Success of Vini Jr. causes ‘racial panic’ in white people, says black researcher

High-performance athletes such as soccer player Vinícius Junior have a prestigious role in our contemporary society, but the fact that Brazilians are black generates a breach of expectations in the social hierarchy dominated by whites, according to the analysis of jurist Adilson Moreira.

Last week, on the 21st, the Real Madrid striker was the target of racist chants in a La Liga game, the Spanish championship, against the Valencia team. This has happened at least ten times with the Brazilian athlete in Spain.

“Society needs to be permanently convinced that non-white people are not competent social actors. Therefore, the moral degradation of non-white people is a central element of all or almost all forms of racism”, says Moreira, doctor in law from the University from Harvard and visiting professor at Stanford University, both in the United States.

“The case of Vinícius Junior attests to this even more clearly, because he is a dark black man and a highly competent professional. This leads many white people to a situation of racial panic.”

Moreira, who is also an assistant professor at Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, is the author of the book “Racismo Recreativo” (Editora Jandaíra). The concept he proposes, and which gives the work its title, refers to messages that show contempt for racial minorities through humor and activities such as sports.

The book analyzes humorous programs that portrayed black characters in a derogatory way, as well as 88 judicial decisions in Brazil in which racist humor was used to refer to racial minorities.

According to the researcher, both programs and court decisions resort to the same stereotypes.

Recently, another accusation of racism that gained repercussions reached the Brazilian courts: in mid-May, the Court of Justice of São Paulo demanded that the comedian Leo Lins remove a video from the air.

The decision states that the video propagated “hateful, bigoted and discriminatory comments against minorities and vulnerable groups”.

Lins was also banned from making new comments against minorities in his presentations. BBC News Brasil reached out to the comedian through his publicity contact, but did not receive a response.

Lins’ speeches about blacks in 2017 are even mentioned by Adilson Moreira in his book.

Beyond “Recreational Racism”, Moreira is the author of other publications, such as the book Thinking Like a Black: Ensaio de Hermeneutica Jurídica (Editora Contracurrent), which was a finalist for the Jabuti Prize in 2020, in the Social Sciences category.

The jurist, who is living in California, spoke to BBC News Brasil via video call. Check out key excerpts from the interview.

Could you exemplify which social opportunities would be those that would be restricted by the social status of whites? There are hundreds of thousands of examples of how humor and stereotypes affect black people. This occurs in access to Justice, access to work, access to health… In the SUS [Sistema Único de Saúde]white women are seen for an average of 15 minutes, white men for 12 minutes, black women for 8 minutes and black men for 5 minutes.

Check out the discussion about the Leo Lins episode. There are a number of social actors arguing that that is censorship, that that is political correctness taking over the Brazilian judicial system, that we would have anti-joke legislation. But humor is a message, which makes sense to the other person as he or she shares the views of the individual who told the joke.

So, for racist, sexist, homophobic humor to produce comic effect, a large part or society as a whole needs to believe that women, blacks and homosexuals are inferior, different, incompetent, morally degraded people.

What is behind the idea that “if you don’t want to consume, don’t go” is the notion that the cognitive element that makes someone laugh at the joke is limited to that moment.

So after I leave the show and meet people of color, Asian or indigenous people, in other situations, I would act civil. No. The cognitive element that makes me laugh at a racist joke also shapes my perception of those individuals in all other circumstances. So, if I am a human resources professional and I have to decide between a black man and a white man, I will decide in favor of the white man, because I am culturally trained to believe that only white people are competent.

So isn’t a joke restricted to the theater in which it was delivered? It’s entirely impossible. and the book [“Racismo Recreativo”] show it. I made a point of first analyzing a series of black characters in humorous programs and then, of a series of lawsuits, which show that the stereotypes are exactly the same as those observed in the programs.

When there are laws and judicial decisions influencing the content of humor, does this pose no risk to freedom of expression? Freedom of expression is a constitutional principle that emerged within a very specific context, in the United States in the early 19th century, as a result of laws called acts of sedition, which prohibited criticism of the federal government —at a time when the government was doing a series of things contrary to the collective interest. This was considered an act of censorship, because it prevented public criticism of government acts that were actually harming the population.

That’s censorship, when an individual holds office inappropriately and says, you’re not going to report me. We are in a democracy where information needs to circulate, where me, you and Leo Lins need to be aware [da informação]express opinions, to decide for the common good.

It is something very different from hate speech.

So censorship is something limited to institutional politics? This is the origin of both the discussion about censorship and freedom of expression. But certainly censorship can be exercised against any individual, against any group whose manifestations, speeches, are contrary to the interests of the dominant groups. Because censorship implies a power relationship.

White people try to convince us that the fight against racism is about censorship. No. The fight against racism is a fight for civilizing values.

