The Left Turn

Twenty years ago, it was much easier to describe the economic organization of Latin American countries. The debt crisis, which spawned the so-called “lost decade” of the 1980s, had given the final blow to the import substituting industrialization (ISI) project. characterized by both the dirigiste dogma, in words of Deepak Lal’s (in)famous book-title, and an inward-looking development strategy. The economic chaos was so profound that something had to be done, and quickly. Sooner or later, all countries would swallow the “bitter pill” of pro-market reforms, better known as the Washington Consensus, to a greater or lesser extent. Even Cuba had to give in, although it hardly became Latin America’s China, neither in terms of economic success, nor in terms of the breadth and width of its pro-market reforms.

At first, everything seemed to go well. After decades of suffocation, market forces were finally released, under the auspicious and watchful eyes of the IMF and the World Bank, unleashing a very promising economic future. The 1994 Tequila crisis was a major complication (and scare) for the region’s economies, but it was effectively contained by the jumping in of various actors of international financial institutions. The Asian crisis, however, was a whole different story. The damage it caused to the Latin American economies was considerable. For instance, in Argentina, it triggered a chain reaction of events which eventually would lead to the collapse of its economic organization, accompanied by public rejection, and a dramatic rise in the poverty levels. In other countries, like Chile, the damages were much better contained. Nevertheless, a new spirit invaded the region, in line with its well-known bipolar social psychology: the Washington Consensus had to be replaced, because it was the root of all social problems. True, it wasn’t (and isn’t) a recipe for guaranteed success, higher earnings come with higher risks, and many social issues demanded, in times of low or negative economic growth, urgent attention. But Latin America’s social problems did under no circumstance begin with the implementation of the Washington Consensus reforms. The fact that populist Presidents promised that these reforms would end poverty altogether, is quite a different story. And so is the fact that many pro-market reforms were accompanied by outright corruption. In sum, for many Latin American citizens, pro-market reforms became tainted words.

At the turn of the century, not many (centre) right-winged governments had survived, which prompted many observers to talk of Latin America’s “left turn”. These newly elected government can be divided in three large groups. First, we have the “renovated” left of a more pragmatist calibre, comparable to the doctrines of the European Third Way. This means that the market is accepted as an essentially benign and useful force, but which must be kept on a relatively short leash. The nagging question is to determine where the State ends and where the market begins, and how to make them work together in stead of against each other. Examples would include the administrations of Michelle Bachelet in Chile and Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva in Brazil.

Second, we have the (often but not always left-wing) populist governments, in the sense of economic populism coined by Dornbusch and Edwards, which promise to solve the people’s “real” problems, listen to them, and acknowledge the same common enemy, the uncontrolled market, and sometimes bluntly “the” market. State interventionism is a necessity, the problem is that they are more often than not riddled with corruption and technical inconsistencies. Examples would include Nestor Kirchner, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Argentina, and Alan Garc(í)a in Peru.

Third, we have the “romantic” or dogmatic left, which returns to the Marxist discourse, vehemently anti-capitalist, of the 1960s. Words like “imperialism”, “subjugation”, and “exploitation” are back on the agenda, which is now called “Bolivarian”. The market should not only be subdued, but, according to some, even wholly replaced by central planning, allocation and distribution. In sum, it ultimately seeks the replacement of capitalism. Examples of these policies include Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and Evo Morales in Bolivia.

This “left turn” is not circumscribed to the ideological left, since the right-wing parties have picked up, at least in their discourse, many of their issues. For example, no self-loving candidate, with any hope to win the elections, would dare to defend the market as blindly as in the nineties. No candidate would consider disregarding the social dimensions of economic policy. This heightened social sensibility, across the political spectrum, is a result of a certain social learrning-process which arguably began in the 1980s with the debt crisis.

