of embarrassing yourself? Besides, I'm not sure there's anything that can convince you guys now. It's not a case of believing me or not but of WANTING to believe me or not.

>They're not worth the effort.

Let's see if you can follow you're own advice. :)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 00:16:23

Message:

You seem to have mistaken me for one of your other detractors. Hardly your worst mistake, however. The fact is, your reply to MY post is strangely lacking in coherency, so I suppose I can only envy him your reply to his, even though it is of no particular relevance.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 00:56:29

Message:
Oh, you mean Tutsi Nazi isn't you? What a terrible mistake! Forgive me, Nady-boy, how clumsy of me! Whatever possessed me to do that? :)

>The fact is, your reply to MY post is strangely lacking in coherency, so I suppose I can only envy him your reply to his...

Not to say anything of your syllogism. :)

>...even though it is of no particular relevance.

Oh, but my dear Nady-boy, it might have subtle relevance, perhaps intending to convey disregard for his points by displaying pedantry. You have to be mighty switched on regarding everything I write, mate. This forum is no place for the dozey -- notwithstanding Sick's testing presence.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 02:10:27

Message:
"Talvez por isso o racismo aqui não seja tão forte mas, existe sim porque há pessoas que são influenciadas por idéias vindas de outros países mas, a verdade é que não existe brasileiro de uma "raça" pura porque não acredito que raça exista."

Tell it like it is, sister!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 03:53:39

Message:
>Mr. Gashumba, if you are so damn sure you know what Klor de Alva intended, I found his e-mail address on the UC Berkeley Web page, somethng which I think even you could have done. Here it is: kd_alva@uclink4.berkeley.edu It may be an old address, but I'm sure it's worth a shot. Why not write him?

Are you telling me that if Klor de Alva agreed with me that the Latin people base their identity on culture and can therefore be laballed culture people while people like Anglo-Saxons base their identity on race and can be justifiable labelled race people -- you're telling me that you would believe me and agree with me then? Will we have that on record? :)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 09:19:38

Message:

>RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
>Posted by El Hombre
>On Monday, May 27, 2002 at 23:31:19

>You totally misunderstood me there. I've already explained that that comment only applied to America (US). The "perishing" comes from the decadence brought on by "tolerance" in a vain attempt to be something you're not.

Really. : )) Are you the same Dummy who on April 4th, 2002 posted the following:

>RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
>Posted by El Hombre
>On Thursday, April 04, 2002 at 02:17:44

Message:
>>That "Civilise or Perish" exhortation was directed solely at the Americans and not to anyone else (the Japanese, for example, won't perish if they don't civilise).

>CORRECTION: Actually, the Japanese need to civilise or they, too, will perish. In fact, a lot of people need to civilise or they will perish also. Let's start with the Japanese.

Kinda chasing your own tail there, aren’t you, Bub? Ya see, this is the kind of thing that leads people not to take ya seriously.

And so perishing the Muhutae will always have a home in the Dummy Doctrine of Racial Management. : )))

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 23:01:05

Message:
>Ya see, this is the kind of thing that leads people not to take ya seriously.

NOT TAKE ME SERIOUSLY? Hmmm. This is possibly one of the longest threads on this forum.

But regardless, the "perish" warning did not mean that people would perish by the sword for not civilising; it meant that the futile attempts to overcome the limitations brought on by lack of culture (inability to assimilate people who look physically different) are going to increasingly have negative consequences until that society is so morally debased that it perishes. That's why such a scenario will quite likely happen to Japan over the next few decades. I was concentrating on America (US), however, because of her importance, but noticed only Japan and other countries as an afterthought as they are rather peripheral in the cultural scheme of things.

Homem, I wonder if you would be so good a chap as to explain to me how I misinterpreted this point made by Professor Klor de Alva:

"KLOR DE ALVA: They're Anglos of a different color, but they're Anglos. Why? Because the critical distinction here for Latinos is not race, it's culture."

Also, help me out with understanding this:

"Talvez por isso o racismo aqui não seja tão forte mas, existe sim porque há pessoas que são influenciadas por idéias vindas de outros países mas, a verdade é que não existe brasileiro de uma "raça" pura porque não acredito que raça exista."

