![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article (even if biased sources can be quoted) is nothing more than mudslinging with a crassly inflammatory title. It is unfit for an encyclopedia, and can never be neutral under its present title. Haddiscoe 10:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag.
It's a breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It doesn't present opposing views fairly, as only the pro-view encompassed by the title. The title is inflammatory and implies that there is a serious (encyclopedia-article worthy) subject to discuss, when that in itself is controversial. An equivalent biographical article would be say, Allegations that George W Bush is a fascist tyrant (and I'm sure one could come up with references to "justify" cobbling together that article). That article would be as impermissible as Evidence that George W Bush is a great and wise leader (also totally sourceable). It is the title itself that suggests that a point of view is worthy of serious consideration, and has the effect of putting opponents of that point of view on the back foot from the start. Thus there is a total lack of the detachment necessary for a credible encyclopedia - the lack of detachment that there would be in the article - Allegations that God doesn't exist, which we don't have, preferring the neutral Atheism. This article should be merged to one with a neutral title such as Race in Brazil. Haddiscoe 17:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-- G-Dett 23:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this should be renamed "Social apartheid in Brazil". There doesn't seem to be anyone denying the allegations. — Ashley Y 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem being discussed is not a brazil problem, its a suggestion about naming guidelines. A more appropriate place to post this notice would be the policy village pump, where it can be discussed whether popular allegations deserve their own articles.-- Urthogie 02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It's called a "controversial analogy" because the opening sentence is basically lifted from an earlier version of the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" page. Unfortunately it's a poor fit here. "Apartheid" in the Brazilian context is being employed only in the most generic sense, with few if any direct comparisons being made between it and the former South African regime. It's not so much about policies of racial discrimination here as it is about entrenched racist attitudes and the social divide they perpetuate. So I think even your suggested modification would be something of an overstatement.
Indeed it appears that the term "social apartheid" is a neologism specifically coined to describe the situation in Brazil, and the subject might be best approached from that angle IMO. Gatoclass 08:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Christovam Buarque, a left-wing politician, has a book specifically called O que é Apartação Social? (What is Social Apartheid?). I know, I had to read it in high school. Assuming the references in this article are written in good faith, he is not alone. But while it may be used by some leftist writers, it is by no means commonly used and most Brazilians have probably never heard it before. Personally I dislike the term immensly because it's confusing and gives the idea of an actual policy being carried out, when really what is meant is social inequality. While there is no institucional form of segregation, this author made the case that more and more the upper classes are isolating themselves by everyday actions such as building higher fences to protect themselves from crime etc. I thought the book was simplistic, as are all other explanations in the current article. But the term was coined by someone, ergo it exists. If someone felt the need to create an article about it, so be it. Clearly it must be treated as an opinion or theory instead of siding with the authors who created it, though. Needless to say this article portrays middle and upper classes in a stereotyped and assuming manner. -- Dedachan 00:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Terraxos 03:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This article needs to be cleanup so it isn't a collection of quotes. Sources are always good, but I am sure we can make it in an encyclopedic voice, no need to provide extensive quoting.-- Cerejota 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added this article to the "Types of segregation" navbox, to provide further context.-- Victor falk 18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The bias is in the title. The title puts one side in a debate on the real topic (the amount and nature of racism in the country in question) on the back foot before the first word of text, and the neutrality of the article cannot be recovered after that catastrophic start. This article sets out to group together a group of slurs under the pretence that together they make an encyclopedic topic. This is no more the case than for "Allegations that French people smell". Or imagine other series of article built around usage of slurs in the media: Allegations that Tony Blair is a liar, Allegations that Angela Merkel is a liar, Allegations that Bill Clinton is a liar, or Allegations that Paris Hilton is a talentless bimbo, Allegations that Lindsay Lohan is a talentless bimbo, Allegations that .... is a talentless bimbo. All of those could be sourced, and the fact that something is sourced does not necessarily make it neutral or a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia. The quoting of sources on any article does not confirm that it complies with Wikipedia:Neutrality to the slightest degree; any biased essay can be fully sourced. No rephrasing or sourcing can make this article anything more than a politically motivated attack page. Wikipedia is not a place for debate or for arguing the toss. The presence of these articles disgraces Wikipedia. Dominictimms 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, let's either rename this article social apartheid in Brazil or merge it into the social apartheid article. A name with "social apartheid" in the title is more appropriate than "Brazilian apartheid" as it is more specific and the first term is the one that's more common. What procedure do we have to follow to bring this about? Lothar of the Hill People 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
A newly created article related to this one, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be merged there. This article while informative is too short, badly titled, and imminently relevant to the social apartheid article. Tiamat 11:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I am Brazilian, from southern Brazil, of mainly southern Italian origin (or so say my grandparents). I created this account for the sole purpose of expressing my views in this talk page, though I may use it in the future. I have so far contributed here or there, nothing really big, and also a bit on the portuguese-language Wikipedia.
I would really appreciate if other Brazilian users shared their views here. I shall come here once in a while to see the discussion, because I ended up seeing this article and I believe it is not neutral, and therefore want to see the discussion on the subject.
