Return-Path: <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0VEQi926223; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:26:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:26:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <sa77d9d2.068@langate.gsu.edu> Errors-To: alcrsb@langate.gsu.edu Reply-To: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Daphne Greenberg" <ALCDGG@langate.gsu.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:1178] Re: "those now described as white" X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.3.1 Status: O Content-Length: 2974 Lines: 55 I have traveled quite a bit in Latin America, and it may be true that in many Latin American countries they "don't pay attention to race in the same ways that we do in the USA", however there still exist very strong racially based discriminatory practices. For example, in my most recent trip, I went to Brazil. I was immediately struck by the much more frequent Black and White couples, friends, groups, and people just hanging out together. From my outsider's perspective, Brazilian society definitely appeared to be more advanced than we are in terms of interracial socialization. However, I then realized that although this was true in the realm of socialization, it was not true in the work world, where things appeared to be very stratified along color lines. So, I think that racial discrimination is a fact everywhere, although some countries are more progressive, some less, and the expressions of it may differ from culture to culture. Daphne Daphne Greenberg Center for the Study of Adult Literacy Georgia State University University Plaza Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 Fax: 404-651-1415 Ph: 404-651-0400 E-mail: alcdgg@langate.gsu.edu >>> sylrain@teleport.com 01/30 1:47 PM >>> At 10:47 AM 1/30/01 -0500, you wrote: <SNIP> >And I don't think we'll be getting rid of the word "race" anytime soon. >What would be our reasons for doing so? > <SNIP> Well, I don't know about the word, but the concept could use some work. "Race" is totally a construct that makes no logical sense, when you get down to cases. That is, it makes no biological sense. We use it loosely as a synonym for "ethnicity," which makes slightly more sense, but still is problematic. We overlay lots of cultural, economic, social, place of origin, religious, and other considerations on it. I remember a story told by a woman years ago who came from Jamaica to the U.S. Her skin is just about as black as can be. She checked "black" on the form where it asked about race, and the official objected. No, he said, you're not black, you're Jamaican. She looked at her arm, and back at him, and got really puzzled. I've always remembered that story. The official was evidently thinking of African American, not black, so it clearly had nothing to do with any biological reality. This woman said that in central and south America they just don't pay attention to race in the same ways that we do in the USA. It's understood that we're all mixtures and the different mixtures don't necessarily confer some special privilege. That's the crux of the race problem, after all. It's that some "races" are marked for special privilege and others are marked for deprivation. It's the same problem with language. The difference between a "dialect" and a "language" is that speakers of a language have a navy. It's all about economic and social and political privilege. --------------------------------------------------------------- Sylvan Rainwater . Portland, Oregon, USA . sylrain@teleport.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:32:08 EST