Sometimes, the Brazilian media likes to romanticize poverty under the pretext of "living more simply," which I find irritating, but I couldn't resist the incredibly charming tale of Zé Peixe, known by the gringos as Joe Fish.
Zé Peixe, age 82, was born as José Martins Ribeiro Nunes in Aracaju, Sergipe. He learned how to swim very young, and soon gained the nickname Zé Peixe for his swimming skills. At 17, he became a harbor pilot in his seaside city, helping guide ships in and out of port. He is now one of the most famous harbor pilots in Brazil and even in the world.
At 5'2, 116 pounds, Zé Peixe has stayed fit by never drinking or smoking and swimming every day. He eats very little; just a roll and coffee for breakfast and fruit for the rest of the day. You can't swim well on a full stomach, according to Zé. He rarely drinks water; only a few mouthfuls of salt water when he's swimming now and again. He hasn't taken a shower since he was a kid, and only gets clean by swimming in the river or the ocean (and does so without soap, a fact that probably makes most Brazilians squirm). He rarely wears shoes and usually walks around in a bathing suit, and only gets dressed up with shoes for church and special occasions.
He lives in one of the oldest houses in Aracaju, where he was born and where he and his family have lived for three generations. He's been a widow for two decades and never had children, but has a large extended family. Even though he's been technically retired since the 90s, he has kept working because he enjoys his job so much.
Zé gets on the ship to navigate it safely out of port, and once he's done, he leaps from a height of a five-story building, and sometimes as much as 130 feet high into the water below, and then swims back to shore, which takes between 2 and 4 hours, an average of over 6 miles a day. He learned to swim in a way where he kicks very little, as not to attract sharks. Before diving, he tucks his paperwork and money into a plastic bag that he sticks in his shorts. Back in the day, he used to swim out to the boats on a boogie board, and wait between jobs by floating on a buoy.
He's also known for his heroism. In 1941, bodies of sailors from a ship bombed by the Germans washed up on the shore of Aracaju, and ever since then, no one has drowned when he's been nearby. One of his greatest feats was helping rescue an entire crew from a burning ship on its way back from an oil platform.
For a gorgeous black and white photo archive with English descriptions, see here. Check out the videos below to find out more (Portuguese only) and to watch Zé's trademark breathtaking dive.
I recently discovered an amazing blog called The Classe Media Way of Life, which seems to be inspired by Stuff White People Like, except by making it into a kind of ironic how-to guide on how to be a middle class Brazilian. After reading the entire blog, it inspired me to write a new top ten list.
Two notes: first off, the Brazilian middle class is considerably different from the American middle class, and both "Classe Media" and my list really apply more to the upper middle class. Second, while "Classe Media" is so spot on, it's also meant to be sarcastic. My list, too, is meant to be ironic and not to be taken too seriously, as it is intended to be a comedic generalization (and from a Gen Y perspective at that).
10. You love Obama, but you despise Lula (goddamn commie).
9. You made a Facebook account, but you check Orkut every day.
8. You bought designer boots to wear on your shopping trip to New York in May, only to find women walking around in Havaianas.
7. Your family can afford a country house where you spend weekends and holidays, but your 35 year-old brother still lives with your parents.
6. You love the Black Eyed Peas, but you hate axé. (Que lixo brega!)
5. You go to the movies all the time, but you've never seen a Brazilian
film in theaters (you bought Tropa de Elite on a pirated DVD before it
came out).
4. You've been to Bariloche, Buenos Aires, and Disney World, but you've never been to the Brazilian Northeast or the Amazon...
3. ...and you speak decent English, but don't know how to say "airplane," "flight" or "luggage" in Spanish.
2. You get HBO, but you watch novelas from 8 - 10 every night.
1. You'd like to have everyone think that you're much happier tweeting on your Blackberry from an expensive club or driving your imported car to eat at a fancy sushi restaurant, but you're actually happiest sitting on the beach in your bathing suit, crowded together with the masses (that is, as long as you're immediately surrounded by gente fina), or at home eating rice and beans with your family (that is, as long as the meal was prepared by the housekeeper).
