brazzilrace.com

[PabloDiaz]

A response to Mr. Mark Wells

This is a response to an article written by Mark Wells in BRAZZIL's April 2003 ("How Racist is Brazil?")issue which was a response to an article written by Janer Cristaldo alos from April of 2003 ("A Trap for Blacks")

First of all, let's me say you totally proved that there is racism in Brazil, whiteness being considered better and more worthy of better treatment, than blackness. The common Brazilian cannot deny that the black is taken as a symbol of poverty, criminality and laziness in his country. And that the sayings you mention are surely truth, and totally proving the bad image blacks have there. And that the history of the mankind was written by the winners, also an undeniable truth, as more probably the majority of the massacres the World faced were carried by the Europeans, and not only talk about the Germans,
typical scapegoat of the European to blame.

I am from Argentina, a Latin American country near Brazil, and I acknowledge that in Latin America there also exist discrimination, not only in Brazil, but also in Spanish-speaking Latin America. Here in Argentina, Spaniards mixed with the Indians, and today the darker-skinned mestizos (mixing of Spaniard and Indian), and they are called "negros" and discriminated, receiving the same accusation of criminality and indolence the African blacks receive in the U.S., and also suffer more marginality than the whites. The African blacks in Argentina practically disappeared as a race because they were too few here, were used in wars as soldiers, and mixed with the rest of the much larger Indian and Spaniard population. You can see some African characteristics in some people here, although never a "pure black."

However, I will agree with Mr. Cristaldo in one thing: although there is racism and stereotypes of the blacks as lazy or criminals, there is undoubtedly less racism in Brazil or Latin America in its totality than in the U.S., and yourself know why: there never in Latin America, as far as I remind, something like the Ku Klux Klan, nor Skinhead neo-nazis. There are not here mass beatings of blacks as there were in the U.S. time ago.

The simple fact you accepted that there are no discriminatory laws in Brazil but there are in U.S., even when racism is socially implanted in both societies, tells us that even when there is social racism in both, there is no legal racism in one, so the conclusion that there is less racism in one is unavoidable (although Brazilian racism, however, must be criticized no matter if it is less virulent than the U.S.'s). Perhaps the difference should seem subtle in the practice to you, but no matter its size, it favors Brazil as less racist.

On the other hand, there is truly more mixing of races in Brazil than in U.S., and this means there is less racism. Even when Brazil has a smaller population than U.S., there are much more mulattos in Brazil than in your country. In U.S. the blacks are almost pure because the relations between races are not as fluid as in Brazil. More mixing appears to be a direct correlate of a greater humane relations between races, and what means racism if not lack of tolerance to other races?. I mean, if you do not tolerate blacks, or any other race, then you will tend to mix with them less (keeping them far from you) or will try to kill them more. Both things occur more in the U.S. than in Brazil, also pointing to your Anglo-Saxon next-door neighbors as more racist than the Portuguese descendents in Brazil.

Now let' s us suppose the larger mixing of races there is in Brazil in comparison to the U.S. was not due to assimilation of the white and black population but to a greater sexual abuse by white slave masters on Black women in Brazil than in the U.S. It mean, the Portuguese whites simply fucked more with their slaves than the U.S. whites. Even in such a case, they were less racist than the U.S. whites because they showed less
repugnance to fuck with black females. To avoid fuck with blacks is a symbol of racism, a symbol of repugnance to other races. I' m not saying I feel repugnance about fucking with blacks, do not misunderstand me, I only say that if a white man does accept less to fuck with a black woman, surely it is because he feel repugnance to that race, or at least more repugnance than a white that fucks as much black woman as he can. Again, I am not defending any of these two hypothetical whites, both are doing bad things: one for racism and the other for raping women. But the second is less racist. Unless he is only more fucker, with greater sexual hunger, but there are too much suppositions.

With respect to your subdivision of races in whites and blacks, Euro-descendents or Afro-descendents, regardless of the political background and/or convenience of white ot black politicians, I think the category pardo or mulatto is not wrong: they are both Afro- and Euro-desecendent. The mulattos are considered non-whites but not non-black in most countires? What countries? Anglo-Saxon countires? Or just your country?. The truth is that mulatto is not completely white, as he is not completely black, but have both part white and part black. If he is not to be considered white, because not being pure white, then with the same logic he must not be considered black, because not being pure black. The best solution to the problem is to call him a mix between the two: for that mixed type is that the term mulatto exist, so it must be retained in order to not invent new terms for what have already a name.

