1
New ideological inflections in the study of racism in Brazil
Antonio Sérgio Alfredo Guimarães
Department of Sociology of USP/
University of São Paulo
In a footnote, Bourdieu and Wacquant (2002) question in their controversial article
about the artifices of the imperialist reason, whether a book entitled "Racist Brazil" will
ever appear, what they interpret as a mere strategy of journalistic marketing, blaming
Michel Wieworka (1992) and all those who want to see "racism" in countries of Republican
tradition, like France, or mestizo nations, like Brazil1. Although such a title has not yet
become public, another book entitled "We Are Not Racists" by Ali Kamel (2006) has just
been published with all the pomp of media coverage it deserves. It seems, therefore, that
today it is more important for the journalistic marketing to affirm that Brazil is not racist
than the opposite.
This article discusses precisely these very last ideological inflections. I start with a
brief history on how the image of a mestizo nation and a racial democracy gave place to
another that turned Brazil into an unjust, unequal and racist nation. After that, I concentrate
on the most recent ideological veering round, in which social scientists including Bourdieu
and Wacquant try to revert the last consensus built in 1960 about the nature of the Brazilian
society.
What triggered or motivated this shift, and this is my argument, were the proposals
of public policies which beneficiate Black people, with the consequent institution of quotas
for Blacks (pretos) and mulattos (pardos) at state and federal universities. But the origin of
this ideological turning point is even deeper. It is founded in the discomfort that the
militant, anti-racist ideology of the Brazilian Black movement provoked in the
intellectuality at least in two points: the very simplifying and politicized reading of “The
Masters and the Slaves” and of other works issued from Brazilian sociology and
1
Endnote 10: “How long will it be before we get a book entitled Racist Brazil patterned after the
scientifically scandalous Racist France of a French sociologist more attentive to the expectations of the field
of journalism than to the complexities of social reality?”
1
2
anthropology, and their interpretation of the racial democracy, first as a myth, an illusion
and then as a racist ideology.
What it means to be a Brazilian and the nature of Brazilian democracy.
There are neither races nor racism in Brazil. This is perhaps the best synthesis of the
sociological literature produced by modern Brazilian social science, since its
institutionalization, in 1930, until recent times. It is true that the cycle of studies known as
UNESCO project, or later on, the Paulista School of Sociology, recognized the existence of
racial prejudice in the country. But, for some, as an inheritance of the proslavery past
(Bastide and Fernandes 1955, Fernandes 1965); for others as a false class conscience (Pinto
1953), which led to the alienation of bourgeois and middle class Black intellectuals. For the
majority of Brazilian intellectuals, the prejudice that really existed was of social class not
race. In fact races would not exist even in the native speech, but only colors. Social
belongings were not imagined as descent groups, but as associations or groups of physical
and social appearance (Pierson 1944; Harris 1952, 1962; Wagley 1952; Azevedo 1953).
The national consensus (or the way sociology would reverberate it) was composed
by certain structuring believes; (1) the non existence of human races in the real physical
world would be complemented by its absence in the native speech of the social world; (2)
the socio-economical inequalities between Black and white would be class inequalities, that
is, they would not encapsulate individuals in fixed categories; (3) the unity of the Brazilian
people would be guaranteed by the biological and cultural crossing of races; (4)
representative democracy would be the regimen that would allow stability and order in the
resolution of class conflicts through the actions of political parties and class associations.
I demonstrated in other articles (for example, Guimarães 2003) that Black Brazilian
intellectuals and leaders took an active part in the development of this consensus though
they maintained a combative agenda, and it is not true the interpretation that this consensus
was forged by whites whose intention would have been to weaken the mobilization of the
Blacks.1
2
Such a version has been still transmitted by intellectuals and Black activists, both Brazilian and foreigners.
For a more consonant version of the facts, read Nascimento (1942).
