In his literature, Bi-Racial U.S.A. vs. Multi-Racial Brazil: Is the Contrast Still valid? Thomas E. Skidmore appoints himself the task of raising “questions rather than answer “in hope of stimulating fresh thought on the controversial issue of whether race relations in Brazil differed considerably from those in the United States.
Thomas Skidmore succeeds commendably in this attempt by pinpointing various research and literature changes of approach in addressing the issue. He contributes a considerable amount of new information that further questions conventional wisdom. Therefore, readers would hardly refute Skidmore’s assertion that the distinction on the systems of race relations between the U.S.A. and Brazil was mainly due to reliance on “qualitative reading of the two histories” as opposed to actual “data”1. Furthermore, Bi-Racial U.S.A. vs. Multi-Racial Brazil: Is the Contrast Still valid? is powerful and insightful in highlighting the circumstances under which the distinction of race relation between the two countries has arrived. Skidmore mustn’t conclude the existence of differences because there is a need for more research. Therefore, the study provides an opportunity for the reader and the researcher to conduct further investigations on the contentious issues with a strong base. The literature is comprehensive, exploring the past and current status of racial relations in both U.S.A. and Brazil, the development of the “conventional wisdom”, the factors that led to this knowledge, and aspects that should be considered before concluding that race relations in the U.S.A. is and was Bi-racial or that in Brazil it is and was multi-racial2. Thomas gives more highlight on this issue.
Thomas is justified to indicate that the two countries did not necessarily differ in regards to the system of race relations as is the conventional wisdom. According to his argument, the difference was brought about mainly due to the failure of earlier intellectuals and scholars to engage extensively in search of relevant data. Harris explains that transnational exchanges of concepts, institutions, practices, and images are vital in explaining history to allow complex and constructive dialogue that incorporates metropolitan participants, and filters evaluate and rework borrowed concepts and allegations into fresh and noble “thoughts and prescriptions for action”3. In this respect, intellectuals’ and scholars’ focus on race relations in Brazil was widely consulted as opposed to US categorization where scholars refused to listen or pay heed to outside occurrences4.
The triumph on the goal of Bi-Racial U.S.A. vs. Multi-Racial Brazil: Is the Contrast Still valid? is further seen where Thomas attempts to clarify the central idea on the focus of convention wisdom. According to him, the allegations that the U.S.A. is bi-racial while “Brazil is multi-racial” were mere assumptions, but of significant consequences; the phenomenon has often been portrayed in a various manner including “mark of origin versus mark of color, the hypo-descent rule, or “one drop of black blood rule.”5. Therefore, this notion is deficient and misleading, as many contemporary intellectuals and scholars would agree.
Thomas’s outlook echoes several observations by a researcher on the shortcoming in the conventional distinction and classification of race relations in both U.S.A. and Brazil. First, Andrew points out that U.S.A. failed to note the distinct approach adopted by general Latin America, and specifically Brazil while the Brazilians paid attention to the distinctions as well as their social progress in comparison to that of the U.S.A.6 Therefore, the likely consequence of this attention is that Brazilian view on race was inclusive of both internal and external ideas. In fact, even today, this distinction still exists and can be explained by the huge discrepancies in “power and influence between” the two32. Second, Harris agrees that racial identity U.S.A. is established through a somewhat inadequate, “simple, subjective and cognitive calculus”; thus, any offspring obtained with a Negro becomes automatically a Negro7. The absurdity in this generalization is that even individuals with apparent Caucasoid traits would be regarded as Negroes. Thomas explains his assertion by further differentiating the past and present status of the racial composition and attention by the legal framework.
Thomas Skidmore further explores contemporary aspects that discredit the U.S.A. concept of bi-polar race relations with a renewed approach to the conventional outlook. He argues of the irony in the legal proceedings of certain issues considering conventional wisdom; “in fact, the issue of race relation has been turned down”8. For instance, with affirmative action to protect the minorities, the US legal system may discredit a legal claim for the incentive by individuals basing their claim on their colour; otherwise, the effectiveness of the system would be wanting. In addition, Thomas explores the role of the growth of the Hispanic population in the US and links the phenomenon with the legal system and demographic categorization.