That the blacks in Africa can have a wide range of phenotypes does not deny that the mulattos are there, that they are many and that they also have European ancestry. In any case, you should divide the mulatto category into three: half-white-half-black; more-white-than-black and more-black-than-white. Perhaps you should add also more
graduations to get greater exactitude, for example 10%black-90% white to differentiate from 25%black-75%white, or the 85%black-15%white from the 70%black-30%white, and so on ad infinitum, but there should give you a huge number of categories for people to classify, and you will not know in many cases what proportion of whiteness or
blackness have a given individual, much less an entire country. But in any case, a purely Euro-descendent-Afrodescendent dichotomy cannot be applied if one wants to classify people of Brazil with all their mixing. If you accept that along the history races mixed, then you can either accept types intermediate between the pure races or abandon classification into races.

Now, according to the point in which you mention that, as the Brazilians have more categories than black and white, and they discriminate mulattos with respect to whites, they are more racist than the U.S., that call mulattos and "pure blacks" in a same category as blacks, because of the fact the Brazilians discriminate two categories (mulatto and black) while the Anglo-Saxon discriminates just one (black). If Brazil discriminate mulattos and pure blacks, while the U.S. discriminates only blacks, where they count both mulattos as well as "pure blacks", the two countries are discriminating the same kind of people in the practice, there is no way to say Brazil discriminates more, because both discriminate mulattos and blacks, the only difference is that in Brazil both categories are separated while in U.S. are taken together.

In addition, as you said the "pure blacks" try to say they are mulattos in the census, why do they do so if not because the mulatto is less discriminated, so by being mulatto their treatment will be improved?. In such a case, as the mulatto is less discriminated than the black, while in the U.S. both are equally discriminated, we can conclude that as the Brazilians discriminate the mulattos less than the U.S., they have less discrimination for non-pure-whites than the U.S. As U.S. treats non-pure-whites equally bad, Brazil treats some non-pure-whites better, so, again, they are less racist. They assimilate
more to the "pure white" society the mulattos than the U.S., even if the "pure black" are accepted to be equally bad treated in the two countries. Lack of Ku Klux Klan and a greater mixing points out to accept greater assimilation and tolerance, and
consequently less racism in Brazil.

Or when annotating his son as a "mulatto" a "pure black" is not thinking in a better status for his son, but in the better status of his grandson, that can be considered "white" in a next step?. Well, in such a case either the people which can accept a "pure black" as a white should suffer Dalton disease unless the "pure black" in question have possibility to marry a white counterpart. In such a case, some possibilities follow:

-If the whites in Brazil can be fooled that a "pure black" is a white man because like such he annotated himself or his parents annotated him, then there should be no racism at all because the whites should not be able to distinguish blacks and consequently, as they should not see the difference they will not have any difference to discriminate/ All "pure blacks" should rapidly learn the tactic and call himself, or his sons, white.

-If the whites were not so easy to fool, then the "pure blacks" or mulattos should not try to use these tactics to achieve a better status once they realized it did not work.

-If the possibility of marriage with a white is to be expected to improve the status of his sons, then there should be a greater integration of races that give support to that hope, then implying less racism. That is actually the case in Brazil, as told above, greater mixing imply greater integration assimilation or contact between the races, sharing of more things in common, more contact implying less repugnance to contact, and consequently less racism and discrimination. I recognize your good will when saying that it should be good to group together all the non-whites, no matter their DNA, in
a common group in order to get a stronger common front against racism. However, considering Australians or mulattos as African blacks should be scientifically disputable in as much as the DNA differ in the Australians or that the son of "pure white"
with "pure black" is half black and half white, not more black than white. Perhaps the racism by Anglo-Saxons in the U.S. is so great that forces Afro-Americans to unite with other groups to get greater political strength. The dichotomy of whites and blacks when considering mixed types, however, seems as the confrontation of alliances for a war between two groups, and perhaps you are right, the races are in a combat. That should show again to the Anglo-Saxons as more racist, their actions forcing greater reactionary alliances than in Brazil (and I am not meaning anti-commie or conservative reactionary, just a reaction).