2
3
The disavowal of racial democracy, even as an ideal, could only be elaborated in the
years 1980, when conditions were given by the enormous swerve and profound
interpretative revision undertaken by social scientists and historians since 1960. The
pioneer in this revision might have been the English historian Charles Boxer (1963), who in
his history of the Portuguese colonial empire, contrarily to Freyre (1933), Tannenbaum
(1974) and others, deals with it as a racist enterprise. I underline the word to emphasize that
it was Boxer himself who used it as a concept. If there are no human races, this does not
mean that racism is not part of the formation and development of Brazilian capitalism,
argued Hasenbalg (1979) some years later, starting studies on racial inequality in our
Universities. In another paper, I explain the remarkable moment and academic conjuncture
in which the concept of racism is applied to the study of Brazilian race relations
(Guimarães 2004). It is not worthwhile to repeat it. But we should consider these two facts.
First, the political establishment of the New Republic (1985 onwards) responded generally
well to the demands of the Black movement, including the recognition of racism in Brazil,
almost always getting the inspiration in the political-ideological legacy of Joaquim
Nabuco2 – as did, among others, José Sarney, who created in his government the Fundação
Palmares; Marco Maciel, through innumerable public statements; Fernando Henrique
Cardoso, who formed, during his government, an Inter-ministerial Work Group to
implement anti-discriminatory measures and followed closely the position of the Brazilian
chancellery in Durban (2001). Second, we should also recall that the amplification of the
concept of racism to refer to all practices of unequal treatment and their social results, even
the non-doctrinarian ones, was a world-wide phenomenon not only circumscribed to Brazil.
Throughout the world these concepts went from the academy to politics as had the
scientific racism previously done.
The other fact I would like to recall, however, is directly related to the intellectual
discredit in the belief that racial inequalities, in Brazil, are class inequalities. The truth is
that this discredit derived from the disbelief that social classes are the sole central
categories for sociological analysis of current capitalist societies and that class-conflict is
the main mechanism of social change. Not only have the new social movements started
3
Nabuco’s influence transcends the political elites. It was inspired in him that the intellectual and pop-star
Caetano Veloso composed “Nights of the North”, a CD-manifest supporting the struggle of the Black people.
3
4
being seen as the most decisive "actors" for social change, but also class-conflict itself
stopped being considered the motor of history by several Marxists and left wing parties.
This was the dominant tendency in the whole western sociology even in France where the
working class, very well organized as well as in factories, as in neighborhoods as in the
political system, remained for a longer time ideologically unified with the support of
important intellectuals as far as ethnical, racial and religion divisions are concerned.3
Regarding to Brazil, I remember an interview given to the newspaper Folha de São
Paulo in 1993 by Francisco Weffort, an intellectual leadership of PT at this time, in which
he repels the traditional Marxist interpretation, still hegemonic in the Party, and adopts the
vision that only social movements can go against the way social exploitation and
domination in Brazil are historically reproduced. In this new paradigm, patriarchal attitude,
racism, machismo, etc, become phenomena equally decisive for sociological explanation,
and social "exclusion" and "inclusion" become more determinants than social class. Thus,
social class, a concept that formerly unified the whole political spectrum from left to right,
from nationalists to internationalists, all around the idea of the inexistence of racism in
Brazil and that Blacks were, above all, a proletarian class, lost its strength.
From the Black movement point of view, I can point to, in schematic terms, three
important changes in its position after the political opening of 1980: First: if in the
beginning the MNU still insisted on the word of command "for an authentic racial
democracy"4 gradually it consolidated a more radical posture of denouncing racial
democracy as a white supremacist myth; second, in pragmatic terms the fight was first
against racial discrimination and prejudice, and only later, by the end of 1990, it
concentrated on the fight for affirmative actions in favor of Blacks; third, in organizational
terms, the movement ceases to be constituted by civil entities related to political parties or
with clear political ideology and becomes, from 1990 onwards, a group of NGO’s formed
by professionals and articulated with the international network of philanthropic entities,
human rights advocacy, environmentalism, etc.