Personally, I believe there is no such thing as Apartheid in Brazil, either social or racial. As you can easily see in the Apartheid article, Apartheid is a government policy. There isn't, and as far as I'm aware there has never been, any policy of the kind in Brazil. In the very beginning of our Constitution, it is stated that "every Brazilian is equal before the law". On the other hand, I do not deny that there is prejudice in our society. The fact that there are people claiming there is a kind of Apartheid in Brazil does not change what Apartheid is; in fact, it just shows they don't know better. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, cannot afford not to.
Many people, including specialists, claim that there is a lot of racial prejudice. (I'm only entering this subject because someone said the article should be merged into Race in Brazil - I disagree because the two matters are different.) I think this is a bit exaggerated. There is some racial prejudice in Brazil. What I see a lot is social prejudice. I have heard young people of some wealth saying things such as "she's nice, but lives in the slum". There has been a minor scandal with a video of rich young people throwing eggs on the people in the street from their apartaments. I have not so far heard anything of the sort of "she's nice, but black". I'm not saying that doesn't exist; I already stated that there is some racial prejudice, and by "some" I mean more than "a bit of". It should be noticed, however, that race is not the "big" reason for prejudice in Brazil, and that the matter of social prejudice should not be merged into it.
With that explained, I believe the article should be renamed to "Social prejudice in Brazil" and cleaned up, expelling the Apartheid word from it; it does not belong in this article. The current title makes the whole thing look like black and white people hated one another in Brazil, which is no nearer the truth than the existance of wizards.
I'm available to any further discussion or explanation of my point of view on the subject, and would love to discuss and compare opinions on that. I do not check very often my Wikipedia logins (I haven't logged in my portuguese-language Wikipedia one for a very long time), so I would ask you to send me an e-mail when posting here. My e-mail address is vitorcassol AT gmail DOT com.
P.S.: 3 o'clock in the morning. No wonder I'm so tired.
Vítor Cassol 06:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The verifiable material from the recently deleted article Allegations of Chinese apartheid have been merged into Human rights in the People's Republic of China based on the AfD closing statement.
My proposal is to find a suitable article to merge the content of this article, based on the same arguments. It could be merged into one of the articles related to the social or race aspects in Brazil. I am placing similar proposals on all other articles in the "Allegations of XXXX apartheid" series. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
For some reason when I hit edit for sections, the previous one shows up.
I just misposted a comment because of this. Anyone has noticed this before/knows why? Thanks!-- Cerejota 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if other titles (other than the current one or "Human Rights in Brazil") might not be more appropriate here. Ones from other countries that come to mind are Segregation in Brazil and/or Economic inequality in Brazil (see Segregation in Northern Ireland or Income inequality in the United States for examples). Are these possibilities? Mackan79 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Looking back at Vitor Cassol's plea for a name change, he may be unfamiliar with the Requested Move process. What would happen if some Brazilians submitted a Requested Move with the following statement?
A Requested Move Proposal
The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.... Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test), but even here caution should be used. Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: <Pokémon example> The generic form of this argument, that "loads of other crap articles exist" is also common. However, Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS).
Yikes, I can't believe the Brazilians would submit such a long-winded statement! Thanks for your patience. HG | Talk
The problem here is that the move is controversial. To give you an idea of the sources not included here, because of the language barrier, you have this [1], It is titled "Apartheid brasileiro: raça e segregação residencial no Rio de Janeiro" (Brazilian apartheid: race and residential segregation in Rio de Janeiro). This is clearly an in depth study at a notable analogy, which is one many Brazilians are indeed uncomfortable, but is notable and current currency in academia (it cites "American Apartheid", btw, which was unfortunately deleted). If you notice something, both in the French and Brazilian articles, when confronted with information, many nationalist editors backed down. It is natural for people to "defend" their countries and try to use the ignorance of others in their favor, however, WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are correct when they give their reasons: ignorance and dislike are not reasons to delete. Sources tell us if it exists, we must do edits. Thanks!-- Cerejota 04:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The term "social apartheid" is well established by academics inside and outside of Brazil and I don't think it's appropriate to drop it just because some people are offended by it. I think "Social apartheid in Brazil" is preferable to "Brazilian apartheid" as the latter suggests there is a specifically Brazilian form of the problem where the former simply suggests it's a problem in a number of places (see social apartheid) one of them being Brazil. Also, the term "Brazilian apartheid" is original research since it's only used in Wikipedia whereas "Social apartheid" is not. Lothar of the Hill People 21:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and moved the article to "Social apartheid in Brazil" but I won't get into an edit war over it and would welcome further debate. In the interim, I think this name is preferable to the old name of "Allegations of Brazilian apartheid" for the aforementioned reasons. If this new name is still not satisfactory I'd like to suggest "Social apartheid analogy in Brazil" as a compromise. Lothar of the Hill People 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
No consensus has been established for the rename. The discussion cannot be ignored. I strongly oppose both the merger and the Social apartheid in Brazil formulation, as there are analogies held because of racial factors (ie not just social). This debate is notable in the same fashion as Israeli apartheid, but doesn't draw as much international attention. Yet WP:IDONTKNOWIT has it right when it says, "I don't know it" is not a reason to delete (or what amounts to the same, a merge). I propose Brazilian apartheid or Debate on Brazilian apartheid as possible titles, but "Social apartheid" excludes the reality on the gruond of a form of racial apartheid. Resist the temptation to allow one primary source to dominate, and to adopt the "urban apartheid"/"social apartheid" french model. These are two separate countries...