Has the (I'm sure) lovely Isobel been duped by the propaganda of a sinister cabal of Aryan supremacists who control Brazil and engage in the persistent and sanguine endeavour to "whiten" the population by assuming that if "pretos" marry "brancos" their offspring will be Aryans?
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nadelstich
On Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 23:52:00

Message:

Your recent jiltings by Randy and Sick appear to be causing you unusually severe separation anxieties. I suggest you take your prozac now and turn out the lights when you leave.



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Testing
On Wednesday, May 29, 2002 at 01:34:22

Message:
123
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, May 29, 2002 at 02:09:15

Message:
>Your recent jiltings by Randy and Sick appear to be causing you unusually severe separation anxieties. I suggest you take your prozac now and turn out the lights when you leave.

What? They've left? Good God NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

What am I gonna do, Naddy-boy? Oh what, what, what?

Do something, Nady-dear, DO SOMETHING!

Listen, Nady...YOU'RE not going to leave me, are you? Please...I'm really sorry for all I've said and done, I really am... Please believe me. You WILL believe me, won't you, Nady-dear?

Oh, what am I going to do? CURSE my blasted trolling! If only I had devined that in so doing I'd loose my most treasured Internet friends...

What AM I gonna do? Oh God...oh God....oh God [pant, pant, pant...]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

:'-( :'-( :'-( :'-( :'-( :'-( :'-( :'-(
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by O Homem
On Wednesday, May 29, 2002 at 09:26:13

Message:

Let’s see, how did that old song go? . . .

"Toot, toot, tootsie, goodbye . . ."

>What? They've left? Good God NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

"Toot, toot, tootsie, don’t cry . . ."

>Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Wednesday, May 29, 2002 at 23:08:23

Message:
I wasn't REALLY crying. :)

But nice to see you and Nady-boy are never gonna tire of me. Maybe some day you'll believe me and civilise! :-D
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by
On Thursday, May 30, 2002 at 14:20:45

Message:

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by
On Friday, May 31, 2002 at 06:54:12

Message:

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 08:05:22

Message:
I am dumb.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by The Rest of Us
On Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 14:48:22

Message:
We're intellectually vanquished.

But at the same time we're too bothered by the truthfulness of what El Hombre's said to leave him alone.

On the one hand we're proud of being barbarians and are happy with all that lack of culture has to offer. But at the same time we're aware that things would be better off in our land if we weren't so conscious of race. But then again, if we weren't so race-conscious, our genetic make-up would have been jeapardized a long time ago.

But that's race thinking.

Which is the problem.

We're perhaps too racial to become culturalists, because we know that the implications do not wash well with our racialism -- which is the problem. We're scared of degenerating, of being dysgenic with our biology. I mean, we're racialists -- that's how we think.

So it's tough. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

So we can't leave El Hombre alone. 'Cos it's tough. What he says bothers us.

Bastard.

:-)
RE: Hombre/The Rest of Us hubricious?
Posted by Troll-la-la
On Tuesday, June 04, 2002 at 17:30:02

Message:
Oh, you see dat? Dat boy Hombre, he caught, he trapped. We owns dat boy now. No matter what somebody say, he always gotta answer. He be checkin’ this thread fer the rest of his life now. He be checkin’ this thread when it on page umpty-one million an’ umpty-one. Cause he never gonna know when someone say somethin’ about his silly self unless he check. He never gonna know when somebody call him a homo boy again so he gotta keep checkin’ an’ checkin’. He infected, he is. He infected with hubris. Dat boy is totally, totally, completely hubricious. He gotta have de last word. Cause de word’s his whole an’ onliest reality.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Tuesday, June 04, 2002 at 22:31:55

Message:
Hey wait up! That wasn't me that posted earlier. That was the rest of you guys! In fact, I anticipate that The Rest Of Us (you guys) will be re-posting often. :)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Troll-la-la
On Tuesday, June 04, 2002 at 23:27:23

Message:
We're intellectually vanquished.

