Résumés
Résumé
Les rapports raciaux dans la société brésilienne ont été décrits comme harmonieux par Gilberto Freyre et par beaucoup d’autres, dont Marvin Harris. Ce dernier critique sévèrement Freyre pour sa perception trop optimiste des rapports entre noirs et blancs pendant l’époque esclavagiste, mais il pose toutefois, que les rapports sociaux d’aujourd’hui au Brésil sont presque sans conflit. En plus, il argumente que la terminologie raciale au Brésil, caractérisée par un nombre élevé de termes de désignation et par une ambiguité dans leur usage, exclue la possibilité de racisme grave ou répandu. Notre critique de Harris se base sur des recherches sur le terrain aux îles du Cap-Vert alors qu’elles étaient encore une colonie portugaise. Nous avons étudié la terminologie raciale en empruntant la technique inventée par Harris pour ses études au Brésil. Nous avons découvert aux îles du Cap-Vert une terminologie qui ressemble à la terminologie brésilienne dont les caractéristiques ont été mises en relief par Harris. Toutefois, nous constatons qu’une telle terminologie peut fort bien co-exister avec une idéologie et une pratique sociale racistes. Nous argumentons que Marvin Harris a exagéré tant la variété que l’ambiguité de la terminologie raciale brésilienne. En outre, il n’a pas étudié la terminologie dans différents contextes de la vie sociale. Il a aussi proposé une définition fort peu adéquate de l’idéologie. Il arrive dès lors, à certaines conclusions sur les rapports raciaux au Brésil peu différents de l’image donnée par les propagandistes du régime actuel dans ce pays.
Abstract
Brazilian race relations have been characterized as harmonious, in contrast with those of the United States, by a long line of scholars, from Gilberto Freyre to his latter-day critic, Marvin Harris. Harris, while castigating Freyre for a too-rosy view of relations between blacks and whites during the slavery era, argues that Brazilian race relations today are “remarkably free from conflict”. Indeed, he says, Brazilian racial terminology precludes the possibility of widespread or serious racism. The terminology comprises hundreds of categories and is applied differently by different individuals, depending on their wealth or on how the categories are perceived by the person doing the categorizing. This is contrasted with the relatively rigid, black-white distinctions of the United States, where ancestry is said to be the criterion of racial placement. The present critique of Harris’ position is based on research in Cabo Verde, a Portuguese colony until 1975. This archipelago, located some three hundred miles from the African coast in the Atlantic, has an Afro-Portuguese, Creole-speaking population of some 280 000. Racial terminology was studied using the same technique as that designed and used by Harris for his work in Brazil. It was found to resemble the Brazilian one in that it included many categories that were employed differently by different individuals. Under colonial rule, Cabo Verde had a class-colour hierarchy similar to that of Brazil, in that lighter skin colour and so-called “white features” were associated with higher class status. Evidence is given to show that racism in the form of stereotypes and discriminatory practices was prevalent despite this “multi-category” racial terminology. The class System of Cabo Verde is described, and the relationship between class and race discussed; i.e., how racism was an essential support of the colonial class System, and the ways in which different classes were implicated in the dominant racial ideology. (As in Brazil, one tenet of that ideology was that racism did not exist in the society). Evidence is adduced to suggest that in Brazil, racial stereotypes and discriminatory practices also occur. Harris is criticized for overstating the variety and ambiguity of Brazilian terminology, while failing to relate terminology with everyday social practice in different contexts. This, along with an inadequate notion of ideology, lead him to perceive Brazilian race relations in a way that is little different from the favoured image of that nation’s propagandists.