The Latin American Way

But are these differences a problem? Beyond any personal appreciation one could have in favour or against one position or another, differences are normally considered an opportunity for learning. Common sense dictates that social phenomenons are so complex that in this post-modern world not many would dare to claim to possess the “final” truth in terms of public policy and development strategies. Alas, this is precisely what defines and summarizes the Latin American (economic) way.

Since Independence, the pendulum has moved continuously between two extremes: suffocating State intervention versus uncontrolled market deregulation, and exaggerated optimism versus exaggerated pessimism in market forces and world markets. Means are confounded with ends, and enjoy an unreasonably long, and unaltered, lifespan because of a vehement and unchanging belief in its truth. This is true for the belle epoque of economic liberalism in 1870-1929, for the ISI period of 1930-1980, for the “pure” Washington Consensus period 1980-2000, and is probably true for the current period, too.

The problem of this dogmatic approach is that the opportunity for learning is not seized. It is impossible to predict the future or outcomes with exact precision. Plans, i.e. the means employed to obtain certain goals, should be corrected according to its performance. As long as the goals are being obtained, there is nothing wrong with changing the means. On the contrary, by continuously monitoring and adjusting the means, the grasp on the existing causal relationships is improved, not matter how little. In the end, at least that is what we hope, convergence is obtained between the goals and the obtained results.

If means are unreasonably defended, crisis (which are inevitable) will have disproportionately disruptive effects, since small adjustments are delayed until small adjustments don’t longer suffice. At that moment, all hope is lost, and major, often hastily devised, profound reforms are put in place, and back goes the pendulum. And our experience with the causal relationships will be reduced to nil, and all our economic, social and sometimes even political advances and improvements will have melted away. Back to square one.

Peru’s uncertain economic future

Without a doubt, Peru has taken yet another left turn with elected President Ollanta Humala. To what extent is far from clear. His political record suggests one thing, his recent campaign another. Judging by his ideological affinities, one would be tempted to include him with Chavez, Correa and Morales. The difference is that Peru’s economy has faired more than well during the last years. Economic growth is fairly stable, exports are growing steadily, and its competitiveness is improving rapidly. “Never change a winning team,” the saying goes. But this team has lost few matches, or at least had to put up with some counter goals. These lie in the social realm, since the social indicators show less colourful results, and this is probably what contributed to Humala’s victory.

The question is therefore: to what extent is the newly elected President willing to change Peru’s economic model? If history teaches us anything, odds are that he will be tempted to follow the sadly known Latin American way of radical change, disregarding the lessons learned and the accumulated knowledge. The Peruvian markets share this fear: when the election results were announced, Lima’s stock market plummeted various points. On the other hand, his recent travels through the region emphasized moderation, political and economical, more than anything. This means that the jury is still out.

Our only hope is that Humala will break with the Latin American (economic) way and will introduce ajdustments rather than radical change in an effort to continue to build upon the successes and improving the failures, rather than impose a new, all-explaining world vision which would force all actors to begin from scratch.

   Dr. Wolassa Kumo
Introduction

Economic theories state that FDI inflows contribute to the economic performance of a host country in a number of ways: First, the FDI inflows represent additional resources which can be used to build additional physical capital and create more employment. Second, by increasing the size of capital stock, FDI increases a country’s output and productivity by encouraging more efficient use of existing resources. Finally, the inflows of FDI can improve the local skills and promotes technological knowhow thereby enhancing the overall economic growth and development.

However, empirical evidence in support of these theories is not always straight forward. Macroeconomic and cross-country studies suggest a strong positive correlation between FDI inflows and economic growth, although there is no consensus on the direction of causality. Microeconomic evidence is much more unclear and results vary across firms, sectors and countries implying that under certain conditions, FDI can be an engine of growth. Benefits from FDIs therefore depend on the type of the inflows, and the absorptive capacity of a host country among other things.

