Going to the parade in Pujili brought up some more questions for me about what is and isn't racist. For one, if something is considered racist in the US, does that automatically mean it is racist in another country? There were two kinds of costumes in the parade where people who aren't black dressed up as black. Jordan and I debated whether they are racist and ultimately decided one is and one isn't. I'd be interested to hear if you agree.
The above photo is from a performance of a coastal dance from the northwest of Ecuador. Everyone familiar with Ecuadorian geography knows that this is the area in Ecuador with the largest population of Afroecuatorianos. Since this is an Afroecuatoriano dance and the man painted black is simply performing the dance we decided this isn't racist. Ideally, the parade would have included actual people from Esmereldas (the province in the northwest), but in many ways this picture shows a celebration of one of the many cultures of Ecuador.
This second photo is of one of the men performing in the section of the parade that included a group of men in clown suits and black face. To us, this is racist. Why the clown suits? Why the silly dances not based in culture (or at least not clearly based in culture) like the other performances? Why the gold tribal-like painting on the faces? (And why is Ecuador spelled wrong in the photo on the left?)
Supposedly, this performace was loosely tied to the Mama Negra celebration from the nearby town of Lactacunga. Each year a new man is awarded the title of Mama Negra and dresses up as a woman and in black face. I missed this celebration this past fall so I cannot say for sure whether or not it is offensive. However, based on the discrimination against black Ecuadorians we've witnessed elsewhere, the idea of people "playing" black does bother me. I know racial relations in Ecuador have improved and I wonder as they continue to do so if this tradition will be changed or eradicated altogether?
It is such a hard topic. I know Argentina has some ways to go also. But I always have a hard time with this. Since I live in the US now, I notice that people here are also racist, but in a more subtle way, like they learnt the rules and know how to play the game, instead of being 'brutally honest', does it make sense to you?
Posted by: Veronica TM | June 22, 2006 at 11:23 AM
i see the difference in the 2 analysis' & agree... i am so curious as to your thoughts of our country's racism upon your return! hard to see when you are so IN the culture.
Posted by: mati | June 22, 2006 at 12:04 PM
It's hard to tell what the intentions are behind the paint. If you ask me, racism is racism wherever you go and pic #2 would definitely have racist intent in my book. Considering that "blackface" was used in the 20's and 30's as a way to demean Black people, I'm sure other cultures use it the same way- even today.
Posted by: Yah | June 22, 2006 at 08:01 PM
For ecuadorians both examples are not racist. Well, it is actually very difficult to say what is and is not racist in Ecuador because nobody really talks about the subject.
I would like to see an afroecuadorian "Martin Luther King" or a native ecuadorian (indio) "King Jr.", but as soon as any "minority" well educated leader speaks up, he/she is shut down as if he/she didn't know what he was talking about.
Ecuadorians are raised racist, to the point that "we" don't even know what is racist anymore. The easy way to put somebody down is to tell them that they are more "indio" o "negro" than you... absolutely disgusting!
I just love how my afroecuadorians are the ones making us feel proud in Germany. Go Delgados, Tenorios and Hurtados!... Go "Valle del Chota"!
PS: And why is Esmeraldas spelled wrong?? ;). The name comes from the "emerald" (esmeralda) precious stone.
Posted by: Jose Andrade | June 23, 2006 at 08:00 PM
Racism is an ideological concept. Now, to discriminate what is and what isnt racist, i'd advise you to sink in some anthropological literature, since it's the science that studies the humane phenomena from all the points of view, and aims to be objective. To interpretate wether such cultural manifestation is consider racist, one must think from where he's standing. Considered racist by who, the performers? the spectators?, and to arrive to any answer that pretends to be objective, there has to be more research than plain observation, since the underlying reasons are lost in translation. Why do they do such performance? what's the myth, or cultural explanation they find? is one racist for painting his white face black, or is it offensive to reenact a traditional dance and ignore the pride in having black skin...how do they feel when they do it, and what is it that they try to comunicate... I hope that wideness the view! (ps. english is not my mother languaje, i apologise for any mistakes..)
Posted by: GC. | June 24, 2006 at 10:16 AM
That's very interesting...while at first glance I thought the second man's facepaint and costume was kind of beautiful, I agree with you. As you pointed out, there is a difference between performances rooted in, and exploring aspects of, certain cultures, and performances that just seem to imitate cultures in a mocking way. Especially since you said race relations are heated down there, such things can't be seen as harmless or neutral.
Posted by: Julia | June 24, 2006 at 09:27 PM
i think this is a great conversation. i agree with julia, in terms of how blackface is doing something within a sensitive climate that can´t really be nuetral. it makes me think of how in the states i might not be as offended by native american sports mascots if native people were treated better and had a better standing in society. (and i do say might). instead, now there are a bunch of high school, college, and pro sports teams that have these kinds of mascots (and fans who dress up as a cheap stereotype of this cultural figure while partying in the stands). and of course folks who defend the mascot often say that it pays homage to the indigenous culture...i´m not saying this is exactly like the parade, but it is ugly bafoonery.
and while i do think anthropological lit might deepen the conversation about race, or at least make it more academic, i don´t think there´s anything wrong with chatting about the issue from experiences--i saw such and such and this is what i felt. this morning i was listening to bob dylan: you don´t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows ...chao.
Posted by: jordan | June 25, 2006 at 06:39 PM