But at the same time we're too bothered by the truthfulness of what El Hombre's said to leave him alone.

On the one hand we're proud of being barbarians and are happy with all that lack of culture has to offer. But at the same time we're aware that things would be better off in our land if we weren't so conscious of race. But then again, if we weren't so race-conscious, our genetic make-up would have been jeapardized a long time ago.

But that's race thinking.

Which is the problem.

We're perhaps too racial to become culturalists, because we know that the implications do not wash well with our racialism -- which is the problem. We're scared of degenerating, of being dysgenic with our biology. I mean, we're racialists -- that's how we think.

So it's tough. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

So we can't leave El Hombre alone. 'Cos it's tough. What he says bothers us.

Bastard.

:-)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Isobel
On Wednesday, June 05, 2002 at 00:38:46

Message:
Talvez por isso o racismo aqui não seja tão forte mas, existe sim porque há pessoas que são influenciadas por idéias vindas de outros países mas, a verdade é que não existe brasileiro de uma "raça" pura porque não acredito que raça exista.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Jorge Klor de Alva
On Wednesday, June 05, 2002 at 01:55:22

Message:
KLOR DE ALVA: They're Anglos of a different color, but they're Anglos. Why? Because the critical distinction here for Latinos is not race, it's culture.


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Elton John (Sir)
On Wednesday, June 05, 2002 at 04:17:35

Message:
An example: if it wasn't for the civil-rights movement, would there be a homosexual-rights movement today? Whatever you think of homosexuality, you have to admit that it is behaviour which has until relatively recently been universally considered an abomination of the highest regard -- that is, until desegragation and integration. When the homosexuals view the civil-rights movement as their inspiration, what are they saying? And what does it say about the way your people think that they should generally (albeit unconsciously) see acceptance of such behaviour as the natural succession of the civil-rights movement? Again, whether you think homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy or whether you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to admit that nobody would have thought of agitating for the legalisation of homosexual marriages if the laws against interracial marriages were still in place. Why should the association between the two, between civil rights and homosexual rights, be made (whether consciously or unconsciously), and why so naturally? What are y'all saying, people?"
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Troll-la-la
On Thursday, June 06, 2002 at 00:39:24

Message:
We're intellectually vanquished.

But at the same time we're too bothered by the truthfulness of what El Hombre's said to leave him alone.

On the one hand we're proud of being barbarians and are happy with all that lack of culture has to offer. But at the same time we're aware that things would be better off in our land if we weren't so conscious of race. But then again, if we weren't so race-conscious, our genetic make-up would have been jeapardized a long time ago.

But that's race thinking.

Which is the problem.

We're perhaps too racial to become culturalists, because we know that the implications do not wash well with our racialism -- which is the problem. We're scared of degenerating, of being dysgenic with our biology. I mean, we're racialists -- that's how we think.

So it's tough. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

So we can't leave El Hombre alone. 'Cos it's tough. What he says bothers us.

Bastard.

:-)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Nady-boy
On Thursday, June 06, 2002 at 02:17:32

Message:
There are two types of people in the world: race people (or racialists) and culture people (or culturalists). Culture people (or culturalists), because it is their prerogative to do so, look at the world and people in it in terms of culture. They see people in cultural terms -- as being Hispanic, French, Anglo-Saxon and so on. They see things in terms of culture because they have culture. They base their sense of identity on culture because they are blessed with culture. They are culturalists.

Race people, on the other hand, do not have such a luxury. Their sense of identity is pretty much by default. Lacking culture they have no choice but to base their sense of identity on something called race. They look at the world and people in it in terms of race. They therefore see people as being "black" people, "white" people, "yellow" people, and so on. They are racialists.