For a long time, I've been contemplating why it is that corruption has flourished with relative or extreme impunity in the Brazilian government and in American corporations. Why is it that corruption has long blossomed in the opposite sectors of society in both countries? And why, after all this time and so many scandals, are the same crimes perpetuated?
And the best conclusion I came to was the same for both: history.
Now, this generalization isn't based on the fact that corruption doesn't occur in Brazilian corporations or American government; quite clearly, it sometimes does. But it's no coincidence that each country's most famous documentarians (Michael Moore and Jose Padilha) are currently working on films about business and political corruption, respectively. And unfortunately, impunity is a widespread problem in all sectors in Brazil, but it is most apparent in the political realm. And luckily, sometimes, there are exceptions, like in the case of US business corruption, the harsh (and just) sentencing of Bernie Madoff.
So here's my theory.
In Brazil, in its early colonial days, the country was ruled by coronéis, local strongmen with land, money, and political power. These were sometimes also slave owners, who had an even more iron grip on the populace. They also were backed by military support, armed men loyal to the local leader. Indeed, it was a feudal system. As Brazil was transformed from a colony to an independent monarchy to an independent nation, this system evolved into a modern federalist government in most of the country. But in the Northeast, including the Amazon and sertão (a desert-like region), some of the most inhospitable, poorest, and in some cases less populated areas of the country, the old system persisted. To this day, some of the country's most corrupt politicans come from the Northeast. Like in the days of yore, these men still have an inordinate amount of power--sometimes even in Brasilia--and most of all, inspire fear through intimidation.
Unfortunately, political corruption is so widespread that being a politician has practically become synonymous with becoming a businessman (a salient example is that of former Minas governor Newton Cardoso, who is accused of accumulating billions of reais through illicit means). Also, a legal stipulation gives immunity to members of the Brazilian Congress, allowing them to remain free of criminal charges. And often, when the extent of a politician's corruption is revealed, the media is intimidated or censored (usually on the state and city level, though more recently on the national level), and the accused goes unpunished, keeping his stolen money and status. Worst of all, some of the worst offenders are even re-elected, or go on to different posts within the government. Impunity is driven by fear.
Meanwhile, in the US, our revolution was inspired on the basis of taxation. The country started off with a dislike for British bureaucracy and "big" government. As a result, the government was founded on the idea that government itself was a necessary evil. While federalism was cobbled together, business became something of a sanctified realm, something not to be tampered with in order for it to grow and function well. As the economy thrived, American economic power helped build the government's military power, and this only helped justify the previous theory.
After the Great Depression, there was recognition that government should take on a bigger role in the economy, but business was still treated with a special sacredness. Many Americans believe the government should be small and do less (one of the most irritating parts of the health care reform debate today), and that business must remain separate from government and that it should have its own set of rules.
As a result, we have had generations of infamous corrupt businessmen, from the gangsters of the 1930s to the Italian mobsters to Enron to Bernie Madoff. Again and again, businessmen cheat in order to make the most amount of money in the shortest amount of time, and often, they get away with a slap on the wrist. But in my opinion, it's not just the high-profile executives who get caught and sentenced who are the criminals. Some businesses themselves cheat Americans and get away with it scot free, since a good portion of the country subscribes to the sacred economy theory. There are thousands of scams that continue unabated with executives unpunished, despite watchdog groups and websites, leaving gullible Americans in debt. There are companies and indeed entire sectors of the business world that operate on the notion of providing the least amount of benefit to the customer and the most amount of profit to the company (case in point, health insurance companies). A lack of stricter laws and enforcement allow dirty businesses to get away with some truly terrible things.
Here's hoping that eventually, both types of institutionalized corruption will be where they belong: in the past.
Quando escrevi sobre meus sentimentos de como é ser uma brasileira, alguém perguntou, "Mas como é ser americana? Não é a mesma coisa?" Resolvi explicar como é, para mim, ser americana, que não é exatamente a mesma coisa de ser brasileira.