I can synthesize, rather schematically, in four points the new believes which
structure the consensus that became valid in 1980: 1) racism is responsible for racial
4
Concerning this see Beau and Pillbox’s article in the academic journal “Tempo Social” (2006).
4
5
inequalities in Brazil (to some, social inequalities in Brazil can even be reduced to racial
inequalities); 2) races are not biological but social realities, they structure, with gender and
other forms of social identities, the individuals’ life opportunities as well as their social
destiny; 3) the unity of the Brazilian people can only be guaranteed by citizenship - that is,
by the guarantee of civil rights; 4) the Brazilian nation as all American nations is multiethnical, multi-racial and multi-cultural; 5) democracy is after all the exercise of rights and
it is based on the guarantee of equal opportunities.
The reaction of intellectuals in the area of culture
The belief in the existence of racism in Brazil was not developed without
contestations from the part of intellectuals, especially because there has never been a
consensus about the specificity of racism. In the academic field, in general, two almost
opposite interpretations prevailed: the first tried to revisit studies conducted during the
1950’s and 1960’s, as Nogueira’s (1955) and Harris’ (1956), with the intent of unveiling
"Brazilian racism" as did, for example, DaMata (1990); the second hardly recognized
Brazilian specificities or even considered them as artifices, subtleties or refinements of
white supremacy, as had done a considerable amount of Black North American authors and
the Brazilian activists. In general, Brazilian social scientists either openly contested this last
interpretation or tried to qualify it.
Some quarrels marked this contestation. The first was a direct denial of the nonexceptionality of Brazilian racism. This dispute, however, did not polarize the academic
field, dividing both activists and social scientists, by not in dual way. I refer to the debate
between Peter Fry and Michael Hanchard around the "Black Cinderela". Hanchard (1996)
interpreted the discrimination undergone by the daughter of the governor of Espirito Santo
and its consequent political and media development (Black Cinderela was the title given by
the magazine Veja when reported the episode), as a signal that the myth of racial
democracy was coming to an end. Fry (1996) attacks what he considers the American
simplistic vision nurtured by Hanchard about Brazilian race classifications and race
relations and also his stereotyped vision of racial democracy. Nonetheless, the critical
5
Title of a MNU manifest written during the III National Congress, realized in Belo Horizonte in 1982
(Unified Black Movement 1988)
5
6
reception of Hanchard’s book (1994) from some important Black intellectuals like Luiza
Bairros (1966), who pointed to what she considered Blanchard's ethnocentrism in his
interpretation of the MNU, helped to maintain ideological plurality in the field. It remained,
however, the discomfort felt by Fry and other intellectuals close to him which were then
referred to as "new-freyrians" by some Black North-American sociologists, including
Hanchard. Both the nature of Brazilian racism and the intellectual and scientific quality of
Freyre's work were simultaneously contested.
In depth research turned into essays of undeniable literary and scientific value, as
those by Ricardo Benzaquén de Araújo (1995), Elide Rugai de Bastos (2003) and more
recently the by Maria Lúcia Pallares-Burke (2005), reestablished the crucial importance,
value, and complexity of Freyre's work. Today I believe after all these essays that
discussions about Brazilian racism will ever be based on the intellectual and moral
disqualification of Freyre's works.
