Neither Black Nor White: Bondage And Race Relations In Brazil And The United States. Essay, Research Paper
Neither Black nor White by Carl N Degler ( The MacMillan Company, New York: 1971 ) is a comparative analysis of the developments of bondage, with an accent on crossbreeding between the United States and Brazil during the Colonial period. This work is an effort to understand the nature of black and white dealingss in the United States by seeing such dealingss in a different national and societal context. Mr. Degler & # 8217 ; s original purpose was to compare all of Latin American bondage to that of the United States, but after recognizing the enormous range of such a undertaking, chose to restrict his analysis to a individual Latin American state. Brazil was selected because it rivaled the United States in size and because bondage played a major function in its history. Mr. Degler originally began researching this subject with the purpose of composing a scholarly essay to be published in a scholarly diary, but shortly became fascinated with the subject and decided to turn the essay into a book. Mr. Degler engaged in composing this book with two inquiries in head ; Did slavery in Brazil differ well from that of the United States? And What accounted for the different development of race crossbreeding in Brazil and the United States? Initially, Degler ascribed to the theory laid out by old historiographers, that Slavery in South America was more humane, because of the understanding of the Catholic Church towards bondage, and Portuguese Laws, which recognized the human rights of slaves. Believed to be in direct contrast with American bondage, which held that slaves were chattel belongings and possessed no rights the jurisprudence was required to acknowledge. The Historians credited with progressing this place were ; Frank Tannenbaum in his book Slave and Citizen: The Negro in the Americas ( Alfred A. Knopf, New York: 1946 ) and Stanley M. Elkins in his book Bondage: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life ( Chicago University Press: 1959 ) . However, after farther scrutiny Mr. Degler changes his sentiment and within the text of his book Neither Black nor White, nowadayss data that substantiates the claim, that there was small or no difference in the legal definition of bondage between Brazil and the United States. He besides argues that Brazilian bondage was physically harsher, thereby less humane, than that of the United States. The writer offers six chapters in an attempt to back up his decisions. Chronologically outlined the chapters are ; The Challenge of the Contrast, Slavery Compared, The Outer Burdens of Color, The Roots of Difference, and A Contrast in the Future?
The intent of chapter One is two define the contrasts in background between Brazil and the United States. Degler consistently examines several subjects including: history, instruction, literature, ocular humanistic disciplines, segregation, and technology. Within each subject Mr. Degler gives concise illustrations of how Brazil embraced Negro parts where American opposite numbers either suppressed or wholly negated the possibility of Negro part. By exemplifying the differences between the two states, the writer is fixing the reader to research the inquiry ; how did states with similar systems of slavery develop such different political orientations with respects to the credence of Negroes in society.
The Second and lengthiest chapter of Mr. Degler & # 8217 ; s book is entitled, Slavery Compared. As the rubric suggests the writer closely compares bondage between the two states. The footing for his scrutiny is the 19th century. The two factors that facilitated the choice of this clip period where, that bondage was good established in both states, and a wealth of grounds existed for doing the comparing, during the clip period. Under the sub-title, Who Protects the Slave & # 8217 ; s Humanity? The writer chronicles the fact that there was virtually no difference in the legal definition of a slave between the two states. This is offered in contrast to one of the diehard statements ( Tannenbaum & A ; Elkins ) , which asserts that Brazilian jurisprudence did non see slaves as movable belongings like their American opposite number, thereby doing Brazilian jurisprudence more humane. As grounds he cites tribunal records from both Brazil and the United States, which grants slaves double position, as belongings and as individuals. After admiting the superior lucidity in which Brazilian jurisprudence recognizes the human rights of slaves, he focuses on the protection of slaves from unfair intervention by their Masterss under the jurisprudence in both states, which he asserts meant nil due to the fact that plantation proprietors operated with practical namelessness with respects to the intervention of slaves, once more in both states.
The traditional position besides holds that the Catholic Church was responsible for doing slavery more humane in Brazil by leting slaves to fall in folds, form spiritual fraternal brotherhoods and acknowledging matrimonies. In refute of this point, Degler argues that like the authorities of Brazil, the Catholic Church was non in any place to impact a important figure of slaves, mentioning the fact that many slaves merely came into contact with curates one time a twelvemonth. The writer & # 8217 ; s sentiment seems to be that the differences between Brazil and the United States with respect to the jurisprudence and faith existed on paper and in philosophy but non in actuality.