Os Estados Unidos são um país dividido em dois, a diferença do Brasil, que é fragmentado. Uma maneira boa de ver isso é nos sistemas de governo: aqui, temos só dois partidos políticos principais; no Brasil, tem muitos. É uma país, de fato, de preto e branco, com pouco espaço para cinza (vem de uma expressão em inglês; não me refiro à raça--mas talvez seria mais adequado falar azul e vermelho, as cores dos partidos politícos). Somos um país onde as cicatrizes da guerra civil nunca realmente curaram. Poderia dizer que somos um país dividido entre norte e sul, mas não é tão simples assim. Somos um país dividido entre cidade e campo, entre um vizinho e outro, entre demócratas e republicanos, entre liberais e conservadores.
Por isso, ao reconhecer que somos um país dividido, posso ter orgulho das coisas boas nossas--a democracia, a segurança, a educação--e reconhecer essas coisas como minhas. Ao reconhecer as coisas ruins (a violência, a idiotice dos ignorantes, a falta de controle de armas), eu posso pensar: mas isso não forma parte do "meu" país. Isso é outro, de outro lado do muro.
Fundamentalmente, eu acho que é a politica que divide, que nos separa. Lógico que tem pessoas boas e pessoas maus, como em qualquer país. Mas são os valores políticos e morais que ficam colocando linhas de separação. Todos temos muita coisa em comum: nosso amor à liberdade, nosso gosto para toda comida com elemento artificial, nossa fascinação com reality TV, nossa concentração (attention span) de Twitter. Mas até algum ponto, acabam as semelhancas.
Somos divididos. Quando o Bush decidiu começar a guerra com Iraq, as linhas ficaram muito profundas: as pessoas que eram a favor da guerra colocaram bandeiras na frente da casa, como se não fossem patriotas se não apoiassem a guerra. Nas eleições, viramos feras. Agora com o debate sobre a reforma do sistema da saúde, fico com muita raiva das pessoas chamando Obama de Hitler, ou trazendo fuzil para reunião pacífica e democrática. Mas consigo continuar sem enlouquecer se pensar, "Mas isso não é meu Pais. Isso é dos outros."
A maior questão moral que nos separa, acho, tem a ver com a individualidade versus a coletividade. A base da mentalidade republicana é que os direitos do individuo devem ser os mais sagrados, como por exemplo: se eu fosse conservadora e não gostasse de uma coisa, você não deve ter o direito de fazer essa coisa; mas se eu quiser outro direito, eu mereço e você pode se danar. Se você está bem e feliz, porque reclamar sobre os problemas dos outros? A filosofia liberal, ao contrario, é que todos somos uma comunidade e devemos nos respeitar, compartilhar e apoiar. Que todos devemos ter os mesmos direitos e a mesma liberdade. Que todos temos o direito à vida, liberdade e a busca de felicidade--que inclui o direito à saúde, a soberania sobre o corpo e o direito de privacidade. Que ainda em um país dividido em dois, todos merecem e devem ter essas liberdades.
Mas todos sabemos que nunca nos vamos a entender. Sempre ficaremos divididos sem poder convencer o outro lado ou mudar a maneira de pensar. O melhor que conseguiremos é poder fazer compromisso.
Com o país em crise, os ultra conservadores fazendo palhaçada, ainda em estado de guerra, eu estou preocupada, mas tranquila. Estou no meu país, onde as coisas só podem melhorar.
As I continue on my job search, I've noticed different qualifications employers ask for that apply to people who have lived abroad, like the ability to work with diverse groups of people and language skills. But I've been frustrated that other qualifications seem to outweigh these skills, like having a Master's or working three years for a similar organization.
So I came up with a Top Ten list to show that people with international experience--namely, expat experience, living in a foreign country--make better employees, and perhaps, better people too.
10. Language skills: With some exceptions, many expats come home speaking a new language proficiently, if not fluently, giving them the ability to communicate, translate, and interpret. Even the exceptions--those who live in a country with the same native language--come back with an appreciation and knowledge of the local dialect and a better ability to communicate with people from that country.
9. Manners: Being polite is of the utmost importance when living abroad, especially since learning local customs is one of the most vital parts of adapting to another country. Plus, basic manners are some of the first words you tend to learn when beginning a new language: please, thank you, you're welcome, etc. Expats get into the habit of having better manners, a useful tool in being successful abroad, which carries over when they return to their home country. Having extra polite manners makes an enormous difference in how people are perceived and received, and is useful in any profession when dealing with co-workers and clients.