The second important debate, in chronological order, turned around the concept of
race. I was involved directly in this dispute (Guimarães 2003) with many others, among
which I mention only a few (Fry 2000; Grin 2001; Costa 2002) with whom I discussed
personally. We discussed the scientific opposition to the use of the word "race", and the
consequent disqualifying of its political use. Due to the current aspect of this debate and the
fact that this very same article is part of this polemic field I acquit myself of specific
details. I prefer to establish as solid the third polemic that turns around the nature of
Brazilian racial democracy (Guimarães 2003; Campos 2002; Schwarcz 1999; Fry 2006;
Maggie 2005). In the beginning there was a division between anthropologists, “adepts of
structuralism”, on the one side, and sociologists and “functionalists”, on the other side, but
nowadays this debate have unified all of us around some factual truths, as for example: 1)
Brazilian racial democracy was a ideological construct of modern Brazilian intellectuals
which was later on transformed into a sort of political and democratic compromise; 2)
intellectuals and Black activists of 1940’s and 1950’s took an active part in this political
compromise; 3) for many years it represented an ideal of racial conviviality to be sought; 4)
the myth was, at the same time, an illusion and a program for Black redemption.5
6
This consensus is more academic than activist, but still partial and temporary like all consensus. Thus in the
web page of SEPPIR (Especial Office of Policies for the Promotion of Eacial Equality) we can read "built
6
7
What is the most recent ideological inflection? Since the introduction of quotas for
Black people in some of federal and state universities, and the discussion, in the National
Congress, of the Racial Equality Statute there is no more a unified struggle against racial
discrimination and inequalities. The very diagnosis of racial inequalities as being the core
of social inequalities in Brazil has been jeopardized.
This inflection was presented in a manifesto entitled "Everyone has equal rights in
the Republic", published in several newspapers in 2006 and handled to the National
Congress, in which 150 intellectuals express their position against the quotas for Blacks
and the Racial Equality Statute. This manifesto denies the legitimacy of "racial
consciousness" in modern democratic republics, not in general, but specifically. In fact it
would not make sense to deny such legitimacy in Anglo-Saxon democracies, in which races
and racism are officially recognized and historically perpetuated. What really make sense
for those who signed it is to discuss the peculiarities of Latin-American social formations
and the Brazilian nation in particular. In Brazil, the utopia that there are no social races
could, according to them, coadunate with the biological truth that there are no human races.
It seems that it would be enough to the Brazilian state not recognize races and colors so that
they would gradually disappear. I talk about utopia, because these intellectuals recognize
the existence of social races and racism, although they continue to affirm that they both
might disappear at least here in Brazil. That is, for them, the state and political institutions
are those who create race and racism and not the micro-mechanisms of power produced in
national daily life. The vanishing of racism, therefore, would depend basically on the
implementation of non-racial policies by the state, fighting the consequences of racism
(inequalities, discriminations and prejudice) without any risk of reproducing it.
Now we face an inversion of priorities. The emphasis is totally given to combat a
nonexistent racism which will derive from state institutions promoting racial selfidentification to implement public policies. This emphasis overshadows the real existent
racism that causes racial inequalities as we know them.
along the centuries, the concept of racial democracy in Brazil shows, in fact, a big lie. The data of the second
edition of the research Protracts of the Inequalities, realized by the Research Institute for Applied of United
Nations Economical Research (IPEA) jointly with the United Nations Fund for the Development of Women
(UniFem) show it very clearly”. "Racism proved by Numbers" http://www.planalto.gov.br/seppir/, news
09/26/06.
7
8
From the theoretical point of view, the intellectuals who signed the mentioned
manifesto retrocede in two basic points: first, they reason as if it was not racism in the
origin of the racial inequalities; second, they derive racism from "races" and not the
contrary: races as being produced by racism.
Well, in America, races have historically been the justification for social
inequalities, that is, they were the product of the racism against Blacks and Indians. In
Europe, race was primarily the way to destroy the ethnical organization of Jews and the
way to explain their social success as the result of an immoral and anti-patriotic behavior.
Individuals marked by the racial label of color, or by biological descent, overcame racism
not through cultural dissolution or the denial of color, but through the demand of respect
for their differences and the protection of law, which in many cases, it is true, can be
restricted to equality of treatment in the public sphere.
This last point is important and became the center of the debate. Would equal
treatment in the public sphere (everyone has equal rights) be compatible with affirmative
actions? At what extent the protection of differential treatment given to political minorities
contradict the principle of the equality of rights?
And finally, it is worth asking: is it legitimate, in our democracies, to allow for the
re-construction of ethnical institutions that were historically destroyed in the process of
national formation (for example, Indian and runaway slave’s communities)? What should
be the role of the state in this process of ethnical, religious and community reconstruction?