I am still hunting for additional secondary sources, but I am a bit hampered by my very weak Portuguese. I have provided a weaker secondary source titled "Apartheid Brasileiro". However, I can assure you that while the situation is indeed described by some commentators as "social apartheid", it is also described as "economic apartheid" and "apartheid" without qualifiers. We cannot act hastily and without consensus, no matter how this page was created on the first place. Thanks!-- Cerejota 07:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
In the talk page of Human rights in Brazil Lothar suggests that people discuss here, however it is customary to discuss mergers in the talk page of the "TO" page, not the "FROM" page, as the template {{ mergefrom}} clearly shows. We should discuss mergers there to engage Brazil-focused editors, who might or might not want a merge based on very different reasons than why you nominate. Thanks!-- Cerejota 07:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Cerejota, did you have an opinion on Social inequality in Brazil? Mackan79 16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to "test the house" and see if there is a consensus to rename this article Social apartheid in Brazil on, at least, an interim basis. Lothar of the Hill People 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Rename to Social apartheid in Brazil - agreeing to my proposal. Lothar of the Hill People 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Moved per this consensus. — Ashley Y 04:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus. This has to be the worse railroading ever. -- Cerejota 06:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
{{ allegations of apartheid}}. Thanks!-- Cerejota 06:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't this article belong in Category:Apartheid? Maybe they'll someday be a subcategory called Category:Social apartheid, but there aren't enough articles to populate one at this time. -- 146.115.58.152 16:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC) I've restored the category per this argument. -- 146.115.58.152 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course there are social inequalities in Brazil, but to call them a "Social apartheid" is simply ludicrous, either a severe symptom of left-loonyism or pure and simple lack of knowledge about the country. In either case, this title should definitely be rethought; perhaps the article itself could be moved elsewhere or merged with another. Rsazevedo msg 12:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Who are Jan Rocha, Maria Helena Moreira Alves, Michael Löwy, Tobias Hecht, Carlos Verrisimo and Francine Winddance Twine? The article shouldn't just list their names without specifying who they are, since they are not notorious people. And as long as the article only quotes these people's opinions as references, instead of verifiable facts, it remains unreferenced -- despite all of its footnotes. Rsazevedo msg 08:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Does this article seriously claim that the source for this concept is a book which is basically a travel guide [4] ? The remainder of this article falls under the rubric of OR
The claims made in the History and Street youth sections of the article are syntheses of disparate sources. These sources are more relevant to an article on Social and economic inequality on Brazil or Racism in Brazil. If the article remains, it should be much reduced, perhaps to two paragraphs explaining that the term social apartheid has been used to describe the rift between the rich and poor in Brazil, comparing it the one found in South Africa during the height of its apartheid era. Moreover, the lead reference should be a work with more substance than a travel guide. -- CSTAR ( talk) 18:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The following statement "Despite Brazil's retreat from military rule and return to democracy in 1988, social apartheid has only gotten worse" in the article text seems to be contradicted by its own reference:
"In Brazil the military have returned to the barracks but despite their replacement by elected governments, the drift into social apartheid and moral disintegration continues. Those who continue to orientate their educational practices by the principles of popular education now face a new and more complex conjuncture." Ireland, Timothy. "Building on experience: working with construction workers in Brazil" in Boud, David J. & Miller, Nod. Working with Experience: Animating Learning, Routledge, 1996, p. 132.
The text says the social apartheid continues, nut that it "only gotten worse". What it does affirm is that the conjuncture is now a new and more complex one, and that doesn't imply the conjuncture is now better or worse. One can't find new words to describe something the reference's author expressed in clear terms as "new and more complex", before of that adding that the situation "continues". The text must be changed to become adequate, because one can't just cite a reference that doesn't say the same as the statement. Besides, since the article talks about the very close relationship between race and social class in Brazil (not that close, by the way, as I, a Brazilian, know very well through the hundreds of White poor people I know and see everyday in the streets), it should be important to add social inequality has diminished in Brazil in the last 5-6 years (that's a very known fact in the press), so actually the "social apartheid" got a little better, and not worse. 201.9.215.204 ( talk) 08:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Should the term used be "Apartheid"? Last time I checked, Apartheid was backed up institutionally, while Brazil's problem is more socio-historico-cultural (i.e. no institution or law was created in Brazil for the specific purpose of segregation). I'm in favour to take "allegations" off, since it is not a fringe opinion, also, if the term Apartheid stays, shouldn't it be "social Apartheid"?