The people who I consider to be culture people are the Latin people of the world: the French people, the Italian people, the Spanish and their progeny and the Portuguese and their progeny. These people have culture, culture most succinctly defined here as the possession of an ineffable joie de vivre. Life, with such people, is considered a verb, to be appreciated and contemplated in its most profound sense, to be continuously experienced and celebrated, to be an instinctive raison d'etre in its people. This joie de vivre is expressed through the refinement of cuisine, the movement of dance, the gaiety of music, the appreciation of wine: in short, an emphasis on and celebration of the less tangible things and qualities in life, which the Italians have succeeded in putting quite simply: "la dolce vita". It is an intangible lifestyle, a lifestyly whose fundament is Dionysiac. And it is this intangible lifestyle, this exercise of culture, which represents the acme of civilisation. Without it, technical advancement is not, as is thought by many, synonymous with civilisation. It is, instead, just plain, prosaic technical advancement; leaving those who have attained it merely technically advanced barbarians. Advanced, yes, but barbarians nevertheless; and not in the brutish sense, in the uncultured sense. But pitiable barbarians, yes.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Elton John (Madame)
On Thursday, June 06, 2002 at 07:38:24

Message:

As England's most conspicuous "homo boy," I'm not surprised that Ms. Hombre would want to impersonate me. Unfortunately, I already have three Tutsi warriors in my harem and have found that they chatter like hens, even after you cut off their heads, so I'm not looking for any more.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Cretin
On Thursday, June 06, 2002 at 17:19:41

Message:
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Culturalist BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Racialist BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Barbarians BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Homesexuals BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Brazilian Aryan Supremacist
On Friday, June 07, 2002 at 22:55:23

Message:
Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Isobel
On Friday, June 07, 2002 at 23:07:57

Message:
Talvez por isso o racismo aqui não seja tão forte mas, existe sim porque há pessoas que são influenciadas por idéias vindas de outros países mas, a verdade é que não existe brasileiro de uma "raça" pura porque não acredito que raça exista.



RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Robert M. Levin
On Friday, June 07, 2002 at 23:54:03

Message:
Excerpt from the book "The Great Coffee Nation: Brazil in the 1940s":

"The U.S. propaganda effort also subsidized anti-Nazi writers from other countries. In Cuba, Salvador Díaz Versón's anti-Nazi books were underwritten; the State Department helped the Austrian Jewish author Stefan Zweig settle in Brazil and encouraged him to write "Brazil: Land of the Future," a book of friendly impressions that sold widely in the United States before Zweig's suicide from depression in 1943. (16) Interestingly, Zweig wrote eloquently about the need for racial and ethnic democracy (and about Brazil's rich racial mix), a subject that American authors often minimized or avoided, presumably to avoid offending the sensibilities of U.S. southerners. "Brazil," Zweig wrote, "has shown up in the simplest way the absurdity of the racial problem that is destroying our European world: by just ignoring its alleged validity," and he argued, "Whereas our old world is more than ever ruled by the insane attempt to breed people racially pure, like race-horses and dogs, the Brazilian nation for centuries has been built upon the principle of a free and unsuppressed miscegenation, the complete equalization of black and white, brown and yellow." (17)"
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Hombre
On Saturday, June 08, 2002 at 08:00:26

Message:

It's not "propaganda" subsidized by racialist Americans, it's not!!! It's all true. (Sniff)

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by El Cabron
On Saturday, June 08, 2002 at 11:53:04

Message:
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Culturalist BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Racialist BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Barbarians BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Homosexuals BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Jorge Klor de Alva BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Racialist BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Barbarians BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Homesexuals BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Civilise or perishBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Stefan Zweig
On Sunday, June 09, 2002 at 14:41:03

Message:
Interestingly, Zweig wrote eloquently about the need for racial and ethnic democracy (and about Brazil's rich racial mix), a subject that American authors often minimized or avoided, presumably to avoid offending the sensibilities of U.S. southerners. "Brazil," Zweig wrote, "has shown up in the simplest way the absurdity of the racial problem that is destroying our European world: by just ignoring its alleged validity," and he argued, "Whereas our old world is more than ever ruled by the insane attempt to breed people racially pure, like race-horses and dogs, the Brazilian nation for centuries has been built upon the principle of a free and unsuppressed miscegenation, the complete equalization of black and white, brown and yellow." (17)"

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Isobel
On Sunday, June 09, 2002 at 14:56:18