8. Maturity: Former expat twenty-somethings, especially those entering entry and mid-level jobs, are more likely to have a higher maturity level than those who have not lived abroad. Being obligated to deal with new, difficult situations and to get through them gracefully and successfully, as well as being exposed to totally different realities, is better than any boot camp money could buy. Those young people who have lived abroad are more likely to understand the importance of respect, obedience, and propriety than those who have not.
7. Diplomacy: After living in another country and becoming an
"honorary" local, it is easy to become an ambassador to that country
when returning home, be it for a group of friends, a company, or a
community group. Since you know the country's customs and language
well, people look to you to interact with foreigners from your former
home. After living in Argentina, who would be best suited to meet with
and coordinate first meetings with new clients from Buenos Aires? After
living in Mozambique, who would be best prepared to handle grant
recipients there? After living in the DR, who would be most appropriate
to work with Dominican patients at the local clinic?
6. Flexibility: Part of the adaptation process is becoming more flexible, learning to decide the best process based on prior experience but keeping an open mind that local solutions can work, too. You learn to pick from a variety of ways to handle challenges, and to be calmer and more understanding of things that might normally bother or upset you. An American expat in Rio once told me the most important thing he'd learned in Brazil was flexibility; the example he gave was that a man was shot at point-blank range just steps from his infant son at a local park, and that he'd learned to expect challenges like this one without losing his mind.
5. Compassion: Since moving abroad and adapting is a very difficult process, expats develop a greater capacity for compassion for people going through similar situations. Also, and perhaps more importantly, expats who live in less developed countries than their home country get a much better perspective on "how the other half lives" and a much deeper appreciation for where they come from, be it Americans living in Guatemala or Brazilians living in Angola. They also develop a greater sensitivity to the poor and marginalized, a special sense of compassion for those who have less.
4. Patience: Living in another country and adapting to a new place
requires a great deal of patience, even more so when living in a
developing country. Even after you've adapted, some countries can be
endlessly frustrating, which requires expats to work at elevating their
patience levels and learning to pick their battles more carefully.
3. Fast learners: People who lived abroad are forced to adapt to a
different culture, language, and way of living, usually in a relatively
short period of time in order to really integrate into the new country.
They learn to get used to constant, new challenges and to be able to
deal with them accordingly. Figuring out how to fix a jammed printer
will seem like a breeze after having had to learn how to flush a toilet
without running water. Plus, former expats are more willing to learn
new skills, since they are used to a constant learning process and
different learning curves.
2. Tolerance: Living abroad means having to learn to work with and
get along with not only people from the new country, but quite often
other foreigners, too. Learning to work with diverse groups of people
in an international setting is one of the greatest opportunities expats
have while living abroad, since it's an invaluable skill wherever you
end up. Also, expats frequently interact with people they might never
have interacted with before it home, be it people of different
religions, ethnic groups, or socioeconomic groups.
1. Creativity: Research shows
that people who have lived abroad are actually more creative than those
who haven't. History also shows that some of the world's most
accomplished artists and writers were those who spent time living
abroad. Expats develop a greater capacity to think creatively and to
try different ways of approaching difficult issues. Having to confront
constant challenges helps expats find newer, better ways to deal with
problems and makes them better, more efficient problem solvers.
Eline Kullock me achou através de um site de midia social e pediu para
mim escrever um post. Já que ela é uma pessoa muito simpática,
interessante e super trabalhadora (é presidente da Grupo Foco em São
Paulo), topei, e aqui está. Ela vai publicar este post no blog dela, aqui.
As pessoas gostam de falar na brecha de gerações (generation gap),
ou seja, as diferenças e distância cultural entre as gerações: a
Geração Baby Boomer (pessoas que nasceram depois da Segunda Guerra
Mundial e antes de 1960), a Geração X (pessoas que nasceram entre 1960
e 1982, a Geração Y (pessoas que nasceram entre 1982 e 1996) e a
Geração Z (pessoas nascidas depois de 1996). Mas como é diferente esse gap no Brasil e nos Estados Unidos? Ao meu ver, é o seguinte.