The result of the move request was: no consensus in support of move. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Social apartheid in Brazil → Social inequality in Brazil — I think the use of 'apartheid' in this article is unnecessarily inflammatory, and something of a fringe view in any case. There are many sources discussing social inequality in Brazil, but only a few of them use the term 'apartheid'. Social segregation in Brazil would be another possibility, though it should be made clear that we're not talking about any kind of legal segregation here. Robofish ( talk) 23:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Do we have any sources discussing this issue that don't use the term apartheid? I suspect they exist, but I don't see them. If apartheid is the term that's always used then it should stay as that term. It isn't our job to decide if the sources are using a a stupid term (even if it is stupid). JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The POV tag placed at this article is apt. Jayjg's claim that "there was no claim of POV on the Talk page in May 2010" is wiklawyering; this has been discussed repeatedly since 2007 and thus far the problem has not been fixed, and all attempts to fix it have failed. The tag stays until the problem is fixed or until there's a consensus that there isn't a problem.-- Cúchullain t/ c 14:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Cuchullain has been removing the Category:Apartheid from this article - most recently with the edit summary "This article does not fit that category's inclusion parameters; it's for apartheid, not "stuff that has been compared to apartheid." [11] As is quite obvious from the contents of Category:Apartheid, the majority of articles in it are not about apartheid, but about "stuff that has been compared to apartheid." I'm restoring this longstanding tag, pending resolution of this discussion. Cuchullain, can you explain why this specific article should be an exception to the category's normal inclusion parameters? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Cuchullain has removed the following material:
"The existing inequality in access to computers reflects a form of social apartheid, and private initiatives that strive for technological inclusion are making all the difference in the complex process of creating equity in our society." Jacobi, Pedro Roberto. "Digital Inclusion in Brazil", in Aviram, Roni & Richardson, Janice Patricia. Upon What Does The Turtle Stand?: Rethinking Education For The Digital Age, Springer, 2004, p. 221.
claiming "rm source about computer access (!) That's not what this article, such as it is, is about." [12] In the book, Jacobi argues that Brazil's social apartheid affects access to technology, and particularly computers. He lists the groups affected by this, specifically naming (among others) poor youth and indigenous and Afro-Brazilians - groups many other authors state are affected by Brazil's social apartheid. Cuchullain, can you explain why you have removed this material? Jayjg (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This article has had problems with
neutrality and
original research since its inception. For the benefit of anyone new to the conversation, it was created in 2007 as a part of a manufactured "series" of articles on "allegations of apartheid" in various countries in reaction to the
Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. Nearly all the others have been deleted.
Previous instances where these problems have been brought up include:
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
For a start on some of the problems, first and formost, the word "apartheid" is inherently non-neutral. No one claims that there are official legal policies in Brazil segregating people by social status (ie, actual
apartheid). It's a rhetorical term describing the rampant social inequality in the country. The term is not uncommon, but it's much
less common than more neutral constructs like
"social inequality". It shouldn't be in the title.
Additionally,
WP:NPOV requires that articles "[represent] all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without
bias." This isn't done here. Only sources claiming a state of social apartheid truly exists are represented, and there is no attempt to give proper weight to individual viewpoints. This is sometimes obscured by the fact that there is no explanation of who the holder of that viewpoint is. For example, a newspaper article by Kevin G. Hall is cited several times, while articles by PhDs receive only cursory treatment. Civil rights activist Carlos Verrisimo and French Marxist philosopher
Michael Löwy are also cited; they do not appear to be experts on Brazilian society, and I do not know what relevant qualifications they have for them to be cited here. Lowy seems to be
cited to pile on more information about the gated communities, discussed elsewhere, which adds undue emphasis on that particular point.
This leads to additional serious issues of
original research, particularly
synthesis of published material. We have several sources here that use the term "social apartheid" once or twice, often in passing, to discuss the social situation in Brazil. For example
this,
this, and
this use the term but once each, and are talking about different aspects of inequality in Brazil. However, they're all taken together to advance the idea that "social apartheid" is the usual term for what's happening.
That's good for a start.--
Cúchullain
t/
c
19:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
According to IPEA, the "poor" and "very poor" are together 30% of Brazil's population (24,1% + 6,6%) source here
According to IBGE, blacks are only 7,61% of Brazil's population source here
How is it possible that "The great majority of the poor are blacks in Brazil", as stated in one of the pictures in the article? A group that represents 7,61% of the total population can never be "the great majority" in a social class that represents 30% of the total population. The great majority of the poor in Brazil are pardos, not blacks. Pardos are not black (Brazil never had "one-drop rule"). BrancoPobre ( talk) 16:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I confused myself in that article and that was I changed a quote. I tried to undone but my computer started to freak out immediately (Firefox has so many bugs nowadays, or it ever had but now they are more perceivable), there was a little blackout in my region and there goes. But I was not doing original research since the polemical accusations of that writer that Brazil had (or has) racial apartheid make not sense since is perfectly understandable that a country help their immigrants which come from major powers (even if they are presenting crisis, as happened in this case) and since is widely knowlegeable that Brazil has poors of European descent, some of them do rural exodus by the same motivations that the multiracial and black populations and fatefully will live in the poor peripheries of our metropolises exactly as it happens with people of the other races. How can it be original research? The idea that Brazil has some kind of apartheid in which race plays a fundamental factor is contamined by ideological and political meanings present in our academics for the most of the second half of the twentieth century and it is disputable even if it comes from some major scholar. Lguipontes ( talk) 10:17, 5 October 2011 (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? 187.58.98.224 ( talk) 03:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article (even if biased sources can be quoted) is nothing more than mudslinging with a crassly inflammatory title. It is unfit for an encyclopedia, and can never be neutral under its present title. Haddiscoe 10:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag.
