King Ekuikui VI, donned in a traditional black-and-white robe and hat featuring his kingdom’s emblematic eagle, addressed the crowd, expressing the significance of their connection.

“Our presence here is to say to Afro-descendants, to our brothers, here in Brazil and especially in this quilombo, that we are here as roots that are alive, roots that keep this ancestry, roots that maintain our habits and customs,” he shared with the AP.

Camorim, dating back to 1614, stands as a testament to the endurance of the quilombo tradition. Today, nearly 100 people reside there, preserving their traditional religion and medicinal plants. King Ekuikui VI’s visit underscored the historical and cultural bonds that persist across oceans.

The monarch’s trip included a visit to Rio’s Valongo Wharf, a UNESCO world heritage site where as many as 900,000 enslaved people made landfall after crossing the Atlantic Ocean. This site holds immense historical significance, recognized by the international organization as “the most important physical trace of the arrival of African slaves on the American continent.”

The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database notes that of the 10.5 million Africans captured, over a third disembarked in Brazil. Some experts suggest even higher numbers, estimating that up to 5 million Africans landed in the country. Brazil, as the last country in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery in 1888, has since seen the persistence of communities of formerly enslaved people, until a new constitution recognized rights on land they occupied a century later.

The most recent census in 2022 identified quilombos in almost 1,700 municipalities in Brazil, home to 1.3 million people, comprising about 0.6% of the country’s population. These communities, rooted in a complex history, continue to play a vital role in preserving cultural heritage.

Resident Rosilane Almeida shared her anticipation of learning how her community’s culture compares to that of their root country. During the visit, she and others showcased Camorim’s archaeological site, where centuries-old ceramics are still being excavated, and its garden of medicinal plants.

King Ekuikui VI’s words resonated with the community: “I look to the south, I look to the north, and at the end of the day, we are not lost. We are here, and there are a lot of people who look majestic.”

This visit serves as a poignant chapter in the ongoing narrative of cultural resilience and interconnectedness between African roots and Afro-descendant communities in Brazil.

The post Angolan Monarch Bridges with Brazilian Descendants of Enslaved Ancestors first appeared on The Postcolonial.

An investigation revealed that an Italian friar wrote about the existence of “lands beyond the Atlantic Ocean” 152 years before Christopher Columbus arrived in America. The friar, Galvano Fiamma (Milan, 1283-1344) lived for a period in Genoa (Columbus’ birthplace) and had contact with sailors, the University of Milan concluded recently. 

The results of this investigation have been released some days before the celebration of the 529th Anniversary of “Columbus Day”, on the 12th of October. This festivity, which has taken place for little more than a century, has been subject to controversy for its associated themes and meanings – after all, the continent was inhabited by indigenous people before any European set their foot on the land.

This text reopens the long-time debate from which there was no previous documentation until now. If this information about lands beyond the Atlantic was spread in Genoa, before Columbus, it could have both helped him to get convinced and it could have made the risk of 1492 America’s expedition to be more understandable. The previous statement would radically change the notion of Columbus arriving in America by chance and luck, as it has been taught in schools across the world, to one in which the trip could have been premeditated and planned carefully.

ABC Cultura tells how in his 1340s “Cronica Universalis”, Fiamma mentioned America, and named it “Marckalada”. He further wrote about how ‘Sailors who explore the seas from Denmark and Norway say that beyond Norway (…) there is an island called Greenland; and even beyond it, to the West, there is a land name Marckalada. The inhabitants of the place are giants, and there are stone buildings so big that no man could have put them unless they would have been very big. There, green trees grow and many animals and birds live. But there has never been any sailor that could have for sure known any news from these lands and their characteristics’.

‘It is an uncomfortable holiday to celebrate‘

Although it is celebrated differently around the world, the common theme of Columbus day is the encounter of Europe and America back in 1492. In Spain, the 12th of October is declared as a National Holiday of Spain as it ‘symbolizes the historical anniversary in which Spain, about to conclude a process of State construction based on our cultural and political plurality, and the integration of the kingdoms of Spain into the same monarchy begins a period of linguistic and cultural projection beyond European limits’. A traditional military parade, performances of the national anthem, tributes to the Spanish flag, folk dances and national costume showings all take place every year to celebrate what has been constantly regarded as the “discovery” of America. 