Thomas, nevertheless, is less successful in his efforts to justify the need for refocusing on clarifying the distinctions in race relations in Brazil and the United States. He has extensively relied on Degler’s Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States with most of his arguments revolving around Degler’s conclusions. Margolis, states categorically that Degler’s failed in articulating his goal of contrasting race relations in Brazil and the United States. Degler attributes the main distinctions in race relations in the United States and Brazil to distinct perceptions of the “mulatto by the two nations; in the United States, the mulatto is a Negro while in Brazil he is not,9 and further claims that “the divergence in race relations in the two countries grew.”10 Therefore, relying on such weak arguments serves to weaken the inference made in Bi-Racial U.S.A. vs. Multi-Racial Brazil: Is the Contrast Still valid? Thomas echoes Degler’s arguments that10,
Brazilian society distinguishes between the Negro and the mulatto, an escape hatch from the disabilities of dark skin is open to some people of colour. This circumstance ensures that a sense of solidarity does not arise among the non-White population, that segregation solely based on colour is difficult, and that social discontent among Blacks is lessened for the barriers that hold back mulattoes in the United States, regardless of class or education, are much less rigid in Brazil.
As a result, Thomas fails to pinpoint factors prevailing in the history of Brazil but presumably missing in the United States that would be attributed to the development or occurrence of the “mulatto escape hatch.”14 He relies on Degler’s mere suggestion of various items that may be used to explain the occurrence in Brazil. The factors include the variation in the proportion between the gender in Brazil and the United States, class lines rigidity, absence of opportunity to move upward, disregard on manual labor, and the inadequate economic prospects in Brazil. Regrettably, Thomas is unable to bring these varied proposals in concert as a coherent premise. He, instead, explains the need for more research that would determine: “the recent statistical evidence about racial inequality and discrimination, the history of the evolution of the two societies’ mechanisms for reproducing racial inequality, the causal factors determining creation and maintenance of race relations systems, and how the ideologies behind the systems of racial classification have interacted with the elite’s self-image in each country and their projection of that image for nationalistic purposes.”11 Furthermore, he presents arguments without evidence of their credibility, and directs leaders to seek “new historical and social science” information12. For that reason, although he achieves the objective of stimulating further research, the study would be greatly unfulfilling for a reader searching for information.
Bibliography
Andrews, George Reid, 1996, Brazilian Racial Democracy, 1900-90: An American Counterpoint, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 483-507, Sage Publications Limited.
Harris, Marvin D., 1964), Racial Identity in Brazil, Luso-Brazilian Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 21-28, University of Wisconsin Press.
Margolis, Maxine, 1972, Review of Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States by Carl N. Degler, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 986-988, Blackwell Publishing.
Skidmore, Thomas E., 1993, Bi-Racial U.S.A. vs. Multi-Racial Brazil: Is the Contrast Still Valid? Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 373-386, Cambridge University Press, London.
Footnotes
- Skidmore, Thomas E., 1993, Bi-Racial U.S.A. vs. Multi-Racial Brazil: Is the Contrast Still Valid? Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2, , pp. 373-386, Cambridge University Press, London.
- Skidmore, Thomas E., 1993.
- Harris, Marvin D. 1964, Racial Identity in Brazil
- Andrews, George Reid, 1996, Brazilian Racial Democracy, 1900-90: An American Counterpoint, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 483-507, Sage Publications Limited.
- Skidmore, Thomas E., 1993.
- Andrews, George Reid, 1996, Brazilian Racial Democracy, 1900-90: An American Counterpoint
- Harris, Marvin D., 1964), Racial Identity in Brazil, Luso-Brazilian Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 21-28, University of Wisconsin Press.
- Skidmore, Thomas E., 1993.
- Harris, Marvin D. 1964.
- Margolis, Maxine, 1972, Review of Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States by Carl N. Degler, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 986-988, Blackwell Publishing.
- Skidmore, Thomas E., 1993.
- Margolis, Maxine, 1972.