Source: http://www.geographicguide.net/america/panama.htm

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Racial Hegemony in Panama

            Existing in almost every society around the globe is the issue of racial inequality. Although Panama claims to be a racially egalitarian society, lacking any inequalities attributed to an individual’s physical appearance and heritage, discrimination does exist. Through my research, I found that the more economically powerful a specific “race” of people tends to be, the higher that “race” is placed on the social hierarchy. An interesting race relation is seen in Panama’s Archipelago region.  The region’s population is roughly 18,000 and consists of a mix of Afro-Antilleans, indigenous people, Chinese, Latinos, and Europeans.
The history of the region’s racial segregation is significant because it offers a rare incident when darker skin was favored over lighter skin. The story begins in the late 1800’s when about 30,000 Afro-Antilleans arrived in Panama to work either on the construction of the Panama Canal or on the banana plantations. It is important to note that these immigrants spoke English. Contrasting from most Central American countries, like Honduras and Nicaragua, where blacks and indigenous people intermarried, the Afro-Antilleans and the local Ngobe indigenous tribe did not.  This is due to a sense of superiority that the Afro-Antilleans developed after achieving economic power. To explain, during the 1920’s, a fungus spread into Panamanian plantations and destroyed many crops. Rather than fix the problem, many United States citizens who managed the plantations returned to the United States. As a result, payroll decreased and many Afro-Antilleans obtained the clerk and supervisor jobs that were abandoned. Additionally, since Afro-Antilleans spoke English, they had the ability to communicate with North Americans (Guerron-Montero 213).
This turn of events had a significant impact on the social status of the black community living in Panama. Since they had jobs, they earned money and could afford their own plots of land.  The Ngobe indigenous group mainly missed out because they did not speak English. This is a unique instance of the darker skinned individual being ranked higher than the lighter skinned person. Similar to how some people in Brazil change their appearance to look more “white” by dying their hair blonde, Panamanian indigenous people “perm their hair and style it in ways that make it less evident that they are indigenous.”(Guerron-Montero 217)  Indigenous people were also given derogatory terms like buchi and bushmen which share a similar meaning to “hillbilly.” Darker skinned people continued to carry this high status until the beginning of white tourism during the 1990’s. After this contact, racial hierarchy flipped entirely, placing the lighter skinned person at the top.
Similar to how the Afro-Antilleans gained their social prestige, the new preference for lighter skin was also a result of an economic power shift.  To elaborate, the white tourists who visited Panama were usually wealthy people. Interestingly, the Panamanians were more entranced by the tourist’s extreme wealth and ability to pamper their wives and families than their light skin color. With time, Panamanians began associating light skin with wealth. This ultimately led to the preference for light skin.
Panamanian social hierarchy is very interesting. The government claims it does not exist and that distinctions are based on economic class and gender. In a sense, the government is somewhat correct. The Afro-Antilleans during the early mid 1900’s held a high status because they held good jobs during that time; therefore, a high economic status. The white tourists were also ranked highly in economic power because of their wealth. Unfortunately, since specific “races” have a tendency to dominant a certain economic bracket, racial discrimination develops as a side effect.



Guerron-Montero, Carla. "Racial Democracy and Nationalism in Panama." Ethnology 45 (2006):
            209-28. JSTOR. Web. 6 Apr. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20456595>.

No comments:

Post a Comment