Is this part of the protection that should be given to the minorities?
The debate under the prism of Brazilian higher education
What triggered the present ideological division among Brazilian intellectuals, as it
has already been said, was the creation of quotas for Blacks in federal and state
universities. The truth is that the Brazilian higher education is one of those instances,
mentioned by Poulantzas, that concentrate many tensions and contradictions, making
universities places for ruptures. In fact, there are several interests at stake in the system of
higher education. First, excellence in education and research at the public universities are
of fundamental importance for the advancement of science and technology produced in
Brazil. It matters for our future development as a nation, and not only for our mestizo
8
9
identity, the way changes may eventually be introduced in this system. Second, the way we
historically designed to guarantee equal opportunities to everyone wanting to enter into
higher education schools, in this case, the evaluation of individual merits through entrance
exams and tests is also at stake. Third, once established this system of evaluation of merits
we decided federal and state universities would be places for the reproduction of our
scientific and intellectual elites. The system was not created for massive university
education, as it seems to be the tendency worldwide. Fourth, and consequently, University
professors see themselves and are seen as scientists and producers of knowledge and not as
mere teachers, developing a sprit de corps very reactive to mass education. Fifth, the whole
expansion of the University system that happened through the creation of private paid
Universities has not yet been legitimated as the locus of excellence and competitive
formation. And at last, a University title is still treated and used as symbol of social
prestige and a mark for real privileges, while University graduation is seen as the safest
way to upward social mobility.
Due to these reasons just exposed, resistance to Black demands for affirmative
actions in higher education should come, as they partly did, from many quarters; university
professors and political authorities, and intellectual elites. However, some two dozens
federal and state universities have introduced quotas and other forms of affirmative actions,
contrary to the unfavorable opinion of newspaper’s writers and editors from the mainstream
media. How to explain such an incongruity? It is a fact that among the universities
adopting some form of affirmative action, quotas or additional points for Blacks, we find
some of the best universities in the country as for example UNICAMP, UNIFESP, and
UnB. Therefore, there is no positive association between academic excellence and
resistance to quotas or affirmative actions.
To undo this apparent paradox and look for an alternative explanation it is
necessary to stress the decisive role played by higher education in all individual and family
projects of social mobility, mainly for the small middle class. For them, the perversity of
higher education in unbearable: university education of excellence is public and free; basic
and secondary education of excellence is private and paid. The result is that intellectual
elites tend to come from the economic elites, that is, middle and higher classes, which can
pay good private schools. The chances of social mobility for the popular classes are
9
10
extremely narrow. The perversity in this social reproduction is striking. This seems to be
the reason why the creation of quotas for public high schools students, low-income students
and Blacks is finally seen as the most efficient instrument to break this perversion.
This seems to be the reason for the reversal of the Brazilian public opinion between
1995 6 and 2006, as it is portrayed by the institute of DataFolha, in two opinion polls
realized in these years. In 1995, only half of the population approved the quotas. But this
proportion went up to 60% among those who had low formal education (1st Grade), gaining
almost 20 perceptual points at each level of education.
Index of approval of the quotas in education and employment. Brazil 1995.
Education level Agrees
Basic
1773
Secondary
574
University
89
Total
2436
Source: DataFolha 1995.
Disagrees
Total
% Of Approval
1197
2970
59,7 %
878
1452
39,5%
366
45
19,6%
2441
4877
49,9%
(*) The values related to "Does not know" were ignored.
In 2006, approval went up to 65% for quotas in education and 68% for employment,
although the differential according to level of education of those questioned remained the
same. However, we can notice that the gap between those with basic and second grade
education was reduced to 6 percent points, and that doubled those with higher education
who approved quotas.
Index of Approval of the quotas in education and employment, Brazil 2006.