It's a breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It doesn't present opposing views fairly, as only the pro-view encompassed by the title. The title is inflammatory and implies that there is a serious (encyclopedia-article worthy) subject to discuss, when that in itself is controversial. An equivalent biographical article would be say, Allegations that George W Bush is a fascist tyrant (and I'm sure one could come up with references to "justify" cobbling together that article). That article would be as impermissible as Evidence that George W Bush is a great and wise leader (also totally sourceable). It is the title itself that suggests that a point of view is worthy of serious consideration, and has the effect of putting opponents of that point of view on the back foot from the start. Thus there is a total lack of the detachment necessary for a credible encyclopedia - the lack of detachment that there would be in the article - Allegations that God doesn't exist, which we don't have, preferring the neutral Atheism. This article should be merged to one with a neutral title such as Race in Brazil. Haddiscoe 17:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-- G-Dett 23:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this should be renamed "Social apartheid in Brazil". There doesn't seem to be anyone denying the allegations. — Ashley Y 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem being discussed is not a brazil problem, its a suggestion about naming guidelines. A more appropriate place to post this notice would be the policy village pump, where it can be discussed whether popular allegations deserve their own articles.-- Urthogie 02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It's called a "controversial analogy" because the opening sentence is basically lifted from an earlier version of the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" page. Unfortunately it's a poor fit here. "Apartheid" in the Brazilian context is being employed only in the most generic sense, with few if any direct comparisons being made between it and the former South African regime. It's not so much about policies of racial discrimination here as it is about entrenched racist attitudes and the social divide they perpetuate. So I think even your suggested modification would be something of an overstatement.
Indeed it appears that the term "social apartheid" is a neologism specifically coined to describe the situation in Brazil, and the subject might be best approached from that angle IMO. Gatoclass 08:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Christovam Buarque, a left-wing politician, has a book specifically called O que é Apartação Social? (What is Social Apartheid?). I know, I had to read it in high school. Assuming the references in this article are written in good faith, he is not alone. But while it may be used by some leftist writers, it is by no means commonly used and most Brazilians have probably never heard it before. Personally I dislike the term immensly because it's confusing and gives the idea of an actual policy being carried out, when really what is meant is social inequality. While there is no institucional form of segregation, this author made the case that more and more the upper classes are isolating themselves by everyday actions such as building higher fences to protect themselves from crime etc. I thought the book was simplistic, as are all other explanations in the current article. But the term was coined by someone, ergo it exists. If someone felt the need to create an article about it, so be it. Clearly it must be treated as an opinion or theory instead of siding with the authors who created it, though. Needless to say this article portrays middle and upper classes in a stereotyped and assuming manner. -- Dedachan 00:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Terraxos 03:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This article needs to be cleanup so it isn't a collection of quotes. Sources are always good, but I am sure we can make it in an encyclopedic voice, no need to provide extensive quoting.-- Cerejota 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added this article to the "Types of segregation" navbox, to provide further context.-- Victor falk 18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The bias is in the title. The title puts one side in a debate on the real topic (the amount and nature of racism in the country in question) on the back foot before the first word of text, and the neutrality of the article cannot be recovered after that catastrophic start. This article sets out to group together a group of slurs under the pretence that together they make an encyclopedic topic. This is no more the case than for "Allegations that French people smell". Or imagine other series of article built around usage of slurs in the media: Allegations that Tony Blair is a liar, Allegations that Angela Merkel is a liar, Allegations that Bill Clinton is a liar, or Allegations that Paris Hilton is a talentless bimbo, Allegations that Lindsay Lohan is a talentless bimbo, Allegations that .... is a talentless bimbo. All of those could be sourced, and the fact that something is sourced does not necessarily make it neutral or a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia. The quoting of sources on any article does not confirm that it complies with Wikipedia:Neutrality to the slightest degree; any biased essay can be fully sourced. No rephrasing or sourcing can make this article anything more than a politically motivated attack page. Wikipedia is not a place for debate or for arguing the toss. The presence of these articles disgraces Wikipedia. Dominictimms 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, let's either rename this article social apartheid in Brazil or merge it into the social apartheid article. A name with "social apartheid" in the title is more appropriate than "Brazilian apartheid" as it is more specific and the first term is the one that's more common. What procedure do we have to follow to bring this about? Lothar of the Hill People 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
A newly created article related to this one, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be merged there. This article while informative is too short, badly titled, and imminently relevant to the social apartheid article. Tiamat 11:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I am Brazilian, from southern Brazil, of mainly southern Italian origin (or so say my grandparents). I created this account for the sole purpose of expressing my views in this talk page, though I may use it in the future. I have so far contributed here or there, nothing really big, and also a bit on the portuguese-language Wikipedia.
I would really appreciate if other Brazilian users shared their views here. I shall come here once in a while to see the discussion, because I ended up seeing this article and I believe it is not neutral, and therefore want to see the discussion on the subject.