In any case, global FDI flows showed consistent and rapid growth between 2004 and 2007. During this period, the global FDI grew by 155%, from $717.7 billion in 2004 to $1,833.3 billion in 2007. Developed countries received most of these FDI flows during this period. In 2007, 68.1 percent or $ 1,248 billion of the FDI went to the developed economies. The United States was the largest recipient of FDI followed by United Kingdom, France, Canada, and the Netherlands while the EU region attracted almost two thirds of the total FDI inflows to the developed countries (UNCTAD, 2008).

However, the 2008-2009 global economic and financial crises radically altered the pattern of global FDI flows with emerging and transition economies becoming the major destinations of FDI flows in 2010 for the first time.

Global FDI Flows in 2010

The global FDI flows declined by 39% to $1,114 billion in 2009 from $1,700 billion in 2008. The FDIs stagnated in 2010 with marginal 1% increase to $ 1,122 billion from the 2009 level (UNCTAD, 2011). The stagnation in global flows was accompanied by a further contraction in FDI flows into developed countries while the flows into developing and transition economies increased representing over 50% of the total global FDI flows in 2010 for the first time.

In 2009 developed economies received 50.8% or $565.9 billion of the total global FDI flows while the developing economies received 42.9% and the transition economies of South-East Europe and the Common Wealth of Independent States receiving the remaining 6.3 % of the 2009 total FDI flows. The Russian Federation alone accounted for 55% of the total FDI inflows to the transition economies.

However, in 2010, FDI flows into developed economies contracted by 7% compared to 2009. The European Union was the worst hit with FDI inflows contracting by 20% in 2010. Among the developed economies, Japan saw the biggest decline in FDI inflows in 2010 with FDI contracting by a whopping 83.4% due to major disinvestments. With 66.3% contraction in FDI, Ireland, whose economy was ravaged by the financial crisis, witnessed the second highest FDI contraction among the developed economies due primary to uncertainties about sovereign debt. The recent EU bailout is expected to assist Ireland’s economic recovery. FDI inflows to Germany and France declined marginally. Unlike other major industrialized nations, the United States, the world’s largest economy, enjoyed a robust expansion in FDI inflows in 2010. FDI flows into United States increased by 43.4% in 2010. The United States received over 35% of the total FDI flows into the developed world in 2010 followed by France, which received 10.9% of the total FDI flows into the developed countries, as a distant second. The Nobel Laureate President Barack Obama is not doing bad after all in spite of the repeated predictions of doomsday by his political opponents.

On the other hand, FDI flows into developing economies increased by 9.7% in 2010. Developing countries received 46.8% of the total global FDI flows in 2010 while transition economies received 6.3% of the total global flows. The two groups of economies together received 53.1% of the global FDI flows in 2010. For the first time, developing and transition economies overtook advanced economies as major destinations of the foreign direct investment.

The fastest growing and the world’s second largest economy, China, received the bulk of the FDI flows into the developing world. China received nearly 20% of the total FDI flows into the developing world and its FDI inflows surpassed $100 billion mark in 2010 for the first time. Hong Kong (China) is the second largest FDI receiver with $62 billion in 2010. In terms of the growth in FDI flows into developing economies in 2010, the best performers however are Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, and Hong Kong (China), with annual growth rates of 410%, 163%, 123% and 29% respectively. FDI flows closly track performances in economic growth among other things. In this regard, South, East and South-East Asia will continue to drive global economic recovery and growth for many years to come. However, FDI flows to South Asia declined in 2010 mainly due to decline in FDI flows into India by 31.5%.

In Latin America, Mexico, Peru and Chile were the best performers with FDI growth rates of 52.9%, 44.7% and 43.4% in 2010 respectively while Brazil is the largest receiver of FDI receiving $30.2 billion in 2010.

Globally, the United States remained the top receiver of FDI flows in 2010 followed by China, and Hong Kong (China) in the second and third position respectively. Except the United States advanced economies lost their positions as the three leading destinations of FDI in 2010.