In a recent interview with “ABC España”, author Marcela García Sebastiani explains how problematic this holiday has become both in Spain and in Latin America: ‘it has negative connotations that relate [the holiday] with a conflictive memory of the colonial past that has been questioned by the American public opinion since the end of the 20th century’. This discontent has been manifested explicitly in changes to the name of the holiday.

In Latin America, the holiday takes different names depending on the country, being a holiday normally more focused on cultural diversity. Thus, names such as “Day of Race”, “Day of the Discovery of America”, “Day of Cultural Diversity”, “Day of the Encounter of Two Worlds”, “Day of the Indigenous Resistance” have all been used alike. Celebrations that take place are much smaller than the ones in Spain and include mostly folk dances and national costume showings.

In Chile, for instance, the “Day of Race” was changed in 2000 to to “Day of the Encounter of Two Worlds”; in Venezuela, it also changed from “Day of Race” to “Day of the Indigenous Resistance” in 2002 and in Argentina, it went from “Day of Race” to “Day of the American Cultural Diversity”, in 2007; just to name a few examples. 

Although unofficially, throughout Latin America the holiday has also been regarded commonly as the “Day of the Discovery of America”. Both the terms “race” and especially “discovery of America” have been largely criticized as they simplify the very complex power and social relations between Spain and Latin America, as well as it dismisses the history, the civilization and the communities that inhabited the American territory before the Spanish’ arrival. With the institutionalisation of this holiday and the use of both the words “race” and “discovery”, there was an attempt of vindication to praise nationalistic values which exposed a certain pride mostly focused on the “mixed-race” legacy, which at the same time supposes that the reason of the grandiosity of the national civilisation had its origin in the European or Western legacy with allowed the “mixing of races” in the first place.

Another visible action to show displeasure with the holiday is focused on the protests, vandalisation and tearing down of Christopher Columbus and other Spanish-Crown-related statues over recent years across different Latin American countries. ‘It is not something new (…) the attacks to the monuments that symbolize the conquest and the Spanish colonization are an expression of the search for the guilty ones for the horrors of the process that took place with the original population,’ Sebastiani says. ‘The current situation where statues are thrown down has been a result of manifestations of frustration with the past, and aspirations for future change,’ she explains.

Were the Americas ever discovered?

The general consensus among the groups that oppose the celebration is that upon arrival to America, the indigenous inhabitants were submitted to colonisation, abuse, genocide, and exposure to European diseases. According to Plácido Bailarín, an indigenous leader from Colombia: ‘there was no discovery; it was all invasion, death and genocide. They looted our wealth and destroyed our culture’. Some of these topics are likewise reflected in the ways that the 12th of October has been taught in schools both in Spain and in different Latin American countries, where the arrival of Columbus has been mostly framed both as a “discovery” and a “heroic feat”, with little attention to the history of the native communities.

There is, however, space to continue the changes that began some years ago. In Latin America, efforts are being made to increasingly focus the festivity towards an opportunity to celebrate the cultural diversity that exists on the continent, to keep learning and healing from the lasting effects that the colonisation had and as an opportunity to keep fighting for equal rights for all citizens. In Spain also, efforts are being made to include stories of Mayans, Aztecs, Incas and other major indigenous groups who dominated the area before the Europeans. Likewise, terms such as “colonisation” and “abuse of power” have started to be used when teaching in schools; but the last word, so far, belongs to each specific school.

Regardless of which European arrived first to the continent, the main interest behind the explorations of America obeyed to a territorial, economical and religious expansion of Spain. In the end, the history of the events of the 12th of October of 1492 has become less rigid and more flexible, allowing for bigger visibility of the native indigenous communities, and a bigger criticism of the colonisation process.

The post The Troublesome History of Columbus Day and the “Discovery” of America first appeared on The Postcolonial.

The deal is still waiting to be ratified and come to life. After decades long negotiations, what is hindering the trade deal’s acceptance and why is it opposed by so many? The deal between the EU and Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay (Mercosur) is to be EU’s largest trade deal in history.

But it has evoked serious concerns over environmental and human rights by environmentalists, trade deal experts and political leaders.

Sustainability of the deal

Several researchers studying the deal have pointed out that it fails to fulfil the criteria of a sustainable trade deal. There are three indicators to measure this: 

1. inclusion of local communities,
2. transparency mechanisms to trace commodities and provide open-access information, and
3. enforcement to legally uphold sustainability commitments.