If the pardos category are a political tool for whites in as much as serves to augment their representation, the same should it be for blacks if pardos' vote is to increase the representation of blacks.It should be another field, free to do whatever they want or to form their own representation, having alliance with whichever they want. I am not so sure in Brazil the polarization between backs and whites groups is as great as in U.S., perhaps they are not divided in black and white political parties.

It should be a good thing that pardos, pretos and indios ally between themselves to resist racism of force with their vote, but to say that the indios (Native Americans) must be included in the Black race in order to enforce such a coalition should not be a realistic classification leaded by union of the more related human kinds. For example, Native Americans are closer to mongoloids (yellows) than to whites, so you should also include mongoloids into the black race to enforce the political union in Brazil. Or in the U.S., the Latinos, Italians and Blacks should be all considered blacks in order to form also a common front against Anglo-Saxon racism, perhaps even reaching the extreme of considering the Irish blacks because they are also margined.

For the sake of reality, the classifications of persons by race should accept mixings and that there is almost no pure people, so there are many, the majority indeed, that cannot be called "pure white", "pure black" or "pure mongoloid". To try to make the overwhelming diversity of phenotypes humankind show fit into a black-white dichotomy should be, in addition to unrealistically grouping humankind, generator of differentiation of groups, generator of segregation, and confrontation, since those links that unite races, the sons and relatives common to both races, those that show us how we cannot be divided with ease, should be forced to enter one of the two great teams of alliances.

Perhaps for a white Anglo-Saxon it should be not a trouble to discriminate blacks if he has not uncles and other relatives, while for a Brazilian, it should be difficult. Such a number of relatives of the other race are more common when there is more mixing.
To unite mulattoes with blacks seems to be a way to form an union against whites. If in Brazil the mulattoes and "pure blacks" did not united together by now, surely it is because they have no reason to do so or because they have so many white relatives
to which they appreciate that the hatred to the entire white race became unlikely.

Even more: if the white Brazilians do feel fury when somebody calls them racist,
perhaps is because they do not see themselves as discriminators. When you
discriminate, you already know you hate the guy you discriminate. Or the
Brazilian whites are lying hypocrites, not accepting they are racists, or they truly
believe they do not have any resentment against blacks. Why should they react
with such a fury to the label of “racist” if they hate blacks as much as U.S.
whites?. Try to say: there is racism by whites against blacks in U.S. and surely
nobody will react as in Brazil. Simply because they already acknowledge they are
racists and that there is racism in the U.S. If they did really hate blacks, then they
should say something like: “yeah, we hate them, but it is because they are….”
And they will give you X reason, ranging from criminality, laziness, inferiority,
whatever a nazi can imagine. Yankee style.

And of course people can say they do not hate people they really hate. You will never know whether or not a white feel racism just because you cannot enter in
his head and see what he thinks, no matter he does not give you any trace to
recognize a bigot in him. In any case, you must be a close and long time friend of
a white man to get the reasonable certainty he is not a bigot. It is not so important
if the tolerant is hiding his racism, one will never know, the problem is when he
demonstrates it.

With respect to Ronaldo and his family, yes, you are right, the family
of Ronaldo should have received money from their son, but in
as much as they were called “favelados” instead of “pretos” points to
the view that they were discriminated by being favela people and not
by being black. They should have lived in a favela at the same time
they received the Ronaldo’ s monetary help. For example, here in
Argentina a great income soccer (here called football) player had his
family living in a Villa de Emergencia (somewhat like a suburb in
misery, like a favela) because they felt themselves better with their
neighbors in the poor neighborhood than in richer neighborhoods.
The soccer player’ s name is Riquelme, himself poor as a child,
Living in the Villa de Emergencia before he played.

Of course, discrimination by being of lower class is to me also a bad and
condemnable thing, class struggle being most times equal to race struggle.
Although not communist, I am socialist, and think that unless there is in the
future equality of conditions, racism will continue to be there: the poor will tend
to rob more because they have not enough money to eat well, and the riches will
hate the poor by robbing, without realizing that the concentration of richness in
their own hands is the explanation for its lack in the poor and exploited.

Americans countries are the result of a former slaved-based exploitation, that later
changed the relations but where the rich part, once freed slaves, was the same,
since the slaves had once freed no ways to become the capitalist associates, in as
much as they became free without any capital. They passed to be exploited in a
new way, perhaps as injust as the former one was. I think that both racism
generates social status (your example of how much you pay to a black vs. what
you pay a white for doing the same thing) and social status generates racism (for
example, the poor black, without money, will be forced to rob, then if the black
poor are many, as is the case in American countries, the whites will associate
blackness with criminality, and when they make that association easier should be
for them to hate blacks because of their criminality).

