Panama diary entry 3: white is best?

Hello again, allow me to talk about something that I observed whilst I was in Panama. The vast majority of the people are known as Mestizo - I actually find that word rather misleading because it refers to a mixed race person who has both European and Indigenous Native American blood. 65% of Panamanians self-identify as Mestizo which I find incredulous because if you're mixed with European blood, then you would have some kind of European features like fairer skin, lighter hair but that was clearly not the case in the vast majority of the Panamanian people I encountered. Only 12.3% identify as Native American or indigenous, 9.2% as black or African, 6.8% as mulatto (a mix of black and European ancestry) whilst only 6.7% identify as white. Now these are figures taken from the census conducted in Panama and people were able to choose which one of these groups they self-identify with and so that's why I roll my eyes in cynicism when I saw those figures as it didn't match up with what I saw in Panama. Obviously, I can only talk about what I have observed in Panama: so this isn't based on any kind of statistics, just my observations. So to my untrained eye, the vast majority of the people looked more Native American or indigenous - if they were mixed, they probably had some black/African blood in them but probably very little or no European blood at all. Interestingly enough, Wikipedia points out that the term Mestizo can also be used to define someone who is culturally 'European' regardless of ancestry - go figure!

What I find really odd is that there's clearly one category missing: let me break this down for you. Mestizos are a mix of indigenous + white, mulattos are a mix of black + white but there really isn't a category for indigenous + black. The Spanish had a word for it: Zambo but that word has gone out of modern use. Why is that the case? If the argument is that the unique history of Latin America has let to a lot of intermarriages between different migrant groups with the local indigenous population, then of course that leads to a lot of people with mixed ethnic heritage today but without literally running around the streets of Panama City and subjecting them to a DNA test, it is pretty clear that even if the people there were mixed, it is far more likely for them to have a mix of local indigenous + black ethnic heritage rather than indigenous + white and that was evident even to the naked eye, just by observing their facial features and skin tone. We know that the white Spanish settlers were racist in the sense that they would always prefer to marry someone else who was white European rather than black, indigenous or mixed; whilst some white + indigenous marriages did happen, the numbers were highly unlikely to be high enough to create a situation where 65% of the Panamanian population today have European blood. Yet somehow, those who claim to be mixed are far more likely to claim that they have European blood rather than black African or other ethnic heritage. As someone who has done a DNA test in the past, I find this whole topic fascinating: there is after all a huge difference between identifying as white actually having European blood. 

Now allow me to contrast that to what I saw on the local TV stations and the advertising on the street - practically everyone in the local media were white. I'm talking whiter than white Europeans with fair hair and even if you do get the odd non-white person in advertising, they were mixed: they were not too dark, they still had some European features. Given that white people number just 6.7% of the population in Panama, it struck me that it was really odd that they dominated the media like that. In the UK, where white people are 87.2%, we have even more non-white faces in the media than in Panama, where white people number just 6.7%. The BBC is bending over backwards when it comes to getting more and more non-white faces into mainstream media: our next Dr Who is a Rwandan-born black actor Ncuti Gatwa, the first black actor to be cast in this iconic role. The UK seems to be doing the opposite of what is happening in Panama, we're taking big steps to make sure the non-white minority are equally represented in the media whilst in Panama, the situation there feels very similar to that of Apartheid South Africa where a white minority was suppressing the black majority except of course, there isn't any kind of Apartheid system in Panama today. Not officially anyway, but if you look at the list of past leaders of Panama here, the list is made up of entirely of with white European ancestry. If you then looked at the list of the richest people in Panama, they're all white. So whilst it is clear that the white are the elite in Panama, I still don't understand why the majority non-white indigenous locals in Panama put them on a pedestal like that.

When you go shopping in Panama, the kinds of advertising you will encounter is painfully predictable. Say it is a children's toy: cue images of white children playing with the toy - the toy is marketed as something that the white elite would play with despite the fact that it is in a shop where most of the customers are not white. Or imagine if we're dealing with a shampoo: cue images of a beautiful white lady with long blonde hair posing with that bottle of shampoo - the shampoo is marketed as a luxury that rich, white women would use. If you want to convince the non-white locals to buy a product, just convince them that this is something that white people would buy and use: it all feels painfully blunt and unsophisticated. Allow me to tell you about a popular Panamanian TV series: "El Anti-Friendzone" is about a Panamanian man in his 30s who is desperate to settle down and find a wife, but keeps getting shoved in the friend zone by the women he likes. Of course, all the main characters in this TV series are all white and the casting director seemed determined to create a vision of Panama City which is whiter than white which is crazy, as Panama is only 6.7% white - so if the casting director were to reflect that percentage, then only 1 out of 15 characters in the show should be white. Oh there's a gay character too in the name of diversity, but of course, the gay character is white.  Most European productions would go out of their way to show diversity in their casting and include black and Asian actors as part of the cast, whilst in El Anti-Friendzone, whilst there were some non-white characters, but they were relegated to relatively minor supporting roles despite being them being the majority in Panama today. Here's a short clip from the show for you. 

