Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Brazilian Constitution Forbids Calling Blacks "Monkeys"
Share: 
by francislholland | August 14, 2009 at 05:27 pm
345 views | 0 Recommendations | 6 comments
Brazilian Constitution Forbids "Racist" Speech and Behavior
According to an article at NowPublic.com,
A doll depicting an African-American child wearing a hat
that reads "lil' monkey" was pulled from Costco shelves following a customer complaint. The toy, called "Cuddle with Me", features several ethnicities (if plastic has an ethnicity) of dolls in cutesy outfits, packaged with plush monkeys. The Brass Key, the company that makes the Cuddle with Me dolls, also has a "Pretty Panda" version on the shelves, which has not been pulled. The Brass Key has issued a public apology to any they may have offended.
Color-aroused antagonistic behaviors are illegal in Brazil. The Brazilian Constitution says;
XLI - a lei punirá qualquer discriminação atentatória dos direitos e liberdades fundamentais; The Law will punish all discrimination against fundamental rights and liberties.
XLII - a prática do racismo constitui crime inafiançável e imprescritível, sujeito à pena de reclusão, nos termos da lei; The practice of racism constitutes a crime not subject to bail, punishable by imprisonment, according to the terms of the Law.
The Brazilian Constitution continues,
XLVI - a lei regulará a individualização da pena e adotará, entre outras, as seguintes:
The law shall regulate the individualization of pentalties and will impose, among others, the following
a) privação ou restrição da liberdade; privation or restriction of liberty;
b) perda de bens; the loss of material things of value;
d) prestação social alternativa; requirement that social service be performed.;
e) suspensão ou interdição de direitos; suspension or privation of rights.
Although Brazilian Law has its own way of determining when acts of "racism" have been committed, e.g. when witnesses recount color-based antagonistic words or actions taken by the defendant, I prefer to analyze the acts of Costco in terms of the color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior that occurred. My preference is based on the knowledge that "race" does not exist, as a matter of DNA science, according to the Human Genome Project, and therefore it is impossible to discriminate against a person based on their "race". (It is possible to engage in color-aroused acts based on the belief that races exist, however. In legal terms, this is called "imputed race".)
I think the fact that this doll was manufactured, distributed and offered for sale is evidence that:
- · someone had color-aroused ideation (they associated Black people with monkeys based upon the color of our brown skin);
- · and they had color-aroused emotion (knowing that this would be offensive to people with brown skin, they made the doll anyway with the intention of expressing contempt, hatred, or mire);
- · and the corporation engaged in several color-aroused behaviors, (including the manufacture, distribution and sale of this doll).
Color-aroused behaviors, including color-aroused speech, are illegal in Brazil. It is illegal in Brazil to call someone a "monkey" or a "roach without its shell", associated with their skin color. If it were illegal in the United States as well, we would all live in a greater sense of peace.
Meanwhile, Costco says it apologizes to those who were offended. It ought also
apologize to the entire country. In fact, the mere suggestion that there are some people who were not offended by this color-aroused antagonistic act is an insult to and an indictment of the people of the United States of America that should not be permitted but should instead be immediately and significantly punished.
Everyone at Costco who participated in this act of color-aroused antagonistic behavior should be punished for commercializing color-aroused ideation, emotions and behavior.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (6)
at 18:04 on August 14th, 2009
Your concern is understandable, but I don't know how many people even noticed the toys at CostCo. I have been to CostCo twice in a month and a half, and I never saw these dolls. My wife and mother-in-law would have objected, but, like me, they go straight to what they need to buy and stay out of the toy dept.
I believe that Freedom of Speech precludes such laws as you have in Brazil. I would not change the US constitution to make an exception for that.
On that basis, Malcolm X would have been arrested as well as any number of KKK members spouting racism.
We argue against such speech. We don't arrest the people.
at 19:07 on August 14th, 2009
I think the American belief in the perfection of our Constitution is not supported by the Civil War, the necessity for the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, and the suffrage movement that won for women the right to vote.