Message:
Talvez por isso o racismo aqui não seja tão forte mas, existe sim porque há pessoas que são influenciadas por idéias vindas de outros países mas, a verdade é que não existe brasileiro de uma "raça" pura porque não acredito que raça exista.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Brazilians Duped By Aryan Propaganda
On Sunday, June 09, 2002 at 16:14:01

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Civilise or Perish!
On Sunday, June 09, 2002 at 20:21:06

Message:
There are two types of people in the world: race people (or racialists) and culture people (or culturalists). Culture people (or culturalists), because it is their prerogative to do so, look at the world and people in it in terms of culture. They see people in cultural terms -- as being Hispanic, French, Anglo-Saxon and so on. They see things in terms of culture because they have culture. They base their sense of identity on culture because they are blessed with culture. They are culturalists.

Race people, on the other hand, do not have such a luxury. Their sense of identity is pretty much by default. Lacking culture they have no choice but to base their sense of identity on something called race. They look at the world and people in it in terms of race. They therefore see people as being "black" people, "white" people, "yellow" people, and so on. They are racialists.

The people I consider to be culture people are the Latin people of the world: the French people, the Italian people, the Spanish and their progeny and the Portuguese and their progeny. These people have culture, culture most succinctly defined here as the possession of an ineffable joie de vivre. Life, with such people, is considered a verb, to be appreciated and contemplated in its most profound sense, to be continuously experienced and celebrated, to be an instinctive raison d'etre in its people. This joie de vivre is expressed through the refinement of cuisine, the movement of dance, the gaiety of music, the appreciation of wine: in short, an emphasis on and celebration of the less tangible things and qualities in life, which the Italians have succeeded in putting quite simply: "la dolce vita". It is an intangible lifestyle, a lifestyly whose fundament is Dionysiac. And it is this intangible lifestyle, this exercise of culture, which represents the acme of civilisation. Without it, technical advancement is not, as is thought by many, synonymous with civilisation. It is, instead, just plain, prosaic technical advancement; leaving those who have attained it merely technically advanced barbarians. Advanced, yes, but barbarians nevertheless; and not in the brutish sense, in the uncultured sense. But pitiable barbarians, yes.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by MEA CULPA!!!
On Sunday, June 09, 2002 at 23:58:05

Message:
Race people, on the other hand, do not have such a luxury. Their sense of identity is pretty much by default. Lacking culture they have no choice but to base their sense of identity on something called race. They look at the world and people in it in terms of race. They therefore see people as being "black" people, "white" people, "yellow" people, and so on. They are racialists.

"black" people:

Baiano (ebony)
Crioula (little servant or slave; African)
Meio-preta (mid-Negro)
Negra (negro)
Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)
Preta (black)
Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)
Quase-negra (almost Negro)
Queimada (burnt)

"white" people:

Agalegada (Galician white)
Alva (pure white)
Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)
Bem-branca (very white)
Branca (white)
Branca-suja (dirty white)
Branquiça (a white variation)
Branquinha (whitish)
Meio-branca (mid-white)

"yellow" people

Amarela (yellow)
Amarelada (yellowish)
Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)
Amarelosa (yellowed)
Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)
Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

And so on.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Troll-la-la
On Monday, June 10, 2002 at 06:58:03

Message:
Hee, hee, hee . . . dat boy so silly. First he quote a guy who say Stefans Zweeg be a paid pimp of American propaganda, and den he quote dat Zwig like he was sayin’ what true. Den he list all dem colors uh de Brazilian racist rainbow . . . He all messed up inna head by now, dat boy is. He lubricious, hubricious, but damn sure ain’t nutritious. Hee, hee, hee!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Mea Culpaed :-(
On Monday, June 10, 2002 at 23:08:49

Message:
>And so on.

Gee, I guess I was wrong all along. Brazilians aren't any different to Americans after all! What racial democracy? An absolute myth. Isobel -- and the millions like her -- ought to get her head examined!