Personally, I believe there is no such thing as Apartheid in Brazil, either social or racial. As you can easily see in the Apartheid article, Apartheid is a government policy. There isn't, and as far as I'm aware there has never been, any policy of the kind in Brazil. In the very beginning of our Constitution, it is stated that "every Brazilian is equal before the law". On the other hand, I do not deny that there is prejudice in our society. The fact that there are people claiming there is a kind of Apartheid in Brazil does not change what Apartheid is; in fact, it just shows they don't know better. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, cannot afford not to.
Many people, including specialists, claim that there is a lot of racial prejudice. (I'm only entering this subject because someone said the article should be merged into Race in Brazil - I disagree because the two matters are different.) I think this is a bit exaggerated. There is some racial prejudice in Brazil. What I see a lot is social prejudice. I have heard young people of some wealth saying things such as "she's nice, but lives in the slum". There has been a minor scandal with a video of rich young people throwing eggs on the people in the street from their apartaments. I have not so far heard anything of the sort of "she's nice, but black". I'm not saying that doesn't exist; I already stated that there is some racial prejudice, and by "some" I mean more than "a bit of". It should be noticed, however, that race is not the "big" reason for prejudice in Brazil, and that the matter of social prejudice should not be merged into it.
With that explained, I believe the article should be renamed to "Social prejudice in Brazil" and cleaned up, expelling the Apartheid word from it; it does not belong in this article. The current title makes the whole thing look like black and white people hated one another in Brazil, which is no nearer the truth than the existance of wizards.
I'm available to any further discussion or explanation of my point of view on the subject, and would love to discuss and compare opinions on that. I do not check very often my Wikipedia logins (I haven't logged in my portuguese-language Wikipedia one for a very long time), so I would ask you to send me an e-mail when posting here. My e-mail address is vitorcassol AT gmail DOT com.
P.S.: 3 o'clock in the morning. No wonder I'm so tired.
Vítor Cassol 06:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The verifiable material from the recently deleted article Allegations of Chinese apartheid have been merged into Human rights in the People's Republic of China based on the AfD closing statement.
My proposal is to find a suitable article to merge the content of this article, based on the same arguments. It could be merged into one of the articles related to the social or race aspects in Brazil. I am placing similar proposals on all other articles in the "Allegations of XXXX apartheid" series. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
For some reason when I hit edit for sections, the previous one shows up.
I just misposted a comment because of this. Anyone has noticed this before/knows why? Thanks!-- Cerejota 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if other titles (other than the current one or "Human Rights in Brazil") might not be more appropriate here. Ones from other countries that come to mind are Segregation in Brazil and/or Economic inequality in Brazil (see Segregation in Northern Ireland or Income inequality in the United States for examples). Are these possibilities? Mackan79 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Looking back at Vitor Cassol's plea for a name change, he may be unfamiliar with the Requested Move process. What would happen if some Brazilians submitted a Requested Move with the following statement?
A Requested Move Proposal
The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.... Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test), but even here caution should be used. Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: <Pokémon example> The generic form of this argument, that "loads of other crap articles exist" is also common. However, Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS).
Yikes, I can't believe the Brazilians would submit such a long-winded statement! Thanks for your patience. HG | Talk
The problem here is that the move is controversial. To give you an idea of the sources not included here, because of the language barrier, you have this [1], It is titled "Apartheid brasileiro: raça e segregação residencial no Rio de Janeiro" (Brazilian apartheid: race and residential segregation in Rio de Janeiro). This is clearly an in depth study at a notable analogy, which is one many Brazilians are indeed uncomfortable, but is notable and current currency in academia (it cites "American Apartheid", btw, which was unfortunately deleted). If you notice something, both in the French and Brazilian articles, when confronted with information, many nationalist editors backed down. It is natural for people to "defend" their countries and try to use the ignorance of others in their favor, however, WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are correct when they give their reasons: ignorance and dislike are not reasons to delete. Sources tell us if it exists, we must do edits. Thanks!-- Cerejota 04:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The term "social apartheid" is well established by academics inside and outside of Brazil and I don't think it's appropriate to drop it just because some people are offended by it. I think "Social apartheid in Brazil" is preferable to "Brazilian apartheid" as the latter suggests there is a specifically Brazilian form of the problem where the former simply suggests it's a problem in a number of places (see social apartheid) one of them being Brazil. Also, the term "Brazilian apartheid" is original research since it's only used in Wikipedia whereas "Social apartheid" is not. Lothar of the Hill People 21:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and moved the article to "Social apartheid in Brazil" but I won't get into an edit war over it and would welcome further debate. In the interim, I think this name is preferable to the old name of "Allegations of Brazilian apartheid" for the aforementioned reasons. If this new name is still not satisfactory I'd like to suggest "Social apartheid analogy in Brazil" as a compromise. Lothar of the Hill People 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
No consensus has been established for the rename. The discussion cannot be ignored. I strongly oppose both the merger and the Social apartheid in Brazil formulation, as there are analogies held because of racial factors (ie not just social). This debate is notable in the same fashion as Israeli apartheid, but doesn't draw as much international attention. Yet WP:IDONTKNOWIT has it right when it says, "I don't know it" is not a reason to delete (or what amounts to the same, a merge). I propose Brazilian apartheid or Debate on Brazilian apartheid as possible titles, but "Social apartheid" excludes the reality on the gruond of a form of racial apartheid. Resist the temptation to allow one primary source to dominate, and to adopt the "urban apartheid"/"social apartheid" french model. These are two separate countries...
