Skip to content


Ghettos of multiculturalism – Leão Alves

While accusations of racism and xenophobia are launched against national resistance to the communist-neoliberal project that is undermining democracies and flinging open the European, US and also Brazil borders to mass immigration, many people, especially outside Latin America, unaware of the apartheid system deployed in the region and, almost always promoted by the same anti-Mestizo multiculturalist groups, that have been extended on the basis of ethnic cleansing, racial segregation, immigrantism, indigenism and ghettoization.

The anthropologist Vesna Vučinić-Nešković, a professor at the University of Belgrade, Serbia, and chair of the World Council of Anthropological Associations (WCAA), wrote a letter on behalf of the network – http://www.wcaanet.org/downloads/submissions/WCAA letter on Guarani situation.pdf – to the ruler of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, in support of the protests of the Associação Brasileira de Antropologia (ABA) against the treatment Guaranis would be receiving from the Brazilian State:

“I am writing on behalf of the World Council of Anthropological Associations (WCAA), a global network of fifty two national, regional and international professional anthropological associations. I am writing to endorse the Associaçāo Brasileira de Antropologia’s formal statement of protest against the treatment of the Guarani Kayowá and Guarani Ñandeva Indigenous Peoples, in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, by the Brazilian National State.“

Although some are being more mistreated than others in Brazil, with the exception of Workers’ Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores, in Portuguese), allied parties and supporters, all persons are being very badly treated by the Federal Government and even among government supporters, not always because the most praiseworthy reasons, there are also complaints and murmurs.

The letter from anthropologist bounces off the pressures of these supporters segments: groups that do not differ ideologically the government’s racial policy, but criticize it while work together pressing to accelerate the deployment of multiculturalism in Brazil.

“As is well known, these communities are engaged in securing and protecting their traditional lands, and as a result have come under severe armed attack, ultimately backed by agribusiness interests and others, in what amounts to a war against these ethnic groups. The Brazilian Federal Government, according to the 1988 Constitution of Brazil, is obligated both to protect and to safeguard indigenous lands. Despite that constitutionally mandated requirement, such protection on the part of the government seems to be largely absent.“

It is important emphasize, especially for readers outside Latin America, that the indigenist movement is not an Indian movement, but a white movement, not assuming, however, as such. Both in its origin and in its leaders, intellectuals and local funding sources there is a marked predominance of whites, immigrants and descendants. A visit to the great indigenist sites allows show that the same can be said of its sponsors and supporters outside Latin America.

In Brazil and other Latin American countries that received large numbers of European immigrants, they and their descendants had two main positions: one, the integration and mestization; another, ethnic isolation and hostility against denizens, especially non-whites. With the rise of multiculturalism, the isolationists ascended in power and gained new impetus for its ambitions. While in Europe are expanding ethnic ghettos, in Brazil there is already a Workers’ Party project  for the creation of “white territories” under the candid claim of defense of preservation of immigrant descendants communities culture and the revealing principle of “racial identity” preservation.

The indigenist propaganda, however, places as preferred opponents of its project the “white men” and the big farmers. In fact, it has not seen the ruralism make an opposition to the indigenism itself; his criticisms are more often claims against the size and number of areas converted to “indigenous territories”. The racist character of the indigenist movement is rarely cited by ruralists. There is a ruralist indigenism; one of its main leaders is the current Minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply of the Dilma Rousseff’s government.

What not appear on indigenist propaganda is the fact that the poor and Mestizo populations are the main victims of ethnic cleansing, both in Brazil and in other Latin American countries. In Nicaragua, for example, they use used the term “saneamiento” (sanitation) for the expulsion of Mestizos; in Brazil, they use the term also offensive “desintrusão” (expel the intruder).

Apartheid was transformed into constitutional rule in Brazil by action of indigenist lobby; there were European anthropologists and leftist politicians among the lobbyists. Similar to the “homelands” of the South African apartheid, the “indigenous territories” in Brazil are owned by Union and are exclusive. Thus, the Union undertakes to banish the not Indian populations in order to avoid mestization and promote diversity.

“Brazil is known world-wide for its long and notable history of recognition of and respect for the rights of its Indigenous population, which together constitute a unique heritage of human diversity under one single nation-state (more than 305 different indigenous peoples speaking around 274 different languages). Given that record, we are deeply concerned about the silence of the Brazilian government and its failure so far to honour this tradition of ensuring the rights of Brazilian Indigenous peoples. The threats against Indigenous peoples are various, but those affecting the Guarani are now among the most aggressive and extreme.“

The diversity remained for centuries without the existence of official ethnic boundaries, but for the indigenism is not possible to preserve the Indian peoples without isolating them, a typical argument of Verwoerdism. Goes further, inspired by the white man Lévi-Strauss, almost a sacred entity in indigenist anthropology and a reference for institutions such as UNESCO. For the French anthropologist who left records of his disenchantment with mestization when traveling through Brazil, diversity itself is higher than the homogeneity and this would be stagnant – that is, mestization leads to stagnation. This speech obviously come to the liking of those who wish, by the promotion of diversity, preserve the white race against mestization. In this sense, the indigenism renews European imperialism in the Americas, creating legal obstacles in order to avoid spontaneous mestization process, which was also a voluntary construction of native peoples.

Inventive, the indigenism has managed to the “resurgence” of Indian peoples, as a rule by the identity change of Mestizo populations.

The Federal Government, to expand diversity, has encouraged immigration – with special attention to the European, addressed to specialized functions, and to the Haitian, which has received most media attention – at the same time trying to reduce the fecundity and fertility in the Mestizo population in one of the countries with the lowest population density in the world.

“As anthropologists who are dedicated to understanding and protecting Indigenous rights we appeal to the Brazilian government to reconsider its current policies and act according to the principles established by Brazilian law and international conventions.”

One of these, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, says in his art. III:

“States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.”

The conventions against racism generally advocate the integration of minorities in national culture and society and equal rights of citizens before the State. The multiculturalist movement, however, has sought to approve conventions such as the 169 ILO, going in the opposite direction, ie, the fragmentation of society, the isolation of the groups and rights distinction between citizens. The goal is the occupation by NGOs (and their masters) of State functions, gaining influence and power of this on the population.

Encouraging immigration is not intended, as racists state in Europe, to promote mestization. Mestization is homogenizing, generates group identity, and multiculturalism do not want this, but the fragmentation of society. Therefore it encourages miscegenation since it serves to produce individuals with weak or no sense of group, which is not the case in most Latin American nations in which mestization is a fundamental element of national identity.

In December 2015, again taking advantage of the Christmas period, Ms. Dilma Rousseff has created four new Bantustans in State of Amazonas, which already has more than a third of its territory occupied by similar others. They are close to the municipalities of Autazes and Careiro da Várzea, Mestizos territories officially recognized by the action of the Mestizo people resistance. Bantustans mean new expulsions of Mestizo populations, systematically, including children. Threats to stay landless and homeless (really) are an incentive for many to “transform” into Indians. A scheduled, planned marginalization, carefully designed by the new architects of apartheid.

Leão Alves is a former president of Movimento Pardo-Mestiço Brasileiro (Nação Mestiça).

Posted in Artigos, Leão Alves.

Tagged with .


0 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.



Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.

Anti-Spam by WP-SpamShield