To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The Renaissance was pivotal in expanding, legislating, and transforming the meanings of the blush, as well as in construing it as a marker of racial difference. Tracking the blush across national and conceptual borders offers new perspectives on race-making in the early modern world, where an obsession with the dermal visibility of the blush indexed the construction of whiteness. Yet, by analyzing the use of cosmetic rouge and blushing Black Africans and Afro-diasporic people on stage, this essay also contends that the act of turning red could destabilize race-based hierarchies, even as the blush remains an embodied testament of racial trauma.
This article analyses the impacts of modernisation projects and conservation policies on Traditional territories in Brazil, highlighting the resistance and adaptation strategies developed by rubber tappers, everlasting flower gatherers, vazanteiros, and veredeiros. Critiquing the notions of nature implicit in both modernisation projects and conservation policies, the text draws on decolonial ecology and environmental racism to assess how territorial expropriation and environmental degradation have disproportionately affected Traditional Communities while benefiting exclusionary economic development models. Each case examined illustrates this dynamic based on the historical constitution and way of life of the groups in question. The article argues that conservation policies, by adopting an exclusionary vision of nature, often disregard the knowledge and rights of Traditional Communities, perpetuating social and environmental inequalities. It concludes that biodiversity conservation efforts must integrate the social, cultural, and historical dimensions of local communities, challenging hegemonic logics of development and conservation.