The difference in the mean income when the slaves were freed truly can have
forced the slaves to sell themselves as cheap working hand (by the competition of
European immigrants). They were in a weaker position with respect to the white capitalists. Then, the vicious cycle should have began. However, racism previous to the augment of criminality in the poor blacks should explain their lack of good jobs when compared with Europeans. Criminality, then, just enforced the hatred.

With respect to the few places in the Brazilian Congress for blacks, or the smaller number of black Miss Brazils when compared with the U.S., perhaps the numbers should rise if you take into account the mulattos. In U.S., you admitted mulattos are counted as blacks, while yourself admitted that in Brazil they count as pardos, not blacks. So, in order to compare the same kind of persons, take into account and add the mulatto category in Brazil. By the way, if blacks are 5.4% of the population of Brazil, then it should be too little a proportion of the population to have too much representation.

In as much as Brazil has about 175 million of inhabitants, and about a third (34%) is poor, then the poor are about 60 millions. If the blacks are 5,4% of the population, they are 9,45 millions. Even if all the pure blacks were poor, they cannot by any means be the two thirds of the poor in Brazil. You should be meaning pure blacks plus mulattos. According to the Inter American Commission of Human Rights, the mulattos + pure blacks sum the 45% of the Brazilians population, while they are 62% of the poor. Since it shows you are right in that the mean black has a lower social status than the mean white, accusing a real discrimination, I bet you in your country the dominating Anglo-Saxon whites should have a lesser share in the proportion of poverty than in Brazil, showing a greater differentiation in economical strata by race. Surely the largest share of poor is carried by Blacks, Latinos, and surely if there are whites, they must be predominantly Italians or Irish. I bet you whatever you want that will never found that in the U.S. the 38% of the poor are W.A.S.P. Why do you think the Irish and Italians became criminal gangsters and formed ghettos like you? Answer: because they were discriminated and poor (even if less than you)!!

Here in Argentina, although I accept there is some discrimination, there did never happened that to the Italian immigrants, they did not formed ghettos nor were more poor nor criminal than the residents. Obviously, here was less discrimination: the very fact that in Brazil the same happened indicates you in Brazil is, again, less discrimination: Yanks discriminated everything that was not a fucking W.A.S.P. (sorry my lack of composure). They are by far more discriminative than the Brazilians. Perhaps Brazilians or Latin American whites discriminate Italians less because they are also Latinos and swarthy instead of Nordic. Perhaps, as we are more alike, but in such a case you must accept we are more similar to you by being more brunette than Anglo-Saxon, so, again, less racism than in the case of the Anglo-Saxons, perhaps because we are more alike you, blacks, than the Nordic Anglos.

So, we discriminate less people, the amount of racial kinds (concretely, not taking into account differences in nomenclature) discriminated by the “whiter” Nordics being too superior to the amount of racial kinds discriminated by the Latinos. Perhaps it have nothing to do with kindness, perhaps is that whites tend to discriminate the different: as Nordics are more different from Blacks than Latinos are from Blacks is that Nordics discriminate more to the blacks. If this last reasoning (greater discrimination the more different the phenotype is) is right, then it points to favor that Latinos are less discriminative to blacks than Anglo-Saxons.

Now, I must tell you made a spectacular attack to the idea Europeans are like Mozart when Africans are like Idi Amin. Truly, Europeans killed more people in their expansionist wars than Africans, in Europe or outside it. There were nothing comparable in number of casualties provoked to the Trumans, Hitlers nor Churchills of European civilization in Africa. Today, external debt payment with interests by Third World to the Rich countries as yours, (not Brazil) mean the death by starvation of millions in African countries. Did you know that 50% of the Rwandan population is analphabet and cannot be educated because they cannot invest more in education, because they must use a large part of their income to pay the external debt because the U.S. forces them? Given that the U.S. has troops there, in Rwanda…why do they permit that injustice if they are so good?