How can a country live without an absolute right to free speech? How can a country be free without calling others "monkeys"? I guess you'd have to visit Brazil to realize that the right to live free of color-based insults and actions is more important than the any "right" to engage in color-based insults and actions.
As for those who were able to enter Costo without seeing this doll, that's probably because they are adults whereas dolls are made for impressionable and vulnerable children. If you don't go to the Zoo when you visit the Bronx, you might never know of all the species the zoo includes. But your obliviousness to the zoo doesn't make the animals any less real.
at 19:08 on August 14th, 2009
The doll is gone and Brazilians don't have anybody of color at the top compared to the US. Racism is very much a part of Brazilian life.
at 19:54 on August 14th, 2009
That's quite true, what Roy C says about Brazil lacking Blacks in positions of power. And it's also true that systemic and interpersonal color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior are pervasive part of Brazilian life that Brazilians often deny.
However, it is still illegal in Brazil to cast aspersions upon others based upon their skin color and this leads to a more civil society, at least facially. This business of having weekly national flareups over color-aroused insults that is so much a part of US life doesn't occur to the same degree, because obvious acts of color-aroused insult are simply illegal and people are immediately arrested if the evidence supports it.
If anyone thinks that the United States will overcome its color-aroused antagonism while some still call others "monkeys" with impunity, that is an unrealistic expectation. For so long as people are free to spout color-aroused antagonistic insults at one another, the country will continue to be an obvious and open sewer of color-aroused antagonism.
I guarantee you that it's actually a positive thing to live in a country where people check themselves before spewing forth with words expected and intended to hurt others based on their skin color. It's a big relief. It's just as much of a relief as living in a country where assault and battery are illegal.
Imagine if an amendment to the US Constitution has given us each a right to assault and batter our neighbors without Government interference. Where is the freedom of expression if we are not allowed to batter our neighbors about the face when we want to?
at 19:58 on August 14th, 2009
We check ourselves. My wife got more insults in Rome in three years than in the previous 15 in Los Angeles.
There is a level of sensitivity that didn't exist when my wife and I were kids.
at 20:55 on August 14th, 2009
That's curious, Roy. Is your wife Black?
A Black woman searching for a job in Italy told me that when she went to the Italian doorman to announce that she had come for a job interview, the doorman refused to call the office and manager who would be conducting the interview. Only by calling the manager on a cellphone and informing him that she was downstairs was my Black woman acquaintance able to get to her interview.
On the other hand, I lived in France and traveled to Italy over the course of 30 months and was never harrassed there by the police as I have been constantly stopped and harrassed in the United States. The problem with harrassment under color of law is that the police officers, onstensibly acting to enforce laws, have so much more power than the occasional anus whom one meets in Italy and France.
The simple fact that Europe is not awash with the guns that the US Second Amendment practically compels makes Europe a safer place to live than the United States. Meanwhile, the US 2nd Amendment guarantee that you can buy guns at Wal-Mart is flooding Mexico with weapons that are killing thousands of people each year. Even in Brazil, the firearms used to commit crimes are often produced in the United States.
I can't tell anyone else what country is "better" for them. I can only say that I personally have experienced less official harrassment in the northeast of Brazil than anywhere except Vermont when I was in the United States.
Just as one example, white people in the United States have historically engaged eagerly in all manner of subterfuge and obstruction to prevent Blacks from voting, and the practice continues. There are enough Black men banned from voting based on convictions to easily determine the result of an election. And in the United States, one has to register to vote and perpetually take care not to be purged from the voting roles.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, voting or at least going to the polls on election day is compulsory, even for Black people. (Yes, the Government and the Constitution want Blacks to vote instead of endeavoring to prevent us from doing so.) People who don't vote or at least go to the polls are barred from jobs, credit, and many other things that do NOT include being barred from free public health care.
Brasil encourages and requires the population to show up at the polls whereas in the United States it is unusual for much more than 50% of the population to bother to participate in even presidential elections. Some barriers to voting are absolute bars in the United States, such as some of those based on criminal convictions.