Education level
In education7
In Employment8
7
In 1995, a question of DataFolha was: "Q.10: Looking at past and present discrimination against Blacks,
there are people who defend the idea that the only way to guarantee racial equality is by reserving part of the
places at the Universities and part of employment posts in companies for the Black population. Do you agree
or disagree with the reservation of places for education and employment? Totally or partially?" The answer
was codified as follow: "1.Totally agree 2. Partially agree; 3. Totally disagree; 4. Partially disagree; 5. Do not
know.
8
"Q. 27. One of the points of the project foresees that at least 20% of places at public and private Universities
are reserved for Black people and their descendents, regardless of the marks achieved in the exams in relation
to those who are not Black. Are you for or against the quotas, that is, that places should be reserved for
Blacks and descendants of Blacks at the Universities?”
10
11
1rst Grade
2nd Grade
University
Total
Source: DataFolha 2006.
71%
65%
42%
65%
73%
67%
45%
68%
DataFolha in 2006 investigated the reasons for approval of quotas. The results are
not clear. As we already knew through qualitative research (Silva 2006), in Brazil, contrary
to what happens in South Africa or in the United States, the discussions based on the theory
of human capital (search for talents, diversity, economic development, etc.) are not
important and not even appear in DataFolha’s questionnaire. Arguments of the Black
Movement disqualifying meritocracy in general, and university entrance examinations
(vestibular) in particular, are not shared by public opinion: 78% agreed with the sentence
"Places at universities should be occupied by the best students, independently of color, race
or social condition". In the same way, arguments justifying quotas as forms of repairing the
past, find only a moderate support: 54% agree with the sentence "Quotas at universities are
necessary because Black people were made slaves and deserve to be compensate for that."
Arguments justifying quotas as measure of social inclusion are those receiving the
largest approval. Thus, the sentence "Universities’ quotas should be created for poor and
low income people independently of race” count with the agreement of 87%, and the
sentence "Quotas for Blacks at the Universities are fundamental to increase access of the
whole population to education" of 67%.
The most important to emphasize, and it is really a discovery, is that the defense of
quotas for Blacks became a popular demand exactly because it seems to be the only
concrete proposal to counteract Brazilian social inequalities and one that has visible effects
almost immediately. Thus, the Black Movement became the spokesman of a demand
greater than its ideological scope seemed to predict, returning to the tradition of the 1940’s
and 1950’s when "Black was all Brazilian people".
However, if arguments used by intellectuals who positioned themselves against
quotas are not convincing, they still seem to divide public opinion. Thus, 48% agree that
9
"Q.28 The statute also foresees that at least 20% of places in private and state companies should be reserved
for Black and descendants of Blacks. Are you for or against that places are reserved in companies for Blacks
11
12
"to reserve quotas for Blacks at universities is humiliating for them" and 55% consent that
“to reserve quotas for Blacks at universities can generate acts of racism".
About the legitimacy of representation
The legitimacy of intellectuals who speak for social movements can derive from a
moral authority given them due to the oppression and sufferings they undergo for being
part of the victimized group. This is a form of legitimacy widely used by political actors
nowadays. However, it is necessary that oppression and suffering oppose ideals and
ideologies socially shared (in democracies: equality of all citizens).
Racial inequalities, discrimination and prejudice confer legitimacy to the demands
of Black activists, who talk on behalf of Black people. Racial consciousness (their own and
of those they represent) is the premise for this legitimacy.
This type of legitimacy is usually found among minorities defending their rights.
Public debate in Brazil as expressed by the press has been using this form as well. The
legitimate interlocutors speak on behalf of the Brazilian national culture (anthropologists),
scientific knowledge (specialists in education), and the Black community.
Let’s remember, however, and this is an important observation, that racial
consciousness often takes the form of Black consciousness defined as the consciousness of
African roots and culture (ways of dressing, eating, feeling, thinking and being in the
world) That is, not only the consciousness of being Black (someone from another race or
color) but of being culturally different.