Tecnologia Nos
Estados Unidos, dado o tamanho grande da classe média e alta, e a
acessibilidade e preços relativamente baixos da tecnologia, todas as
gerações conseguiram entrar na modernidade tecnológica rapidamente. Já
que a tecnologia também forma parte da moda, todo o mundo quer ter a
coisa mais chique, mais avançada, mais procurada (pense no i.Phone, W.ii, e TiVo, por exemplo). A grande maioria da população, da
Geração BB ate a Geração Z é tecnologicamente alfabetizado, com acesso
regular ao computador e/ou a Internet. A revolução da tecnologia é
recente e muda muito rápido, que obriga as pessoas a aprender
constantemente a usar novas ferramentas e novos produtos.
No
Brasil, a historia é um pouco diferente. Só nos últimos 5 anos que a
classe média cresceu considerávelmente, dando acesso à tecnologia que
anteriormente não podia alcançar, como máquina de lavar, DVD e
computador próprio. Antes, a alta tecnologia foi limitada a um setor
pequeno da população. Agora, com salários mais altos, programas sociais
e políticas do governo que a maioria tem acesso à tecnologia,
principalmente à Internet. Porém, da nova classe média, os maiores
beneficiários dessa mudança são das Gerações Y e Z, deixando as
Gerações BB e X para atrás. Como antes, todas as gerações das velhas
classes média e alta têm acesso e são tecnologicamente alfabetizadas,
mas são os adultos da nova classe média que ainda estão no processo de
aprender a utilizar a tecnologia, particularmente a Internet e
programas de computador. A Orkut tem sido uma ferramenta muito útil
para esses novos usários a entender como usar a Internet, fotos
digitais e vídeos.
Mercado de trabalho Eu vejo um processo contrário acontecendo nos dois países enquanto isso: Nos
EUA, estamos na pior crise econômica desde a Grande Depressão, a pesar
de ter uma das maiores economias e ser um dos maiores poderes militares
no mundo. O impacto não e só financeiro, senão emocional também. Nossa
auto-estima está extramente baixa e não tem um clima muito optimista no
país (depois da lua-de-mel da eleição presidencial). Todas as gerações
estão sofrendo no mercado de trabalho, especialmente com cortes de
pessoal em todo setor, mas a geração que mais está sofrendo é a Geração
Y, já que muitos acabaram de entrar ou estão entrando no mercado de
trabalho em um momento muito difícil. Desde os anos 1960s até a crise,
houve uma mudança no mercado que deixaram as pessoas entrar em novas
carreiras (especialmente as mulheres), e a revolução da tecnologia
criou muitos empregos completamente novos (IT, por exemplo), deixando
as pessoas fazerem algo diferente em vez de fazer carreiras
tradicionais, como dentista ou contador. Como resultado, os jovens da
Geração Y estão sendo obrigados a se diferenciar dos demais, tentando
criar um perfil único com um conjunto de habilidades úteis. Mas já que
tem mais pessoas procurando trabalho do que vaga, em este momento é
mais seguro entrar em carreira "tradicional" como médico e engenheiro,
onde precisa de pessoas com conhecimento muito especifíco, ou voltar a
estudar, fazendo programas de maestria ou doutorado.
No Brasil,
não é assim. As gerações BB e X sofreram com instabilidade econômica,
ditadura militar, e hiperinflação, resultando (em como a Eline me
disse), em uma auto-estima muito baixa. Até recentemente, com a
estabilidade econômica e crescimento continuado da economia, a taxa de
desemprego ficava alta e era mais difícil entrar no mercado de
trabalho. Na faculdade, as pessoas fizeram carreiras práticas, como as
carreiras tradicionais que mencionei, para ter uma maior chance de
conseguir emprego. Não teve muito espaço para desejo pessoal ou
criatividade, menos que tivesse muito dinheiro. Mas agora, isso mudou.
A Geração Y, e também parte da Geração X têm acesso a um mercado de
trabalho maior, mais fluido, e mais aberto. Essas gerações têm muito
mais flexibilidade em que carreira querem escolher e mais liberdade
para trocar o caminho profissional. Esses trabalhos inovadores que
vieram da revolução da tecnologia chegaram pouco a pouco, e agora têm
uma presença importante no país, entre eles as mídias sociais e sites
na Web. A auto-estima da Geração Y está bem mais alta do que estava
para as Gerações BB e X quando eles tinham a nossa idade, e isso da uma
vantagem muito importante em um clima de esperança e crescimento.
