by John Fitzpatrick

Religion and race are subjects columnists should approach with care, or perhaps even avoid completely. Both subjects raise passions, and passions, by their very nature, are not rational qualities. Both areas are also fertile ground for bigotry and prejudice and an inability to see the other points of view. Here in Brazil, religion is officially separated from the state and should, therefore, not enter political arena. However, this does not happen.

For example, crucifixes are frequently found in public and private buildings, including notary offices, courtrooms and even banks. Both the Catholic church, through the National Bishops Conference, and the various ecumenical Protestant sects, through political parties in some cases, make their views known. Two of Brazil´s leading politicians – vice president, Jose Alencar, and former presidential candidate, Anthony Garotinho, are closely associated with evangelical groups. The Workers Party (PT) which President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva founded 25 years ago has had a long connection with the more radical wing of the Catholic Church and “liberation theology” is still supported by some PT members and priests although the late Pope John Paul made his disapproval clear.   

Race, on the other hand which you might imagine would play an important part in politics, does not. Let us look at two recent events involving both areas and the political overtones and undertones.

Official Period of Mourning for Pope
The death of the Pope on April 3 led Lula to declare a state of national mourning and take a large official party to the funeral. The national mourning may have led to flags being flown at half mast but that was about it. Considering that Brazil is the biggest Catholic country in the world, with an estimated Catholic population of 120 million, one might have expected a greater popular emotion but there was none. There were, of course, requiem masses all over the country but I saw no real feeling just as I saw no real feeling after the terrorist attacks in the United States in September 2001. For example, just after the official announcement of the Pope´s death at around 4.35 p.m. I walked to a nearby church where I knew a mass would be held at 6 p.m. However, instead of a normal mass preparations were continuing for a wedding – and certainly not a requiem mass. Dozens of pretty bridesmaids and guests were waiting outside, the usual bunch of “valets”, as car parking attendants are called here, were illegally parking cars on nearby pavements, and a popcorn seller had set up his stand.

No-one could expect a wedding to be cancelled just because of this cruel coincidence but you would think the church might have anticipated the event since it had been obvious for days that the Pope was dying. Although the church is very large and contains a separate chapel which could have been prepared, there was not even a picture of the Pope, no book of condolences or anything which would serve as an immediate source of comfort to a grieving Catholic. The following morning I went to another church expecting it to be packed but it was half full, with the usual noisy comings and goings which mark the casual approach Brazilians take to religion. When a relative in Europe later assumed that Brazil must have been in deep mourning I could only give a hollow laugh.

And if Lula thought he would be applauded for taking a large party, made up of various politicians and religious leaders, to the Vatican he was wrong. Brazilians saw the trip as another junket. The archbishop of Rio de Janeiro, Cardinal Eusebio Scheid, even criticized Lula´s faith by claiming that he was "caótico, não católico" (chaotic not a Catholic) and was trying to gain a political advantage from the situation. Maybe the churchman´s comment was just a bad pun but many observers saw it as an impertinent lapse and he subsequently pack-pedaled a bit.

Lula himself did not hesitate to enter the fray by describing himself as “a man of great faith”. Later, after taking communion at the Pope´s requiem mass Lula claimed that he was without sin and was, therefore, in a fit state to receive the sacrament. (Non-Catholic readers should know that it is forbidden to receive the communion sacrament if you are in a state of mortal sin which includes, for example, not attending mass every week.) For good measure, he also revealed that he had been an altar boy. Perhaps all of this was just a storm in a teacup but it showed that religion and politics are still delicate areas.

Apology for the Slave Trade
Race has also been a factor of late. During his latest trip to Africa (his fourth since coming to power) Lula made a kind of apology for the slave trade although no-one had asked him to do so. During a visit to a museum on Goree island in Senegal on April 14 Lula said: “I was not responsible for what happened in the 16^th, 17^th and 18^th centuries. However, I believe it is good policy to say to the people of Senegal and the people of Africa – sorry for what we did to the black people.” According to news reports, many members of the Brazilian delegation (virtually all of whom were white) were moved to tears by this visit so perhaps Lula just got carried away. However, his “apology” did not go down well at home since many Brazilian commentators prefer to forget about the shameful way in which black people were and still are treated.

These commentators may have a point in saying that Lula had no right to apologize since slavery has not existed in Brazil since 1988. However, a little more appreciation of their own history would show that Brazil maintained slavery for almost 70 years after gaining its independence from Portugal in 1832 and was one of the last countries in the world to abolish slavery. Many of these commentators are also vehement in their opposition to quota systems in universities and colleges to give black and mixed race Brazilians a better chance of higher education. Since virtually all of them are descendants of white Europeans who emigrated here of their own free will as opposed to descendants of black Africans who were kidnapped and treated like animals, they can have no idea of how black and mixed race Brazilians feel over this issue.

It was ironic that on the very day Lula was in Africa an incident involving race exploded like a volcano and showed the hypocrisy about this subject which is prevalent here. During a football match between São Paulo and the Argentinean team, Quilmes, a Brazilian player called Grafite was sent off after a clash with a member of the other side. Grafite later claimed that the Argentinean player had made a racist slur. Grafite, whose nickname refers to his color and mixed blood, is someone who gives as good (if not more) than he gets on the field and it is difficult he see him being as upset by an insult as he claims. To everyone´s amazement the Argentinean was arrested when the game ended and spent the night and the following day in custody. The whole affair became a media circus with windbags pontificating about the evils of racism and claiming that Brazil had shown the world how to combat it. In fact, the episode was nothing more than an attempt to goad the Argentineans. Brazilians have always resented being called “monkeys” by Argentineans and see it as a racist epithet.

If Brazil really wants to show its concern at racist abuse then we will need squads of policemen attending every single game and we can expect to see about half the players arrested (including black and mixed race players) and thrown into a dank cell and treated like criminals, as happened to the unfortunate Argentinean. The next step will be to outlaw common terms of address like “negão”, “neguinho”, “neguinha” and “bahiano” which all refer to a person´s color or “japa” (for people of Japanese descent) or, of course, “gringo” which is used to disparagingly to describe any fair-skinned American or European.

(c) John Fitzpatrick 2005