But the legitimacy of the Black community demands need also to derive from
interests presented as universal – and not only from oppression and exploitation of Blacks if it intends to overcome the circle of its racial and ethnic sub-group. That is, they need to
be presented as general interests benefiting the people as a whole. In Brazil racial
inequalities can be analytically connected to the majority of impoverished and exploited
people as factory workers, unskilled and unemployed urban workers as well as peasants
without land.
Florestan or Ianni referred as "slave metamorphosis" to the current position of
Blacks and mestizos in modern Brazil. Although they were already Brazilian citizens under
and descendants of Blacks?”
12
13
a capitalist form of subordination the racial order went untouched from the Empire to the
Republic, from Slavery to free labor economy. In this sense “race consciousness” would
dissolve or mix with "class consciousness", or "national consciousness", and class conflict
would be at the same time anti-colonialist revolt. This was the way Black mobilization took
shape in Brazil from 1945 to 1964: defending the whole ensemble of exploited Brazilian
people and fighting against colonial mentalities which make Brazilians act as Europeans.
Black Brazilian leaders have been trying to use simultaneously both forms
legitimacy, representing both Black minorities’ cultural demands and the large social
interests of poor and Blacks Brazilians as whole. Maybe this is also the case in South
Africa and in the rest of Latin America today.
In Brazil to separate Black’s and citizenships’ interests would be disastrous. Race
consciousness, peculiar to Black minorities, would find strong resistance to be
disseminated in a mixed-race population which is not Black by self-definition but almost
Black by discriminatory treatment. Mestizos aspire the racial status of white people but are
treated as Blacks. To summarize: racial status derives from the gradient of colors and in the
common sense “pardo” (brown) is better than “preto” (black). In this situation the idea of
Black as being the Brazilian people encounters great resistance especially by the
impoverished whites, mainly in the richest and most populated regions of the country. Can
we consider the Brazilian people as Black, when so many in equal estate of deprivation
consider themselves as whites?
But the use of both forms of legitimate representation has been having a reasonable
success as the quota system in public universities demonstrates. University councils (in the
case of federal universities) and state parliaments (as in the State of Rio de Janeiro) have
been trying to respond to the ambiguous and wide pressure exercised by the Black
movement. The way to do it was to associate in their policies of affirmative action, racial
and social criteria. In general those eligible for quotas must declare themselves Blacks and
at the same time have attended a public high school.
Bibliography
13
14
Araújo, Ricardo Benzaquen. 1995. Guerra e Paz: Casa Grande & Senzala e a obra de
Gilberto Freyre nos anos 30, Rio, Ed. 34, 1995.
Azevedo, T. de. 1996 [1953] As elites de cor numa cidade brasileira. Um estudo de
ascensão social & classes sociais e grupos de prestígio, Salvador, EDUFBA.
Bairros, Luiza. 1996. “Orfeu e Poder: uma perspectiva afro-americana sobre a política
racial no Brasil”, Afro-Ásia, n. 17.
Bastide, R. e Fernandes, F. 1955. Relações Raciais entre Negros e Brancos em São Paulo,
ed. Anhembi.
Bastos, Elide Rugai. 2003. Gilberto Freyre e o pensamento hispânico : entre Dom Quixote
e Alonso El Bueno, Bauru : EDUSC.
Beaud, Stéphane e Pialoux, Michel. 2006. “Rebeliões urbanas e a desestruturação das
classes populares (França, 2005)”, Tempo Social, vol.18 no.1, pp. 37-59.
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. 1998 "Sur les ruses de la raison imperialiste", Actes de la
Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 121, p. 109-18.
Boxer, C. R. 1963. Race relations in the Portuguese colonial empire 1419-1825, Oxford,
Claredon.
Campos, Maria José. 2002. Arthur Ramos: Luz e Sombra na Antropologia Brasileira. Uma
versão da democracia racial no Brasil nas décadas de 1930 e 1940. Dissertação de
mestrado, apresentada ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Antropologia Social da
USP, São Paulo, FFLCC-USP.