FDI Flows to Africa

During the high growth years anchored by the commodity price boom, i.e. 2001-2007, FDI flows into Africa increased rapidly. FDI flows into Africa reached an all time high of $87.6 billion in 2008 from a mere $14.2 billion in 2002. However, the decline in economic growth caused by global financial crisis and the plunge in commodity prices sharply reversed the trend in 2009. The FDI flows into Africa declined by over 33% in 2009 to $58.6 billion. While the growth in FDI flows into Asia and Latin America recovered in 2010, FDI flows into Africa continue a down ward spiral. It declined further by 14.4% in 2010 to $50.1 billion, the lowest level for four years.

The decline in FDI flows into Africa has been driven by the flows into four major FDI recipients: South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria and Morocco. In 2009 FDI flows into Morocco, South Africa and Egypt declined by 56.6%, 24.6% and 13.9% respectively. As a result, Morocco lost its status as a major receiver of FDI in Africa and Nigeria emerged as second largest receiver of FDI after Egypt in 2009. However, in 2010 FDI flows into Nigeria collapsed by over 60% while those into South Africa plunged by 78%. Only Egypt maintained a marginal increase in FDI to stay as a leading destination in the African continent. However, South Africa remains to be a major destination of portfolio investment in the continent driven primarily by near zero yields in advanced economies.

While UNCTAD did not give any reason for such drastic contractions in FDI flows into South Africa and Nigeria, this is likely to negatively affect economic development and job creation agenda of the respective governments.

However, the 2011 World Bank Prospects for Development report paints a bright future for sub Saharan Africa. With better than expected pace of recovery from global economic crisis and with annual average economic growth expected to be in excess of 5% between 2010 and 2012, several sub Saharan Africa countries are better positioned to attract more FDI inflows in the coming years. The investment climate in Africa is improving, and many countries have improved their macroeconomic policies and debt sustainability; as a result many are increasingly talking of several African countries being on the verge of an economic takeoff (World Bank, 2011).

Historically, FDI flows into Africa have exclusively focused on extractive industries but this has changed since recently. At present FDI inflows have diversified into the service sectors particularly telecommunications and banking sectors. For example, the recent offer of Walmart to acquire South Africa’s MassMart is an equivalent of 13 times the pre-tax earnings of the latter and represents a significant injection in FDI into Africa.

“Africa is also becoming an attractive destination for portfolio investment flows. Countries like Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, and Rwanda are identified by several fund managers as possible destinations for Africa-centric investment funds” (World Bank, 2011).

Expectations of increased FDI inflows to Africa are boosted by the South-South cooperation or Africa’s emerging economic partnerships particularly with China, India, Brazil, Malaysia and Turkey in recent years. For instance, the mid 2010 acquisition of the Africa business of the Kuwait based telecom company, Zain Telecom for $10.7 billion by an Indian telecom giant Bharti Airtel represents the largest South-South acquisitions ever. Zain operates in 17 African countries.

Given its vast natural resource endowments and population of over a billion, Africa has a great potential to become one of the leading destinations of FDI in the near future. However, the realization of this potential depends on the size and sustainability of economic growth, continuity of economic reforms and political stability. The current events in Cote d’Ivoire, Tunisia, Algeria and a host of other countries have a potential of derailing Africa’s dream if not amicably resolved soon.

References

•   UNCTAD (2008). World Investment Report 2008. Transnational Corporations and the Infrastructure Challenge. Overview. United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2008.

•   UNCTAD (2011). UNCTAD Global Investment Trends Monitor No.5 , January 17, 2011.

•   World Bank (2011). Sub-Saharan Africa may stand to gain more international capital flows in coming years. Prospects. January 21, 2011.

MediaMatters: Following President Obama’s trip to the Summit of the Americas, conservative media figures characterized Obama’s actions at the summit as weakness, continuing the trend of portraying Democrats as weak on matters of national security and foreign policy. [ READ MORE ]

Fox obsesses over Obama-Chavez handshake, but ignored Bush’s handshake with Uzbekistani president: Fox News hosts and contributors have criticized President Obama for shaking hands with Hugo Chavez, but a Media Matters search of the Nexis database found no examples in 2002 of Fox News personalities criticizing President Bush’s handshake with Uzbekistani President Islam Karimov, whose government the State Department has condemned for human rights abuses. [ READ MORE ]

Syphilitic LIAR Sean Hannity and His Uncle-Tom Poodle Michael Steele, ..& Co.