Brazil contained a significantly larger population of free inkinesss than that of the United States. Traditionalists espouse the big figure of free inkinesss in Brazil to intend that Brazil was more accepting of free inkinesss. However, Degler attributes the big figure of free inkinesss in Brazil to
three factors. The first, being that there were merely more slaves in Brazil hence ensuing in more manumissions. The 2nd factor being the pattern of Portuguese slave proprietors liberating sick, elderly or crippled slaves in an attempt to ditch future duties, financially or otherwise. The 3rd factor Degler attributes is the credence of free people irrespective of colour by the Portuguese ; they did non fear agitation or reprisal from free inkinesss as their white opposite numbers in America. He offers the fact that there were occupations that needed to be preformed by free inkinesss and as a consequence, the Portuguese had no major scruples about manumissions. Chapter two concludes with the difference in bondage between the United States and Brazil being attributed to demographic, geographic and economic grounds, instead than as Tannenbaum and Elkins suggest, Religion or Law.
The 3rd chapter is entitled The Outer Burdens of Color. This chapter seeks to compare the modern-day challenges faced by Brazilians and Americans with respect to racial makings. Within the sub-topic Who is a Negro, professor Degler clearly defines the term I the two states. In North America the term is used to depict anyone who contains any mensurable sum of black blood. In contrast Brazilians merely sort persons with pure African blood as Negroes, reserving particular classs for anyone who fall in between. A term used to depict the assorted racial mixtures is Mulatto. This term has changing grades harmonizing to Mr. Degler based on discernible features. The writer does admit the being of negative attitudes towards inkinesss on Brazil. The writer goes on to recite that favoritism in Brazil is more covert than in the United States and he cites the location of people of colour at the underside of the societal and economic pyramids. He offers several first manus illustrations of favoritism in modern-day Brazil. Looking highly contradictory at best. Mr. Degler ends chapter three without concretely sketching the causes of favoritism in Brazil. Chapter four: The Inner Burdens of Color focuses on the psychological realisations that dark skinned Brazilians and Americans place on themselves. Degler contends that coloured people in Brazil accept their topographic point in society and do non seek to do issues about being included or the deficiency at that place of. Dark skinned peoples are reported to hold low ego regard, and seaport bitterness toward being dark and holding an fondness for the igniter skinned persons. Degler concludes that if a dark individual improves his batch he will indelibly seek to divide himself as far from similar composites people as possible. A charge many no scholarly black common people have been doing for old ages in the United States. & # 8220 ; In Brazil, as in the United States, the better educated, the more adept, and the wealthier part of the coloured population are mulattoes. Thankss to the mulatto flight hatch, nevertheless these natural, possible leaders are encouraged to see themselves as different-indeed better-Negroes. & # 8221 ; Degler credits the separation of the colored in Brazil as the ground for the deficiency of motion or political organisation in Brazil along racial lines. However the fact that all colored in the United States are considered Negro so this perpetuates the societal and political formation of organisations aimed at bettering the batch of all inkinesss. Harmonizing to probate and literary grounds interracial matrimony is frowned upon in Brazil as in the United States. Mr. Degler & # 8217 ; s try describes and explains the causes for the niceties between black and Whites in Brazil falls enormously short. However an applaud able attempt was given to the undertaking.
In the staying two chapters Mr. Degler confronts and recaps his statements refering The Historical Dimension, The Presence of the Mulatto and his flight hatch, and Political and National Ideologies.
In summing up of Mr. Degler attempts to reply his two chief inquiry ; & # 8220 ; to find if bondage in Brazil differed from that in the United States? & # 8221 ; and to & # 8220 ; history for the difference in race dealingss in Brazil and the United States? & # 8221 ; Maxine Margolis in her review of Mr. Degler & # 8217 ; s book contends, & # 8220 ; hHesucceeds in his first end & # 8221 ; but is & # 8220 ; less successful in his effort to explicate the contrasting characteristics of modern-day race dealingss in Brazil and the United States. & # 8221 ; I agree with Mrs. Margolis & # 8217 ; s sentiment. It is my belief that he fails in the latter of his two inquiries because of the distinctive feature and sensitiveness of the inquiry that in my sentiment has no blanketing account but instead a series of fortunes and state of affairs that form from assorted experiences that are perpetuated my discriminatory patterns which continue to this twenty-four hours, both in Brazil and the United States. As for Mr. Degler himself he sees the key difference in race dealingss between Brazil and the United provinces as difference of the position of the mulatto. He feels that out of this racial divide separate race dealingss grew in each state. Degler was awarded the Pulitzer Prize, a distinguished literary award, for his survey on race dealingss in Brazil and the United States. Professor Degler is married with two kids and lives in Stanford California. He is presently a Professor of History at Stanford University. & # 8220 ; This work needs to be read by all those concerned with race dealingss in the Western Hemisphere. & # 8221 ;
Critical Book Review
Degler, Carl N. Neither Black nor White: Bondage and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States.
Bibliography
Degler, Carl N. Niether Black nor White: Bondage and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States. The MACMILLIAN COMPANY, NEW YORK 1971.