Nope, not by any mean is Brazil more racist than the U.S. The very fact that the racism of at least some of them (politician you mentioned in 1911) consist in disappearing the race by mix cannot compare never to physically exterminating people as the Yankees did in North America, and their Anglo-Saxon brothers did in Australia and Tasmania. At least, for the dudes that mix with the blacks do tolerate them more, thus being less racist. What is more racist, to kill a black with six bullets on the head or to marry him/her?. What is more racist, to abominate and kill, or to assimilate others in the same culture and even more, in the same family?. Notwithstanding the very fact that some Brazilians can be racists, even if they are mulattos shamed of being of Black descent, blaming their black ancestry for their poverty or whatever “inferiority”, they should not necessarily be a majority. Tolerance is indirectly proportional to racism. And mixing is directly proportional to integration. The very fact that blacks can change their racial status means that the discrimination for phenotype is not as hard as in the U.S., since in the U.S. no black doing the same trick will fool whites.

From your account I realized there is discrimination against blackness in Brazil, but in as much as blacks do not react as strongly as in the U.S., or given that they can simply change their racial status while calling themselves white, it is more apparent that in Brazil blackness is more discriminated than the black individuals, whom can use other tricks to get advantages. If not, you should see in them other reaction, not shame of being black, but violent revolutions, as happened when they were slaves. In U.S., you are not “pure white”, or not W.A.S.P., you are discriminated.

On the other hand, you mention many blacks are killed each day in Brazil. Did you know, from Michael Moore’ s movie Bowling for Columbine, that over 11,000 persons die per year in the U.S.?. Is the Brazilian death toll superior to that one?. That should serve to address who killed more blacks. And you do say that the Brazilians hide more their crimes?. Not in the democratic times, when yourself admitted there were black activists that published their own magazines. They should have a cover for those facts. Just as in U.S. journalists do the same. No assassin publishes he killed dudes, all shut up, either Yankee or Brazilian. The same for states. And if you ask yourself how many other blacks should the Brazilians have killed that are not counted, let’ s me ask the same in the case of the U.S.: how many blacks should have been killed secretly, people never hearing about them?.

Racism and racial crimes should in some point become impossible to hide, so one can say: “well, there were racial crimes”- but lowering their magnitude so their fault is lowered. And the number of casualties count in the people’ s head, since nobody’s in your country questioned when the atomic bomb was dropped over Japan twice with the fucking excuse of “saving more lives”.

But even here, I must do some critic to you: you point to Belgians, Spaniards and Germans as perpetrators of the greater genocides. I think there is some Anglo-Saxon propaganda in blaming other European countries and not remembering how many the English killed, that are more than the other’ s casualties. Did you know, for example, that in as much as the Germans killed the 80% of the Herero, the English killed 90% of the Native Australians? In absolute and proportional number, the massacre was larger for the English. Did you know the transatlantic slave trade was overall carried by the English, followed by the Dutch and only later by the Portuguese? In the XVIIth century, they had almost the monopoly of that trade. Did you know that of about 20 millions of Africans shipped in only 12 millions reached America?. The rest (8 millions) were dropped to the sea by the traders, whom were mainly English, to make the ship go faster in order to avoid pirates.

Did you know that in the lapse of time between 1840 and 1900 the British Empire killed 100 millions of persons because of robbery and war to India and China by gunboat policy?. Compared with Queen Victoria, Hitler or Stalin are like peanuts. Did you know that only in the Sepoy rebellion 8 millions of Indians were killed by the English in few years?. Did you know that in 1770’s the robbery of the India by the East Indias Company provoked the death by starvation of a third of the population of that country? By 1800, the population of India was of 150 millions, more or less like the actual Brazil. More than 40 millions surely died.

Did you know the Anglo-Saxons had a policy of extermination of Indians in North America that the Spaniards, even when slavered Indians, never had?. Quite racist and nazi for your neighbors. Did you know that, when tribes extinguished in North America, they extinguished physically, while in South America they extinguished by mixing and loss of their ancestral costumes?. Anyway, today there are much more Indians in South than in North America.

I do not defend the Spaniards for all the suffering they provoked. But Anglo-Saxons have not the moral superiority to blame them more than themselves. Whatever the Spaniards did, it was much less than the Anglo-Saxons. Spaniards bring there, to America, smallpox. It was not intentional. But the Anglo-Saxons gave the Native Americans blankets with smallpox intentionally as biological warfare, and did the same in Australia.