I am still hunting for additional secondary sources, but I am a bit hampered by my very weak Portuguese. I have provided a weaker secondary source titled "Apartheid Brasileiro". However, I can assure you that while the situation is indeed described by some commentators as "social apartheid", it is also described as "economic apartheid" and "apartheid" without qualifiers. We cannot act hastily and without consensus, no matter how this page was created on the first place. Thanks!-- Cerejota 07:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
In the talk page of Human rights in Brazil Lothar suggests that people discuss here, however it is customary to discuss mergers in the talk page of the "TO" page, not the "FROM" page, as the template {{ mergefrom}} clearly shows. We should discuss mergers there to engage Brazil-focused editors, who might or might not want a merge based on very different reasons than why you nominate. Thanks!-- Cerejota 07:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Cerejota, did you have an opinion on Social inequality in Brazil? Mackan79 16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to "test the house" and see if there is a consensus to rename this article Social apartheid in Brazil on, at least, an interim basis. Lothar of the Hill People 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Rename to Social apartheid in Brazil - agreeing to my proposal. Lothar of the Hill People 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Moved per this consensus. — Ashley Y 04:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus. This has to be the worse railroading ever. -- Cerejota 06:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
{{ allegations of apartheid}}. Thanks!-- Cerejota 06:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't this article belong in Category:Apartheid? Maybe they'll someday be a subcategory called Category:Social apartheid, but there aren't enough articles to populate one at this time. -- 146.115.58.152 16:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC) I've restored the category per this argument. -- 146.115.58.152 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course there are social inequalities in Brazil, but to call them a "Social apartheid" is simply ludicrous, either a severe symptom of left-loonyism or pure and simple lack of knowledge about the country. In either case, this title should definitely be rethought; perhaps the article itself could be moved elsewhere or merged with another. Rsazevedo msg 12:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Who are Jan Rocha, Maria Helena Moreira Alves, Michael Löwy, Tobias Hecht, Carlos Verrisimo and Francine Winddance Twine? The article shouldn't just list their names without specifying who they are, since they are not notorious people. And as long as the article only quotes these people's opinions as references, instead of verifiable facts, it remains unreferenced -- despite all of its footnotes. Rsazevedo msg 08:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Does this article seriously claim that the source for this concept is a book which is basically a travel guide [4] ? The remainder of this article falls under the rubric of OR
The claims made in the History and Street youth sections of the article are syntheses of disparate sources. These sources are more relevant to an article on Social and economic inequality on Brazil or Racism in Brazil. If the article remains, it should be much reduced, perhaps to two paragraphs explaining that the term social apartheid has been used to describe the rift between the rich and poor in Brazil, comparing it the one found in South Africa during the height of its apartheid era. Moreover, the lead reference should be a work with more substance than a travel guide. -- CSTAR ( talk) 18:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The following statement "Despite Brazil's retreat from military rule and return to democracy in 1988, social apartheid has only gotten worse" in the article text seems to be contradicted by its own reference:
"In Brazil the military have returned to the barracks but despite their replacement by elected governments, the drift into social apartheid and moral disintegration continues. Those who continue to orientate their educational practices by the principles of popular education now face a new and more complex conjuncture." Ireland, Timothy. "Building on experience: working with construction workers in Brazil" in Boud, David J. & Miller, Nod. Working with Experience: Animating Learning, Routledge, 1996, p. 132.
The text says the social apartheid continues, nut that it "only gotten worse". What it does affirm is that the conjuncture is now a new and more complex one, and that doesn't imply the conjuncture is now better or worse. One can't find new words to describe something the reference's author expressed in clear terms as "new and more complex", before of that adding that the situation "continues". The text must be changed to become adequate, because one can't just cite a reference that doesn't say the same as the statement. Besides, since the article talks about the very close relationship between race and social class in Brazil (not that close, by the way, as I, a Brazilian, know very well through the hundreds of White poor people I know and see everyday in the streets), it should be important to add social inequality has diminished in Brazil in the last 5-6 years (that's a very known fact in the press), so actually the "social apartheid" got a little better, and not worse. 201.9.215.204 ( talk) 08:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Should the term used be "Apartheid"? Last time I checked, Apartheid was backed up institutionally, while Brazil's problem is more socio-historico-cultural (i.e. no institution or law was created in Brazil for the specific purpose of segregation). I'm in favour to take "allegations" off, since it is not a fringe opinion, also, if the term Apartheid stays, shouldn't it be "social Apartheid"?