Oh well. Carry on. As you were.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Racist Brazilians
On Monday, June 10, 2002 at 23:23:45

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Acastanhada Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 00:34:50

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Agalegada Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 00:35:39

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Alva Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 00:36:16

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Alva-escura Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 00:46:16

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Alverenta Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 00:47:13

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Alvarinta Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 00:47:56

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Alva-rosada Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 00:48:50

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Alvinha Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 00:50:37

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Amarela Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 01:01:10

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Amarelada Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 01:02:45

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Amarela-queimada Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 01:05:03

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Amarelosa Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 01:08:11

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Amorenada Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 04:23:00

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Avermelhada Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 04:23:44

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Azul Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 04:52:21

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Azul-marinho Supremacist
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 04:59:16

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Baiano Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 00:56:08

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Bem-branca Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 01:28:33

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Bem-clara Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 01:29:56

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Bem-morena Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 02:26:01

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Branca Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 03:07:35

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Branca-avermelhada Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 03:34:33

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Branca-melada Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 03:51:49

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Branca-morena Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 04:06:39

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Branca-pálida Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 04:45:56

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Branca-queimada Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 04:58:39

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Branca-sardenta Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 05:03:28

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Branca-suja Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 05:08:44

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Branquiça Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 05:17:47

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Branquinha Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 05:29:45

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Bronze Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 05:43:15

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Bronzeada Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 05:53:28

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Bugrezinha-escura Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 05:54:27

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Burro-quanto-foge Supremacist
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 05:55:24

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 12:06:20

Message:

Hee, hee, hee, hee, hee!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Cabocla Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 00:08:50

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Cabo-Verde Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 00:10:09

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Café Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 00:11:34

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Café-com-leite Aryan Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 00:13:22

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Canela Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 00:14:57

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Canelada Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 00:18:14

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Castão Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 00:19:13

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Castanha Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 00:20:08

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Castanha-clara Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 01:32:43

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Castanha-escura Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 01:48:05

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Chocolate Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 01:54:01

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Clara Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 01:54:53

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Clarinha Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 01:55:57

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Cobre Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 02:08:58

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Corado Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 02:13:56

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Cor-de-café Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 02:23:34

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Cor-de-canela Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 02:25:10

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Cor-de-cuia Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 02:28:47

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Cor-de-leite Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 02:32:06

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Cor-de-oro Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 02:36:07

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Cor-de-rosa Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 02:50:29

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Cor-firma Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 02:53:15

Message:

Sieg Heil!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Crioula Supremacist
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 02:58:21

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)

Morena (tan)

Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)

Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)

Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)

Morena clara (light tan)

Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)

Morena-jambo (dark red)

Morenada (mocha)

Morena-escura (dark tan)

Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)

Morenão (very dusky tan)

Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)

Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)

Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)

Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)

Moreninha (toffeelike)

Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)

Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)

Negra (negro)

Negrota (Negro with a corpulent body)

Pálida (pale)

Paraíba (like the color of marupa wood)

Parda (dark brown)

Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)

Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)

Pouco-clara (not very clear)

Pouco-morena (dusky)

Preta (black)

Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)

Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)

Quase-negra (almost Negro)

Queimada (burnt)

Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)

Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)

Regular (regular; nondescript)

Retinta ("layered" dark skin)

Rosa (roseate)

Rosada (high pink)

Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)

Roxa (purplish)

Ruiva (strawberry blond)

Russo (Russian; see also polaca)

Sapecada (burnished red)

Sarará (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)

Saraúba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)

Tostada (toasted)

Trigueira (wheat colored)

Turva (opaque)

Verde (greenish)

Vermelha (reddish)

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Troll-la-la
On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 07:25:02

Message:

Larry King: El Hombre, why you be callin' yourself Hombre anyways?

Hombre: Well Larry, dat because I . . . uhm, bray . . . like a jackass. You see? Hee-haw, racialist!


RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Aryan Encerada Supremacist
On Sunday, June 16, 2002 at 19:29:54

Message:
Larry King: El Hombre, why you be callin' yourself Hombre anyways?

Hombre: Well Larry, dat because I . . . uhm, bray . . . like a jackass. You see? Hee-haw, racialist!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Enxofrada Aryan Supremacist
On Sunday, June 16, 2002 at 20:27:57

Message:
Larry King: El Hombre, why you be callin' yourself Hombre anyways?