Now tell, if you remember so well the 10 or 8 millions of persons king Leopold killed out there in the Congo, do you know how many killed the British authorities in Nigeria, that had a larger population? What, they did not killed so many? Why, if not, do not that appear in textbooks as appear the Herero? Yeah, because the history is told by winners, by the Anglo-Saxons. And it is not forgiveness to the massacres of Germans, Dutch, Belgians or Spaniards not Portuguese. Truly, the death toll of the English is the greater there is for an European country.

And if you blame Brazil for favoring apartheid in the U.N., that help is meager to apartheid when compared with the U.S. and U.K. supply of weapons to the South African whites. Anglo-Saxons actively maintained Apartheid in south Africa, they did not permitted the blacks to speak their “beloved language”. With respect to your criticism to Cuba, at least Cuba had not commercial interest in the area, quite unlike the U.S., whose banks and corporations actively infiltrate into Africa. They helped Angolans sending them divisions to train them. They were fighting for equality, the economical equality that must carry equality in any sense. They helped free Africa. Unlike them, your Anglo-Saxon neighbors helped the racist, anti-equalitarian band, the band that really killed the majority of the 1.5 millions of blacks that died out there.

This last mainly an attack not to the Afro-descendents in the U.S., but to the white Anglo-Saxons. Africans, as well as Native Americans, suffered too much at hands or European criminals, and surely need reparation (why if the Jews get reparation from Germany, cannot the European nations to pay a quote to the African countries, or at least abolish their external debts as a compensation??-The last is idea of a French). But that view of the Anglo-Saxons as the less racist or assassins between Europeans is the greater imbecile propaganda there is, because the truth is almost the diametrically opposed one. As I said you, I do not know any European nation with a larger death toll than the English, not even nazi Germany nor Spain with its huge American Empire.

In order to end, I also want to be there no discrimination and more equality, in all senses. Basically I accept your conclusion that blackness is regretted in Brazil, and blacks subject to discrimination. And I certainly like to hear about great black peoples of yesterday, as the Egyptians, even when I believed they were a mix of Camite (Bereber) and black African. This should mean the Europeans are not smarter than anybody nor are they more civilized than others. I used to like to hear that Chinese and Indians were also more inventive than Europeans in some time.

An evolutionist from Harvard, Stephen Jay Gould, said that the mean cerebral capacity for all men are the same, showing we have the same intellectual capacities all. That come after he told a French anthropologist compared the skulls of white and black persons, concluding that the French whites had a greater cerebral capacity than the Africans. Gould later explained that the man compared white individuals with big heads against black individuals with small heads. He actively selected the samples to assess his racist theories, dismissing small white crania or big black skulls.

Finally, I should say we are also unfamiliar with the ironical or aggressive tone of your response to that Mr. Cristaldo. I saw the same tone in the responses of many Anglo-Saxons and believe they are a cultural characteristic of you Yankees as a society. Then, the fact by which it should perhaps be difficult to you to grasp in the reactionary attitude the Brazilian experiment when reading you, could be simply be a cultural difference between our cultures. The same can apply to your difficulty to accept the pardo category. There appears to me that your motivation to unite that kind of descent to blacks is because it is the costume of your country to do so, except in the end of the XIXth century, so you are shocked when seeing other people organize their differences in other ways.

You say “I will kick your ass:; we say “I will make you to shit –te voy hacer cagar- (is there a term in English for dropping feces?)”. But I understand you because perhaps this guy was truly bigot, or because perhaps you felt wounded when he spoke bad about Africa or black advocacy groups, or his simple denial of what really exist. In the same form I lost some composure when you said Brazilians were more racist than the Yankees. Or when you begun to number European massacres pointing to the German, Spanish or Belgians before the Anglo-Saxons as major assassins.

However, no matter how much the tone of my letter is defiant in some aspects, overall favorable comparisons to Anglo-Saxons, I say you that even when I am not of African descent (well, I do not know! I’ m a mix of Indian, Spaniard and Italian, but who knows who else is there in my genealogical tree!), I feel brothership with respect to the oppressed and poor, whatever his race. The blacks are getting a bad time in Brazil or U.S., as the Indians in Spanish America, and the blacks out there in Africa, the Arabs in they newly demonized countries, or the South East Asians and Indians by capitalistic robbery, the Japs when bombed, 3 millions of them being killed, the Koreans suffering the loss of 2 millions in the Korean war, the Vietnamese of 4 millions in the Vietnam war.

PabloDiaz_730@hotmail.com

Córdoba, Argentina