The result of the move request was: no consensus in support of move. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Social apartheid in Brazil → Social inequality in Brazil — I think the use of 'apartheid' in this article is unnecessarily inflammatory, and something of a fringe view in any case. There are many sources discussing social inequality in Brazil, but only a few of them use the term 'apartheid'. Social segregation in Brazil would be another possibility, though it should be made clear that we're not talking about any kind of legal segregation here. Robofish ( talk) 23:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Do we have any sources discussing this issue that don't use the term apartheid? I suspect they exist, but I don't see them. If apartheid is the term that's always used then it should stay as that term. It isn't our job to decide if the sources are using a a stupid term (even if it is stupid). JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The POV tag placed at this article is apt. Jayjg's claim that "there was no claim of POV on the Talk page in May 2010" is wiklawyering; this has been discussed repeatedly since 2007 and thus far the problem has not been fixed, and all attempts to fix it have failed. The tag stays until the problem is fixed or until there's a consensus that there isn't a problem.-- Cúchullain t/ c 14:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Cuchullain has been removing the Category:Apartheid from this article - most recently with the edit summary "This article does not fit that category's inclusion parameters; it's for apartheid, not "stuff that has been compared to apartheid." [11] As is quite obvious from the contents of Category:Apartheid, the majority of articles in it are not about apartheid, but about "stuff that has been compared to apartheid." I'm restoring this longstanding tag, pending resolution of this discussion. Cuchullain, can you explain why this specific article should be an exception to the category's normal inclusion parameters? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Cuchullain has removed the following material:
"The existing inequality in access to computers reflects a form of social apartheid, and private initiatives that strive for technological inclusion are making all the difference in the complex process of creating equity in our society." Jacobi, Pedro Roberto. "Digital Inclusion in Brazil", in Aviram, Roni & Richardson, Janice Patricia. Upon What Does The Turtle Stand?: Rethinking Education For The Digital Age, Springer, 2004, p. 221.
claiming "rm source about computer access (!) That's not what this article, such as it is, is about." [12] In the book, Jacobi argues that Brazil's social apartheid affects access to technology, and particularly computers. He lists the groups affected by this, specifically naming (among others) poor youth and indigenous and Afro-Brazilians - groups many other authors state are affected by Brazil's social apartheid. Cuchullain, can you explain why you have removed this material? Jayjg (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This article has had problems with
neutrality and
original research since its inception. For the benefit of anyone new to the conversation, it was created in 2007 as a part of a manufactured "series" of articles on "allegations of apartheid" in various countries in reaction to the
Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. Nearly all the others have been deleted.
Previous instances where these problems have been brought up include:
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
For a start on some of the problems, first and formost, the word "apartheid" is inherently non-neutral. No one claims that there are official legal policies in Brazil segregating people by social status (ie, actual
apartheid). It's a rhetorical term describing the rampant social inequality in the country. The term is not uncommon, but it's much
less common than more neutral constructs like
"social inequality". It shouldn't be in the title.
Additionally,
WP:NPOV requires that articles "[represent] all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without
bias." This isn't done here. Only sources claiming a state of social apartheid truly exists are represented, and there is no attempt to give proper weight to individual viewpoints. This is sometimes obscured by the fact that there is no explanation of who the holder of that viewpoint is. For example, a newspaper article by Kevin G. Hall is cited several times, while articles by PhDs receive only cursory treatment. Civil rights activist Carlos Verrisimo and French Marxist philosopher
Michael Löwy are also cited; they do not appear to be experts on Brazilian society, and I do not know what relevant qualifications they have for them to be cited here. Lowy seems to be
cited to pile on more information about the gated communities, discussed elsewhere, which adds undue emphasis on that particular point.
This leads to additional serious issues of
original research, particularly
synthesis of published material. We have several sources here that use the term "social apartheid" once or twice, often in passing, to discuss the social situation in Brazil. For example
this,
this, and
this use the term but once each, and are talking about different aspects of inequality in Brazil. However, they're all taken together to advance the idea that "social apartheid" is the usual term for what's happening.
That's good for a start.--
Cúchullain
t/
c
19:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
According to IPEA, the "poor" and "very poor" are together 30% of Brazil's population (24,1% + 6,6%) source here
According to IBGE, blacks are only 7,61% of Brazil's population source here
How is it possible that "The great majority of the poor are blacks in Brazil", as stated in one of the pictures in the article? A group that represents 7,61% of the total population can never be "the great majority" in a social class that represents 30% of the total population. The great majority of the poor in Brazil are pardos, not blacks. Pardos are not black (Brazil never had "one-drop rule"). BrancoPobre ( talk) 16:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I confused myself in that article and that was I changed a quote. I tried to undone but my computer started to freak out immediately (Firefox has so many bugs nowadays, or it ever had but now they are more perceivable), there was a little blackout in my region and there goes. But I was not doing original research since the polemical accusations of that writer that Brazil had (or has) racial apartheid make not sense since is perfectly understandable that a country help their immigrants which come from major powers (even if they are presenting crisis, as happened in this case) and since is widely knowlegeable that Brazil has poors of European descent, some of them do rural exodus by the same motivations that the multiracial and black populations and fatefully will live in the poor peripheries of our metropolises exactly as it happens with people of the other races. How can it be original research? The idea that Brazil has some kind of apartheid in which race plays a fundamental factor is contamined by ideological and political meanings present in our academics for the most of the second half of the twentieth century and it is disputable even if it comes from some major scholar. Lguipontes ( talk) 10:17, 5 October 2011 (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? 187.58.98.224 ( talk) 03:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)