Valores culturais Nos
Estados Unidos, temos uma história coletiva meio esquizofrénica, ou
seja, que nossa memoria histórica é bastante limitada. Tendemos viver
no momento, enfocando no presente, em vez de pensar e lembrar das
lições do passado. É assim que vivemos 3 guerras desastrosas e
fracassadas em sucessão. Uma consequência disto é que apesar do que
cada geração preserva os momentos mais importantes da história, o mais
valorizado são os de agora. Tem uma pressão sútil de conformar ao
presente e deixar o passado "onde pertence," nos livros da história e
os vídeos de preto e branco. Outra consequência é que as Gerações BB e X
tem um desejo de formar parte da Geração Y, de afirmar os
acontecimentos de agora como os deles e aceitar os novos valores. A
mudança em valores culturais é compartilhada entre todas as gerações,
em vez de ser transmitida só à Geração Y. Por exemplo, agora uma
maioria de americanos querem banir cigarro de lugares públicos, achando que fumar é ruim para a saúde e a
sociedade, apesar do que a Geração BB não pensou assim quando criança
ou jovem. Muitas mais pessoas agora acham que os homossexuais
merecem direitos iguais do que na época jovem dos BB.
No Brasil,
a história coletiva é muito mais forte. Não é só o fato dos jovens
lembrar da Copa de 1950 ou gostar da musica antiga do Gilberto Gil,
senão também lembrar da ditadura, o legado do Vargas, e o colonialismo.
A sociedade brasileira é muito mais como uma família, e por essa e
outras razões, a história é mais valorizada. Mas também vejo mudanças
mais lentas entre os valores culturais de cada geração. A Geração Y é a
mais "progressista," mas os valores mudam mais devagar do que nos EUA,
provavelmente porque tem um respeito muito maior e mais reverenciado
para os pais e avós do que nos EUA. Nos EUA, onde é mais aceitável e
até preferido rejeitar os valores dos pais; no Brasil, é mais aceitável
concordar com os valores dos pais. Por exemplo, apesar das mudanças na tecnologia, como email e SMS, ainda é preferido comunicar por telefone ou cara a cara. Mesmo que tenha comida rápida e muitas pressões no trabalho, a hora do almoço ainda tem peso, e muitos trabalhadores saem juntos para comer. Agora, com certeza, a Geração Y do
Brasil tem muitos valores culturais comparilhados com a Geração Y dos
EUA, mas os valores tradicionais também são importantes e sagrados.
This week, a controversy involving racism broke out in Brazil, on the heels of a much bigger and more serious racism controversy in the United States, and I thought it was worth a look at both to help put into context the problem of racism plays out in both countries.
Last week, preeminent Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct after police mistook him for an intruder. Gates was unable to open his front door, but with the help of his driver, they managed to shove it open, though to a woman driving by, it looked like they were breaking into the house. She called the police, who arrived on the scene after Gates had entered his house. The cop demanded ID from Gates, who gave him a hard time but gave him his identification nonetheless. He then taunted the police officer, and the officer arrested him.
Why is it a big deal? Both Gates and his driver are black, and the police and 911 caller are being accused of racism. Gates, in the meantime, is one of Harvard's most famous professors and one of the foremost academics on African Americans, so the incident was something like Gloria Steinem being arrested for being mistaken for a prostitute. Due to Gates' high profile status, the aftermath was especially embarrassing for the Cambridge police. Later, President Obama commented on the case, saying the police officer had acted "stupidly," and consequently getting a ton of flack for his comment.
Even though charges against Gates were dropped, the media has beat the story like a dead horse ever since it broke, and every pundit and blogger has chimed in to give their two cents. The incident has sparked a dialog about how far the US really has come in terms of equality and tolerance, showing that racial profiling is a serious issue and that racism exists even in our country's most liberal areas.
Now, on to Brazil.