There are some Latin American countries like Chile, Argentina and Uruguay which are majority white, and I had visited those countries before but there are others where there are few white people like Panama. Now one of the few Latin American TV series that I have watched religiously is The Amazing Race Latino America. It's the Latin American version of the US reality TV show The Amazing Race, except the entire show is mostly in Spanish and a little Portuguese (when they have contestants from Brazil) but no English is spoken at all and the race is confined to Latin America. I have watched all five seasons and the one thing that has always bothered me about the show was that it was so white - so despite the cast of the show being drawn from various Latin American countries, it is quite rare to find a non-white contestant. If you were to look at the ethnic breakdown of the various countries the the casting should have covered, then white contestants should have at the very least been in the minority. For the first three seasons, the host was the very handsome Harris Whitbeck, who is better known for his work as a CNN correspondent rather than as a TV host. Despite being born in Guatemala, Whitbeck is as white as they come and he is the ideal face for TV in Latin America: he is not just white but born in the region as well - he's not some gringo brought in from New York or Madrid but a local as far as they are concerned. Except of course, even in his native Guatemala, Whitbeck would be a minority as only 14% of the population there are as white as he is. If you want to talk about white privilege, that privilege is much more significant in Latin America today especially in countries like Panama and Guatemala where white people there are in the minority. 

What strikes me about The Amazing Race Latino America was that they would go as far as to include racers from Brazil to take part, despite the fact that Brazilians speak Portuguese rather than Spanish. Thus the Brazilians were allowed to speak in Portuguese during the show and were subtitled in Spanish but needless to say, the Brazilians cast in the show were mostly white. I could go on bitching about this but at the end of the day, we have to recognize that these TV programmes are chasing viewers. If the viewers in Latin America really like seeing white people rather than indigenous or black people on their screens, then that would be the primary factor influencing the casting decisions. Likewise, if placing a white lady with blonde hair is more likely to sell more shampoo than using a black or indigenous model with dark hair, then the ad agency in Panama City doing that shampoo ad is going to say, "get me the whitest, blondest model you can find for this ad, I don't care if you have to fly her in from somewhere like Sweden or Iceland. I want every woman in Panama buying this shampoo after seeing our ad!" The same ad agency would say, "why would we put a black or indigenous model in the ad if it wouldn't help sell the product? We're not here to change society, we don't have any other agenda apart from trying to help our client sell more shampoo." Of course, as a non-white person, this does make me feel rather uncomfortable with the situation as this is a type of racism, a racial Apartheid based on your skin tone and to be fair, this does happen in other places like the Philippines, India and Pakistan as well, where people go to great lengths to bleach their skin to appear more white. Thus this deep desire to appear more white is indeed in many other countries. 

A bit part about Latino culture in central America is the music - that is also one of their biggest exports and I'm a huge fan of course, it is one of the ways I improve my Spanish. However, if you look at some of the biggest Latino artists like Shakira, J Baldwin, Daddy Yankee, Marc Antony, Ricky Martin, Pitbull and Gloria Estefan, you'll start to notice one thing in common - they're all white. Take someone like Gloria Esefan for example: she was born in Cuba but her grandparents came from Spain, hence she was from the white minority in Cuba. Her family fled to Miami when she was a young child and she grew up in America, but has always identified as Cuban-American - her music has strong Latino influences and she sings in both English and Spanish. Let's look at Shakira who would be more popular with my younger readers (and hey, I'm a huge fan of Shakira too): her ancestry is a mix of Lebanese, Spanish and Italian blood. Whilst she was born and raised in Barranquilla in Colombia, she looks distinctively white. You don't need to be white in order to become a huge star on the Latino music scene, but it certainly seems that there are far more white-looking Latino singers who have become very famous compared to the black, mixed or indigenous ones. You might argue that you can't see the colour of Shakira's skin when you hear her songs on the radio, but we tend to watch music videos and concerts on Youtube these days and thus music has become very visual in the way we consume it. Hence this only reinforces existing prejudices and stereotypes about white privilege in Latin America when it comes to the way people choose their music to listen to. 

How did we end up in this situation in the first place then? Well, Panama was first captured by the Spanish in 1513 and remained as a part of the Spanish empire for over 300 years until 1821- even when it did gain independence from Spain and became a part of Colombia, the elites who were in power and had all the wealth were white Europeans. By that token, little has changed over the years, the people with money and power in Panama today are still mostly white. If you want to find white people in Panama, simply go to the neighbourhoods where the rich live and you will be surrounded by white people. So until we start seeing a significant number of non-white people become very rich and reach positions of power in Panama, associating whiteness with wealth, privilege and power is never going to change. Or is it? I'm from Singapore and Singapore was a former British colony for 140 years, if we exclude the years under Japanese occupation and whilst it is one of the most Westernized countries in Asia, I wouldn't have any trouble finding Asian faces advertising products like toys and shampoo. I could watch TV in Singapore and see loads of Asian people playing the lead roles, whilst the odd white character would be there to spice things up rather than to play the lead. But of course, if you look at the government of Singapore, the stark difference is that it is run by Asian people today (it has been over 40 years since Singapore last had a Eurasian president, Benjamin Sheares) whilst Panama is still very much run by the white minority elite, replicating what we observed under the South African Apartheid regime and perpetuating the legacy of colonialism. 

I will finish by echoing something I read online whilst researching this piece about ethnic identity in Panama: this person from Panama wrote, "it is now 2022, why are people still discussing race as if it is 1922? Haven't we moved on from race based politics? Can't we all just be Panamanian people no matter what the colour of our skin may be or where our parents may have come from? Why are some people still obsessed with trying to shove us into a box to say which category we belong to when we can have just one category: Panama - shouldn't that suffice? Why are you using such categories to try to divide people rather than unite them?" What do you think? Is this person right? Or does agreeing with this person conveniently ignores the fact that 65% of Panama claims to have European blood when that figure is clearly grossly exaggerated - should it matter in a place like Panama? After all, let's be pragmatic here, don't you think your bank balance and wealth matters far more than your ancestry?! Please let me know what you think, leave a comment below.