Talk:Social apartheid in Brazil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


APARTHEID was a regime in South Africa where people were segregated by law. In Brazil we have a portion of 18% of the population that isn´t prepared to compete in capitalism, because they lack good education and infrastructure. Therefore, poverty in Brazil is not caused by a deliberated wish of a regime. On the contrary, the erradication of poverty an important desire of the brazilian society and government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


1- What is social apartheid? In what ways does it differ from a common apartheid as in South Africa or the occupied Palestinian territories?

2 - Do those who use this term in academia mean it literally? If not -- if they're just describing, in hyperbolic and metaphoric fashion, social inequality in Brazil -- does the term apply also to, for example, former apartheid nation South Africa, which is more unequal than Brazil? Does anyone still consider South Africa as being under an apartheid regime or (non-state-sanctioned) apartheid system?

3 - What's the evidence behind it? What's the evidence against it?

Evidence from actual Brazilian demographics strongly argue against there being an apartheid in Brazil in the literal sense. By contrast, the races in Brazil are more socially integrated than, say, in the US (is the US an apartheid as well?). This is from a review on "Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil", a book by Edward E. Telles:

Telles begins by confronting the core contradiction in Brazil's racial order: high (by US standards) levels of interracial sociability (expressed in cross-racial social contact, friendships, and even marriage) co-existing with equally high (by any standard) levels of racial inequality in education, earnings, vocational achievement, life expectancy, and other areas. Telles labels these the horizontal (sociability) and vertical (material achievement) dimensions of Brazilian race relations. Previous authors, he argues, have tended to focus on one dimension to the exclusion of the other, and have thus lined up in two opposing camps, one seeing Brazil as a hopeful instance of racial harmony and egalitarianism, the other as a case of extreme inequality and exclusion.

I am Brazilian, I have both African and Native ancestry, I am well aware of racial disparities in this country in income, I read a wide range of newspapers in my country, and in spite of our freedom of press, none of them, not even the left-wing ones, describe our situation as being one of apartheid (those saying so, supposing they exist, are at the extreme fringe of the country's political discourse). And nothing on the article suggests an actual apartheid, but rather middle of the road discrimination that's been in the history of every race diverse nation in the world. The article is also untimely as there are a number of racial-quota policies in place; and income disparity between the races, though high, is decreasing, as Black people's income grows more than than that of any other racial group in Brazil. This article overstates the case for anti-Black apartheid, also by ignoring, for example, discrimination against other races, such as the Japanese, who were challenged by open state bias at a time that discrimination against Blacks was forbidden. I also find it worrisome that, as revealed in their contribution record, the author and most other frequent editors of the article don't have any history of edition on other Brazil-related articles -- by contrast, they're most active on Israel or Judaism ones. What's the reason for that? (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the tag as the initial issues that led to it being placed have not been resolved, and the discussion does resume with some regularity. Perhaps it's time to try again.Cúchullain t/c 13:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
A good first step would be to make the changes you want to see explicit here on the talk page (or de-archive the relevant section). Given the low editor traffic this appears to get (only 3-4 edits this year), I'd say nothing's stopping you from fixing the problem as you see fit for now. Even after skimming the archive, I'm not clear on the exact crux of the remaining dispute; I simply want to make sure that this article isn't being "perma-tagged." Tanks for your help with this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I'll leave the tag for now, however, as I have a feeling anything I do will be reverted.Cúchullain t/c 13:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good--enjoy your Wednesday-- Khazar2 (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll start work on this today.Cúchullain t/c 13:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Since it looks as though your edits have held for a week without any dispute, is it all right with you if I remove the tag? Or do you feel there's more work still to be done? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
As it's held up so far, I've removed the tag. There's more work to be done, but if the dispute arises again in the future we'll handle it as it comes. Thanks for your input, Khazar.Cúchullain t/c 14:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick attention to it! I'm de-watching this article now, but feel free to ping me if related issues come up in the future. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll be doing a bit more work on it here and there.Cúchullain t/c 15:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Problems with this article[edit]

This article is fairly outdated. There have been radical changes in Brazil in the last two decades. Many of the references used in building the article are from the early to mid 90's and some are from the early 2000's. There have been many changes in the social structure, the middle class has grown significantly with the policies of Lula over the past decade and the idea of racial stratification is much less so now than it was two decades ago. I do not have any sources to back this up, but I have recently returned from spending a month in Brazil and I was last there in 2007 - the differences in those seven years are huge.

Also, as has been mentioned above, in reality, though there may be a stratification in terms of income by race, the races interact on a social level in Brazil much more fluidly than in the US. In social setting and even in families, there is a large mixing of races and today, most people do not seem to differentiate between race. Even in upper middle class families and social groups, there are whites, blacks, pardos and others including Japanese people and they all seem to engage with one another on an equal level. I was even told by an older white Brazilian that he does not actually notice race or skin colour differences in people, it's not sometime that is forefront in mind. In one example, an new in-law to the family was a fairly dark skinned pardo and this person only noticed it when the pardo himself mentioned his skin colour.

This article should be seriously revamped or perhaps deleted. There are still many relevant topics that are discussed and social and economic disparity continue to be major issues in Brazil. However there are many statements made in the article that are not really true in 2014 and the focus on race seems to be misplaced in Brazil of 2014.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoulliere (talkcontribs) 21:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)