For Kramer (2000, p.37- 50) ' ' if history exists human being is because the man has an infancy. The disappearance of infancy or the destruction of the infancy concept directly is related the destruction of the proper concept of man as subject of history and the culture. To value infancy and to fight for its destruction do not mean, therefore, to participate of a fight where historically we have lost? the one that it aims at to defend and to guarantee the humanity, the tolerance, the respect for the other in its diferenas' '. It is understood with that the infantile identity must obligatorily be preserved in the direction of that, if to destroy the identities infantile, we will hinder that these are historical citizens, and, therefore constructors of its proper process of historicizao. It also means to understand that the other is excellent in the construction of the society and that it has innumerable distinctions between the groups, people and that even so different in aspects are determined, of if has respected, a time that all are human beings and possess its parcel of importance in the societal life. In this Ribeiro direction (2001) it defends that to construct the other, it implies to construct the border that of them in separates the border to them started for being before plus an imaginary line on which if it projects the notion of difference and from which if becomes possible the affirmation of identity (RIBEIRO, 2001: p.468). Already for Saints (1993), ' ' any form to assign that one that is not We means to distanciar and to subordinate. If thus it is, we think that all these forms are effective ways of identifications and landmarks colonies that, wrinkled for the same logics of inaquality of being able, create concept and thoughts and thoughts consolidated on the Other as a sobordinate, placing it in a peripheral social sphere or delinquent.