Notes: Hugo Chavez gave Obama a book entitled: “Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent,” by Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano. Every American needs to read this book to understand why there is so much ANTI-AMERICANISM out there.

The United States picked up from where European colonialists left off, raping and pillaging the rest of the world, as Chavez’s book gift contends.

Perhaps, this will help explain why Obama’s conciliatory stance towards the rest of the world is as commendable as it is healing. Previous U.S administrations have done so much damage, it may be irreparable. Perhaps, Bush ranks as the worst ever, due to the death and devastating upheaval he caused in such a short time — based on lies. In fact, Bush may have perverted, distorted and tarnished America’s image beyond repair — and Obama is left HOLDING THE BLOODY BAG.

All these IDIOT Teabaggers making noise all over America, who are so intellectually bankrupt — they cannot differentiate they noses from their assholes, are also encouraged to read the book.

Instead of berating Obama, GOP THUGS like Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan (who know the truth, but choose to ignore it) should dig deep into the sordid past of this country, and scoop up the filth and blood that fuels the anger of Ortega, Chavez, the Arab world and even Africa (400 million killed or enslaved) and Indians (30 million murdered and poisoned)….The list extends all the way to the Phillipines …..South Africa,…all over the globe!

Below is another must read book:

100 Ways America Is Screwing Up the World

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

Chavez gives Obama a book at summit: PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (CNN) — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gave U.S. President Obama a book Saturday on Latin America.

The leftist leader, who once likened President George W. Bush to the devil, shook Obama’s hand and handed him “Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent,” by Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano.

Asked later what he thought of the book, Obama jokingly said he thought it was one of Chavez’s books. “I was going to give him one of mine,” he quipped.

Obama and Chavez are attending the fifth Summit of the Americas, a gathering of representatives from 34 countries. [ READ MORE ]

Book Presentation

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent – by Eduardo Galeano

Editorial Reviews

A superbly written, excellently translated, and powerfully persuasive exposé which all students of Latin American and U.S. history must read. – Choice

Well written and passionately stated, this is an intellectually honest and valuable study. – Library Journal

A dazzling barrage of words and ideas. – History

Reader Reviews:

By Hector Miranda (Puerto Rico): This book is a masterpiece. I understand why some people (just like Juan Bimba and a couple of reviewers here) hate it: It touches the real cut, the heart of capitalism, and explore it in a way few men dare. His references are not just excellent: they are irrefutable. This is one of the best books I’ve ever read. One of Galeano’s best; a must read for Latin Americans! More than a history book, it’s a compilation of essays that shows how the “strong” always abuses and stand over the “weak” mass.

Neo-Marxist Analysis = Anti-Catholic & Western, April 18, 2009: By Trudigger (Chicago, Il United States): Like so many of the neo-Marxist critiques that have flourished in academia this book comes from a view that the only level of historical analysis is dialectical materialism. Marxist analysis needs a victim/victimizer paradigm to make its case.

This analysis is unbalanced and doesn’t take into account the tens of thousands of natives who were part of the daily human sacrifices made by the Aztecs . . . yes the Aztecs!

The irony of the title (Open Veins) is that the native Latin American blood letting that was the most historically heinous was at the hands of Native Latin Americans.

If you like the kind of Neo-Marxist regime in Venezuela, then get this book because it is the vision animating Chavez . . . and leading him to persecute the Catholic Church. . . be warned – Marxism leads to democide.

You can’t argue with the facts, April 18, 2009: By M. E. Baz “mebaz” (South Pasadena, California): Galeano’s book is an excellent catalog of the atrocities committed by the U.S. government in Latin America over the last several decades. If you can understand that this is not a criticism of Americans but rather of their government and industry (which is screwing them over as well), you’ll be able to understand it. Another great book on the subject is Confessions of an Economic Hit Man , which was written by an AMERICAN.