The EU has stated that: ‘The agreement will promote the effective implementation of several multilateral environmental agreements signed by the EU and Mercosur countries, such as the Paris Agreement.’

Whereas French president Emmanuel Macron is one of the strongest opponents of the deal, Portugal’s secretary of state for internationalisation, Eurico Brilhante Dias, is much more optimistic about its possibilities: ‘If the agreement is possible – and signed by the parties – we believe that steps forward are possible, that additional commitments, particularly on sustainability, are possible.’

Portugal currently holds the EU council presidency, and along with Spain, has vocally said they will push the deal to go forward.

Indigenous peoples’ rights

Although the EU-Mercosur deal offers considerable reductions in tariffs and opens new markets, it also has the potential to cause negative environmental and social impacts, especially on the indigenous people living in South America.

Additionally to vast amount of threatened land and forests, South America is home to over 40 million indigenous people. About half of them live in urban areas, but those in rural areas are often forced to give up their land to modern agriculture.

There are many examples of trade agreements harming their livelihoods.

Researchers who have looked into the sustainability of the EU-Mercosur deal have pointed out the following:

‘Examples of trade agreements negatively affecting native communities include the Peru-US Trade Preference Agreement, which catalyzed state attempts to re-zone Indigenous forests for agriculture, leading to violent clashes that left 33 dead and over 170 injured; and the expansion of coal mining in Colombia’s La Guajira province on the heels of agreements with the US, Canada, and the EU, which has caused the Indigenous Wayúu people to suffer displacement, water shortages, and high child mortality.’

‘If the agreement is possible – and signed by the parties – we believe that steps forward are possible, that additional commitments, particularly on sustainability, are possible’

Eurico Brilhante Dias

Portugal’s secretary of state for internationalisation

Not consulting the indigenous peoples on a historically large trade deal concerning their land effectively misses an opportunity to make indigenous-inclusive-policies more commonplace. It only adds to the questionable policies already taking place on the continent, especially in Brazil.

One recent example of this is when The Guardian reported how: ‘in April 2020, Brazil’s National Indian Foundation (Funai) – whose remit is to defend Indigenous peoples – legalised the takeover of rural land in over 200 Indigenous areas. Three months later, Amazonian Indigenous communities witnessed a 76% rise in illegal fires on their lands compared to the same time in 2019. Additionally, the Indigenous rights organisation APIB says that coronavirus has been three times more lethal to Indigenous peoples than to the rest of the population.’

South American Indigenous people and their values should have been included in the process and the finished trade deal, but this fundamental right has only been fulfilled partially. Yet in the world facing climate emergency, the indigenous peoples could protect the invaluable forests from being chopped up to free land for soya.

Soya driven deforestation

The largest export from the Mercosur bloc are agricultural products, especially soy. And soy production is a contributor to large-scale deforestation of the Amazon.

Much of Europe’s resistance for the plan comes from worry that the trade deal will increase the amount of Mercosur soya and beef on the EU markets, and that these products will make it harder for the European producers to compete with the cheap South-American production. 

The two main South American exports, beef and soya, are closely interlinked and land-intensive products.

About three quarters of soy produced in the world is used as animal feed, with a lot of it exported to Europe ultimately feeding chicken and pig farms.

The true cost behind soy is often unfamiliar to the consumers and the scale of politics entwined with environmental aims is hard to untangle. However, labelling soya as an absolute evil is not straightforward.

The trade deal would not change the soya tariff, as the soya beans and meat already enjoy a zero tariff on EU markets.

The deal does not enable limitless trade, but will have quotas for products like beef.

However, meat, dairy and other agricultural products, like soya, are known to be extremely unsustainable especially in the current consumed amounts. 

Way forward

It is agreed by all sides that the EU-Mercosur trade deal is a historical agreement that has a lot of potential. However, as the researchers have pointed out, the exclusion of indigenous peoples when drafting the plan is making it look unfinished and unsustainable and at its current state unable to fulfil the rights granted to indigenous peoples by the UNDRIP. French president Emmanuel Macron has expressed ‘major concerns’ over the deal’s environmental impact.

There are examples of trade deals that have impacted the indigenous people negatively, but also deals that lay out binding environmental regulations. It remains to be seen in which form of the EU-Mercosur deal is ratified and whether it is able to avoid dire human and environmental consequences.

The post EU trading with Mercosur: a bargain or exploitation? first appeared on The Postcolonial.