On Sunday, comedian Danilo Gentili from the comedy show CQC posted the following comment on his Twitter:
"Agora no TeleCine King Kong, um macaco q depois q
vai p/ cidade e fica famoso pega 1 loira. Quem ele acha q é? Jogador de
futebol."
[King Kong is on TeleCine. It's about a monkey that goes to the city, gets famous and then hooks up with a blonde girl. Who does he think he is? A soccer player.]
A little context: in Brazil, the term "macaco" (monkey) is one of the most common racist terms, used to describe black Brazilians (incidentally, Brazilians always accuse Argentines of using this term to describe Brazilians, even though monkey is "mono" in Spanish. But I digress).
People responded by accusing Danilo of racism, and he lashed out, claiming his followers were the racist ones by interpreting the joke like they did, and then taking a picture of himself in a cage, adding the caption: "Obrigado pessoal. Vocês conseguiram me prender igual um macaco por denúncias de racismo." (Thanks guys. You managed to cage me like a monkey because of racism accusations.)
On Monday, he published a rambling post on his blog (aptly titled "A Racist Post"), defending himself and explaining why he felt he has the right to make racist jokes. He claims that race doesn't exist, but admitted "blacks suffer the most out of any race in Brazil." In an act far stupider than his original tweet, he rambled on defending racism, comparing human races to dog breeds and proclaiming that political correctness is the real culprit in Brazil, not racism. Most of the comments were in his favor, and a poll online shows that 76% of those polled believe the joke wasn't racist. But a few commenters pointed out just how nonsensical the whole thing was, and bloggers pounced, saying that comedians should be held responsible for the actions, especially when their young audiences are highly suspectible to bad influences.
Then, Folha announced that the Sao Paulo federal prosecutor is investigating the incident to determine whether Danilo committed a race crime, since racial discrimination is illegal in Brazil. The newspaper quoted the president of Afrobras, a Brazilian non-profit that fights racism as saying, "Isso foi indevido, inoportuno, de mau gosto e desrespeitoso.
Desrespeitou todos os negros brasileiros e também a democracia.
Democracia é você agir com responsabilidade." (This was unncecessary, wrong, in bad taste, and disrespectful. He insulted all black Brazilians and he insulted democracy. Democracy means acting responsibly.")
Instead of conceding defeat and apologizing, Danilo forged ahead, making snarky comments on his Twitter, joking he'd sue TeleCine and the director of King Kong, and that he'd sue a commenter for making a joke about rednecks. Other Twitter celebrities weighed in, making light of the whole situation and even making subtle racist jokes (a coisa ta preta, Elcio Coronato wrote in a play on words.)
So what does one incident have anything to do with another?
One thing I noticed they have in common is that a lot of people think it's not worth talking about. Some Americans are complaining that "Gatesgate" is over and nobody wants to hear about it, while some Brazilians are saying that the incident with Danilo was blown out of proportion. There's sentiment in both countries to deny that there's a problem and to ignore it. We have much bigger problems, both argue.
But the main difference between the two incidents is that in the American case, the majority of those talking about the case believe it was a racist incident, while in the Brazilian case, the majority believe it was not. While in the US, everything is black and white, in Brazil, everything is a murky blur. Americans define themselves in very specific boxes (black, white, Hispanic, Asian), while Brazilians prefer to think of themselves as Brazilians rather than defining themselves by race. Many Brazilians believe that those who point out and make racial divisions are the real racists, not those who would like to believe everyone has equal rights, and the equal chance to be made fun of. One of the common threads in the reactions to the incident was that politicians supporting racial quotas are the real racists in Brazil, not someone making a joke at the expense of blacks.
While the US struggles with racism after a civil war and a civil rights movement, Brazil likes to purport itself as a racial democracy where the color of one's skin doesn't matter, though that is not in fact the case. Many Americans tend to be much more definitive in what they believe (racists vs. PC people), while Brazilians dislike conflict and don't like to take a stand on controversial issues. As a result, the Gates incident stirred up a lot of tension, while the Danilo incident had people buzzing to play down the seriousness of the affair.
Both incidents have started a dialog about race and racism in the US and Brazil, but what remains to be seen is if anything constructive will come out of either of them.