Hombre: Well Larry, dat because I . . . uhm, bray . . . like a jackass. You see? Hee-haw, racialist!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Esbranquecimento Aryan Supremacist
On Sunday, June 16, 2002 at 22:34:20

Message:
Larry King: El Hombre, why you be callin' yourself Hombre anyways?

Hombre: Well Larry, dat because I . . . uhm, bray . . . like a jackass. You see? Hee-haw, racialist!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Escura Aryan Supremacist
On Sunday, June 16, 2002 at 23:00:47

Message:
Larry King: El Hombre, why you be callin' yourself Hombre anyways?

Hombre: Well Larry, dat because I . . . uhm, bray . . . like a jackass. You see? Hee-haw, racialist!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Escurinha Aryan Supremacist
On Sunday, June 16, 2002 at 23:03:22

Message:
Larry King: El Hombre, why you be callin' yourself Hombre anyways?

Hombre: Well Larry, dat because I . . . uhm, bray . . . like a jackass. You see? Hee-haw, racialist!
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Troll-la-la
On Monday, June 17, 2002 at 12:12:52

Message:

Dat a good boy, Hombre, good boy. Ya'll finally done learned how to heel. Now ya'll can go on back to what ya loves tuh do best -- go on now, chase yo' tail! An' if ya' ketches it agin like ya' did dat one time, don't make no mo' love to it, ok? Dat's disgustin'.

RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Fogoio Aryan Supremacist
On Monday, June 17, 2002 at 22:40:43

Message:
Dat a good boy, Hombre, good boy. Ya'll finally done learned how to heel. Now ya'll can go on back to what ya loves tuh do best -- go on now, chase yo' tail! An' if ya' ketches it agin like ya' did dat one time, don't make no mo' love to it, ok? Dat's disgustin'.
RE: Carnaval/Brazil lubricious?
Posted by Galega Aryan Supremacist
On Monday, June 17, 2002 at 23:29:20

Message:

Acastanhada (cashew like tint; caramel colored)

Agalegada (Galician white)

Alva (pure white)

Alva-escura (dark or off-white)

Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")

Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)

Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)

Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)

Amarela (yellow)

Amarelada (yellowish)

Amarela-queimada (burnt yellow or ochre)

Amarelosa (yellowed)

Amorenada (tannish)

Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)

Azul (bluish)

Azul-marinho (deep bluish)

Baiano (ebony)

Bem-branca (very white)

Bem-clara (translucent)

Bem-morena (very dusky)

Branca (white)

Branca-avermelhada (peach white)

Branca-melada (honey toned white)

Branca-morena (darkish white)

Branca-pálida (pallid)

Branca-queimada (sunburned white)

Branca-sardenta (white with freckles)

Branca-suja (dirty white)

Branquiça (a white variation)

Branquinha (whitish)

Bronze (bronze)

Bronzeada (bronzed tan)

Bugrezinha-escura (dark with Indian characteristics)

Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)

Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)

Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)

Café (coffee)

Café-com-leite (coffee with milk)

Canela (cinnamon)

Canelada (tawny)

Castão (thistle colored)

Castanha (cashew)

Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)

Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)

Chocolate (chocolate brown)

Clara (light)

Clarinha (very light)

Cobre (copper hued)

Corado (ruddy)

Cor-de-café (tint of coffee)

Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)

Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)

Cor-de-leite (milky)

Cor-de-oro (golden)

Cor-de-rosa (pink)

Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")

Crioula (little servant or slave; African)

Encerada (waxy)

Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)

Esbranquecimento (mostly white)

Escura (dark)

Escurinha (semidark)

Fogoio (florid; flushed)

Galega (see agalegada above)

Galegada (see agalegada above)

Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)

Laranja (orange)

Lilás (lily)

Loira (blond hair and white skin)

Loira-clara (pale blond)

Loura (blond)

Lourinha (flaxen)

Malaia (from Malabar)

Marinheira (dark greyish)

Marrom (brown)

Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)

Meio-branca (mid-white)

Meio-morena (mid-tan)

Meio-preta (mid-Negro)

Melada (honey colored)

Mestiça (mixture of white and Indian)

Miscigenação (mixed — literally "miscegenation")

Mista (mixed)