I don’t think it’s a problem for people of white comedians to make jokes about black people. These jokes can take a variety of forms without demeaning the moral degradation of black people.

I can make jokes about women or specific women without it expressing moral degradation. I can build a television program around a woman who is a social climber, without it being a debasement of women, as in the BBC’s most popular television programme, “Keeping Up Appearances”.

And what do you think of the humor that makes fun of poor whites in the US? I see no point in making racist jokes with white, poor, American people they call red necks (in literal translation, “red necks”). Especially when we consider the fact that white people suffer from homophobia, they suffer from poverty. And here in the United States, they suffer tremendously from poverty.

And let’s remember that representatives of minority groups and subaltern groups also produce humor about themselves.

There is a whole rich tradition of Jewish humor and in relation to existing customs within the Jewish community, about the Jewish mother, about Jewish traditions… The same thing in relation to blacks and the black community.

So the issue of identity becomes more prominent there? That is, is it more acceptable for a black person to make fun of their community? I think that in these cases it is different because the humor is not coming from a person with the aim of legitimizing social domination.

Humor has a plurality of objectives, one of which is to produce pleasure and grace through ironic, joking situations about members of the group itself. It aims at relief and relaxation.

The theory of recreational racism is not based on a sense of hypersensitivity, as people, especially straight white men, say, “Oh, now we can’t say any more they get offended.” It’s not about offenses in the superficial sense of the word. No.

Black people hear racist comments every day. They confront racist attitudes and acts every day. And these attitudes, these lines, compromise the collective status [dos negros]. Sexist jokes undermine the collective status of women.

How does humor act to reproduce this idea? Through jokes that say that women are emotionally out of control, that they are very sensitive. What they are really saying is: “Women are very emotional. We men, on the contrary, are rational beings. Therefore, we should have access to positions of command and women should be in a subordinate position.”

Racist, sexist, homophobic humor is, first and foremost, strategic behavior.

After the latest racist demonstrations against Vini Jr., some people raised the question of whether Brazil was more advanced in combating racism in football. What do you think? I hate football and I don’t follow football [risos]. But, in the book, I mention decisions by sports courts that condemned clubs for practicing racism, as was the case with Grêmio [em 2022, o clube foi condenado pela Justiça a pagar multa por um grito racista da torcida]. I don’t think this happened in Spain.

Who should regulate and decide the limits of freedom of expression? The Legislature, the Judiciary, the spontaneous reaction of the population…? Each of these social actors has an important role in this regulation. First, we have a Constitution. We also have a law that regulates crimes of racism [a lei 7.716]. The Constitution guarantees freedom and the right to free speech, but it was never about being able to say whatever you want. Never.

[O princípio da] Freedom of expression has its origin in a very specific objective, which is to allow the circulation of information speeches that can contribute to the common good. Racism, sexism, homophobia, none of that, are things that promote the common good.

Referring to the Leo Lins case, the comedian Fabio Porchat wrote on Twitter that “within the law, anything can be made fun of”. Technically, is this true? No, it’s not. Because of law 7716. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva sanctioned a law at the beginning of this year that brings changes to law 7716, and one of them characterizes the crime of racial injury when there is the objective of promoting laughter and jocular entertainment. In addition to the Constitution, which brings the principles of equality and human dignity.

In the case of the comedian Léo Lins, the Justice prohibited him from making any comments from now on in his presentations against minorities and vulnerable categories. Doesn’t this go beyond the limits of how Justice can interfere with a person’s expression? The Court of Justice acted correctly, according to the law, law 7716. This was not prior censorship or anything of that nature. The court just waved at him: look, be careful not to make that kind of racist comment, because it constitutes a crime.

Are you in favor of teaching quotas? I am all in favor of quotas. This is absolutely essential for the Brazilian justice system to operate properly. Most members of the Brazilian justice system are white, heterosexual, upper-class people.

[Nota da redação: Segundo um relatório do Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ) de 2021, 68,3% dos servidores do Politics Judiciário são brancos e 30% negros. Entre os magistrados, 85,9% são brancos e 12,8% são negros. Os dados consideram apenas pessoas cuja raça foi declarada.

Outro relatório do CNJ, de 2019, com dados relativos à atividade nos 10 anos anteriores, mostrou que 56,6% dos servidores do Judiciário eram mulheres, enquanto na magistratura o percentual de mulheres cai de 37,6% no período.]

Upper-middle-class white people in Brazil have little or absolutely no contact with black people. In addition, they are socialized based on the idea that racism has no relevance in Brazil.

As you have no contact with black people, the representation you have, especially of black men, is that they are dangerous subjects. This will, consciously or unconsciously, change your decision. This is so notorious that it is written in court decisions: “The accused does not appear to have the appearance of a bandit because he has blond hair and blue eyes.”

This text was originally published here.