Beautifully Written, Visceral And Timeless., July 9, 2008: By Mr. Fellini “Fellini” (El Paso, Texas United States): “Open Veins Of Latin America” has not lost its importance in almost 40 years of circulation, today more than ever, Eduardo Galeano’s poetic journey through the history and suffering of Latin America is a vital work of scholarship and observation, it is a record of how the Americas were born and grew. From the Spanish Conquest to the Cuban Revolution and beyond, Galeano touches on nearly every key moment of Latin American history and brilliantly shows the reader how the events of the past helped shape the status of the present.

Part of the genius of this book is how Galeano manages to chronicle in fine detail the history of Latin America but also clearly shows how certain economic orders were established, any reader who wonders who countries like Bolivia and Peru have such wide gaps between rich and poor, white and indigenous communities, needs to read this book. In breathless detail Galeano takes us through the Spanish conquest, using historical documents and eyewitness accounts to record the suffering and terror indigenous communities endured for the sake of imperial expansion. Galeano brilliantly connects the dots between the economic and social models established at the time and the current conditions of these countries today, consider Bolivia, where racial tensions are indeed flaring up again due to the election of an indigenous leader, Evo Morales.

The worlds Galeano paints are rich in detail and fascination, heartbreak and hope. We visit forgotten cities in Peru, once paved in silver, now condemned to misery, we explore the mines of Bolivia where Indians lose their lungs to fumes and tunnels and we step into isolated villages in Brazil, where the ghosts of dead miners are said to still hold Mass on rainy evenings. Key historical events are described with visceral energy such as the outbreak of civil war in Guatemala after a U.S.-backed coup, the eruption of “La Violencia” in Colombia where thousands perished in a bloody rampage following the assassination of a progressive candidate for President. Galeano cheerfully bashes fascists including right-wing groups trying to stop Salvador Allende’s nationalization of copper in Chile by warning parents with false propaganda that their children will be flown to the USSR or Cuba for indoctrination. Galeano also tells the cold hard truth about the military junta that ruled Brazil (with U.S. help), including their pass time of burning books.

“Open Veins Of Latin America,” like all great books, enthralls, educates and makes the reader aware. Historical figures we don’t hear much about in normal textbooks come alive in Galeano’s writing, fascinating figures like Nicaragua’s Sandino, Mexico’s Hidalgo and Zapata and Peru’s Tupac Amaru reveal a heroic tradition of resistance against imperialism and repression. Some complain about Galeano’s Leftist leanings, but much of what he records is simply based on fact, on documented history. Events like the Cuban Revolution, the Mexican Revolution and Haiti’s slave uprising are thrillingly chronicled and their outcomes explored with keen insight.

Latin America remains a place that fascinates many, it is a complex region that is politically, ethnically and religiously diverse, Galeano manages like few writers have, to capture it all in this beautiful volume. “Open Veins Of Latin America” has so much information, so many stories, characters and histories that a full review does not suffice to explore it all, for those who wish to really KNOW about Latin America, this book is a must. It is a history of economies, countries, bloodshed and tears, and most importantly, of people.

| Read All Reviews |

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

By PETER MWAURA

Why Brazilians have to wait longer to get their Obama

Writing from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on October 28, the Daily Nation‘s Elias Makori reported that Kenya’s President Kibaki [Pdf Document] was due to visit the country and Venezuela to strengthen trade ties between Kenya and Latin America.

If and when our President (Mwai Kibaki of Kenya) visits him, President Luiz Inacio da Silva of Brazil is expected to talk about his country’s prowess in such things as agribusiness, generic drugs, sugar plantations and biofuels, to say nothing of coffee and football.