Campos, Maria José. 2006. “Cassiano Ricardo e o ‘mito da democracia racial’: uma versão
modernista em movimento”, Revista USP, 68.
Costa, Sérgio. 2002. “A construção sociológica da raça no Brasil”, Estudos Afro-Asiáticos,
Rio de Janeiro, vol.24, n.1, p.35-61.
DaMatta, Roberto. 1990. “Digressão: a fábula das três raças, ou o problema do racismo à
brasileira”, Relativizando, uma introdução à antropologia social, Rio de Janeiro,
Rocco, pp. 58-87.
Fernandes, Florestan, A Integração do Negro na Sociedade de Classes, Cia Editora
Nacional, São Paulo, 1965, 1o. volume.
Freyre, Gilberto. Casa Grande & Senzala: formação da família brasileira sob o regime da
economia patriarcal, Rio de Janeiro, Schimidt, 1933.
Fry, Peter. 1966. “O que a Cinderela Negra tem a dizer sobre a “política racial” no Brasil”,
Revista da USP, n. 28.
Fry, Peter. 2000. “Politics, nationality, and the meanings of ‘race’ in Brazil”, Daedalus,
Spring, pp. 83-118.
Grin, Mônica. 2001. “Políticas de ação afirmativa e ajustes normativos: o Seminário de
Brasília”, Novos Estudos Cebrap, São Paulo, n. 59, março, pp. 172-192.
Guimarães, Antonio S. A. 2003. “Democracia racial”, versão revista, disponível em
http://www.fflch.usp.br/sociologia/asag/
Guimarães, Antonio S. A. 2003a. “Como trabalhar com "raça" em sociologia”, Educação e
Pesquisa, São Paulo, v.29, n.01, pp.93 -108.
Guimarães, Antonio S. A. 2004. “Preconceito de cor e racismo no Brasil”, Revista de
Antropologia, vol.47 no.1 São Paulo 2004
Hanchard, Michael. 1994. Orpheus and Power: The Movimento Negro of Rio de Janeiro
and Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1945-1988, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
14
15
Hanchard, Michael. 1996. “Cinderela negra?: raça e e esfera pública no Brasil”, Estudos
Afro-Asiáticos, n. 30.
Harris, Marvin. 1956. Town and country in Brazil, New York : Columbia University Press.
Hasenbalg, Carlos. 1979. Discriminação e desigualdades raciais no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro,
Graal.
Kamel, Ali. 2006. Não Somos Racistas, Rio de Janeiro, Nova Fronteira.
Maggie, Yvonne. 2005. “Mario de Andrade ainda vive? O ideário modernista em questão”,
Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, Vol 20, n.58.
Movimento Negro Unificado. 1988. 1978-1988. 10 anos de luta contra o racismo, São
Paulo, Confraria do livro.
Nascimento, Abdias. 1982. O Negro Revoltado. 2o. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira,.
Nogueira, Oracy. 1998 [1955]. Preconceito de Marca. As relações raciais em Itapetininga,
São Paulo, Edusp.
Pallares-Burke, Maria Lúcia G. 2005. Gilberto Freyre : um vitoriano dos trópicos, São
Paulo : Editora UNESP.
Pinto, Luis A. Costa. 1953. O Negro no Rio de Janeiro, Relações de raças numa sociedade
em mudança, Companhia Editora Nacional.
Schwarcz, Lilia K. M. 1999. “Questão racial e etnicidade” In Sérgio Miceli, O que ler nas
ciência social brasileira, São Paulo, ed. Sumaré/ANPOCS, vol. I, pp. 267-326.
Silva, Graziela. 2006. “Ações afirmativas no Brasil e na África do Sul”, Tempo Social, vol.
18, n. 2, pp. 131-165 .
Tannenbaum, Frank. 1947. Slave and citizen : the Negro in the Américas, New York :
Knopf.
Wagley, Charles. 1952. Races et Classes dans le Brésil Rural, Paris, UNESCO.
Wieviorka, Michel. 1992. France raciste, Paris : Seuil.
15