This will not be mere big talk. Brazil is the leading economic power in South America, and the fifth largest country in the world. It is more than three times the size of Sudan, Africa’s largest country, and nearly 15 times the size of Kenya. It has more blacks than any other country in the world, except Nigeria.

Brazil is a worthy trading and political partner for Kenya, and President Kibaki’s visit will be a smart move.

During their table talk, da Silva is likely to tell President Kibaki that it is Brazil, not the US, that was the first white-dominated country to have a black president in 1909. His name was Nilo Pecanha.

But he will not concern himself with the details of that historic first, such as the fact that Pecanha obtained the post by accident when he was the vice-president. He took over when President Affonso Penna died in June 1909 after ruling for only about a year.

In the tête-à-tête, da Silva will probably give the old line about racial democracy and harmony in his country. Brazilians have successfully used the line for years.

In the 1950s, the United Nations commissioned a series of studies on Brazil in an attempt to learn how the country achieved its ‘racial democracy‘ when other societies such as the US were experiencing strife in race relations.

But statistics show that the racial democracy in Brazil is a myth.

Skin pigmentation is still used to delineate social hierarchy. Black Brazilians — they are the majority — are discriminated against at every sphere of life. They suffer, among other ills, little access to education, landlessness, high infant mortality, discrimination in employment and police brutality.

As a result, many Brazilians of obvious African descent who want to better their socio-economic lives have to ‘whiten‘ themselves. The much-vaunted racial democracy only operates to exclude non-Whites.

Da Silva is also unlikely to tell President Kibaki that his country was built on African slave labour, and that Brazil should pay reparations for nearly 400 years of unpaid African labour.

Not surprisingly, Brazil was the last country in the world to abolish slavery in 1888.

In the more than three centuries of Portuguese colonisation, Brazil imported 4 million slaves to work for about 700,000 Portuguese settlers. Brazil was arguably the largest slave economy in human history.

Without the cheap African labour, the country would have stagnated economically. As early as April 1843, politician Bernado Pereira de Vasconcelos told the Brazilian senate: ‘Africa is civilising America‘.

Another Brazilian politician, Cunha Matos, believed that the country would still be populated by Indians living under barbarous conditions if Africans did not come to bolster the Portuguese settlers. Brazil was just a claw-hold until the importation of large numbers of Africans.

But da Silva will not tell his Kenyan guest that the very continued existence of the Portuguese settlers in Brazil depended on the African slaves.

Slavery in Brazil

There are many other home truths, mostly rooted in Brazilian history, folklore and culture, that da Silva is unlikely to talk about.

For example, he is unlikely to talk about the Afro-Brazilian women, who have been a part of Brazilian popular culture for centuries.

During the slave era, the sexy mulata (a person of mixed African and European descent) was the female with whom white Brazilian boys were expected to have their first sexual experience, according to famed Brazilian writer-cum-anthropologist Gilberto Freyre.

And as another writer puts it, one of the results of the use of the black female for satisfaction was that Brazil exploded in a spree of miscegenation and racial mixture the extent of which is probably unknown in history.

Certainly, President da Silva will avoid using the old Brazilian expression, e um Africa (It’s an Africa).

Brazilians use the expression to describe anything that is difficult to overcome — a feat. The expression conjures up old images of the ‘Dark Continent‘.

Da Silva may fear that the expression will offend his African guest. In Brazil, old stereotypes about Africa are very much alive.

This is why African-Brazilians will have to wait for a very long time before they have their own Obama.

——————————————————–

References:

1. Brazil and the Yankee Way of Being Black — In Brazil, race and class interact to create a highly stratified society where most people of color are poor, and most middle class and wealthy are “white.” To view this situation through the US lens of racial categories and racial purity is not only intellectual dishonesty, but smacks of colonialism.

2. History of slavery — The history of slavery uncovers many different forms of human exploitation across many cultures throughout history. Slavery, generally defined, refers to the “systematic exploitation of labor” traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1760 BC), which refers to it as an established institution.

3. Why Obama is Black, not White.