| 
1 2 3
4 
The
Journey
Part
Three (2)
Rio
de Janeiro
September
1 —— September 21
Some preliminary thoughts on meeting with historian, Professor José
Hónorio Rodrigues:
*
In comparing Brazil and U.S. essential to note that to date only five
million immigrants have arrived in Brazil, one and a half million returned
to their own countries, leaving 3.5 million. “In Brazil we have
no ethnic minority. We have twenty million people who live very well,
'a dominant minority,' and a hundred million people who live miserably,
the only division that exists in Brazil.” In the eighteen years
since the 1964 coup, an important new fact has entered the Brazilian
scene: immigrant sons of the first generation have begun to conquer
the social scene, not through economic productivity but their political
position.
*
Indian migration in 16th century was extensive. Anchieta spoke, for
example, of disappearance of tens of thousands of Indians, not by disease
alone. But treatment of Indians was savage. In Ilheus, Indians revolted
against the Portuguese, again and again. To pacify them, Tomé
de Sousa subdued them and selected one who was tied to the mouth of
a cannon and killed. Franciscans and other priests who arrived before
the Jesuits did very little or nothing for the Indians.
* Not
all degregados sent to Brazil were criminals. Some were more
like English remittance men or exiled as a form of punishment. Francisco
de Mello was one of these. - Phrase attributed to Antonil - “Brazil
is the paradise of the mulatto, purgatory of the white man and hell
of the Negro” - was actually De Mello's.
* Slave
revolts far more extensive than previously realized. Governor-General
reports of 17th and 18th century abound with references to uprisings.
Palmares was the first major revolt and exceptional in that it endured
for decades. Troop after troop was sent against it.
* At Canudos, the generals said the people were monarchists, which gave
them justification for upholding the republican cause. Banditos, a more
important element: Even during the Empire, there was order in the cities
but lawlessness in the interior. Banditry was endemic and jagunços exploited situation.
At
Canudos, Antonio Conselheiro, the Rebels, the Ruin of New Jerusalem
Max
Justo Guedes Some pointers from meeting with naval historian,Max
Justo Guedes:
- National
guard was founded during Regency period. You bought a title and
had obligation to raise a body of men. The richest man in the district
was colonel. A method, too, of raising a force in opposition to
central army. Most important was status afforded an individual.
Colonel's unit very often comprised of his slaves, held parades,
etc. Colonels had patrons at Court.
- On outbreak
of Paraguayan War, possible that Coronel and unit would
volunteer for Volunatários do Patria. Not common
though, for such volunteers to come from ranks of rich people. Pedro
Calmon recalls that one of his ancestors was teaching a class when
a military band passed by; he led all lads out to volunteer and
did so himself. Voluntários included many slaves.
- Entrance
to navy was prerogative of rich and those with noble ancestors during
Empire days. Tradition from Portugal where it was a way of enlisting
the nobles to go to India. They were allotted space on board to
bring back their personal acquisitions. Usually not first son to
navy, a position for second son (navy + army + church.)
- Monitors:
Brazilians studied Merrimac and Monitor. Two French
engineers designed Brazilian monitors constructed at Rio. They had
English and Irish engineers contracted to work for Navy. In the
attack on the two monitors, 400 Paraguayans died, eight Brazilians.
- Lopez was
a “man of his time.” He dreamed of a big and powerful
Paraguay. He understood clearly that if he was to achieve this he
needed a port. He was a clever man but reflected the education of
his country. Before the war, Brazil sent many instructors to Paraguay,
even assisted in constructing Humaitá fortress. “Brazil
was worried about Argentina who had eyes on the Plata.” One
of Lopez's sons was a midshipman at the Naval Academy.
Off
subject: “Brazil's big problem is that we were once a slave country,
our people were in the main slaves. Difficult to pass from slave to
free-thinking people. Influence, too, of moral ideas of the degregados
who wanted to become as rich as possible and return to Portugal. Indians
had a different outlook on property, sex etc., status not important.
Rich today act much the same way as they did in colonial times. They
don't pay attention to laws because they think and often know they can
buy their way out. The poor simply don't take any notice of laws.”
“Goulart
was a man of mean intelligence surrounded by people whose main objective
was to enrich themselves, to acquire more property, cars etc. Same problem
today. Generals not used to anything find themselves in Brasilia with
fine cars, houses and a lifestyle never possible nor accustomed to in
army. One of the main preoccupations during the time they are in Brasília
is how they're going to maintain this afterwards. So they get involved
in all sorts of business deals, many shady. In '64, there was more corruption
than communism.”
“Disagree
with people who see all priests as communists. It is not so - At Santa
Barbara (country town near Max's family property), there are kids who
go for a week eating nothing but mangos. Mayor does nothing to help
the poor. Only person who does a thing to help them is the priest.”
September
20 The argument and consensus reached with Antonietta last
night, a glorious two hour debate, brought me closer to clarity of my
ideas about Brazil and cleared any doubts that may have arisen about
her feelings of true Brazilian nationalism. What she doesn't realize
is that the hours of dialogue forced me toward a truly independent understanding
of Brazil and its problems, one divorced from cliches of my own and
from hers, e.g. “dominant ideology” (or my misreading of
this.) At last I feel for Brazil in same way I feel for South Africa,
although I accept the caution that no matter how deep or perceptive
that feeling, I am not a Brazilian.
*When
she speaks of dominant ideology, she doesn't differentiate between East
or West; she speaks of any outside ideology that attempts directly or
indirectly to impose itself on Brazil (or any other country for that
matter.) She is concerned about Brazil's lack of independence in sense
of falling prey to the East-West conflict and, more important, in the
imposition of outside ideology be it political, folkloric, lifestyle
on Brazil.
It's the much spoken of “Brazilian solution”
but expounded with brilliance and depth and sincerity. It is also, one
sadly realizes, the approach of a true idealist for that world is such
that nations cannot exist in vacuo, but her ideas are, of all
I've heard about Brazil, the best. Some of her points and my thoughts
on them:
- Wittingly or unwittingly
with covert imperialistic notions or otherwise, the United States
is imposing its “dominant ideology” upon Brazil. There
is an assumption, a “created climate,” that U.S.-style
democracy with a capitalist base is the only answer, that Brazil
must move closer to this to become “respectable” in
the eyes of the world. To be respectable by inference can only be
achieved by adopting the ways of the successful North Americans
as depicted in their life-style, their politics and administration,
they apparent success.
- However, to take
this path can damage the hope, and it is fragile, of developing
a truly Brazilian identity that would see it as a “great nation
within itself,” not as a “superpower.” The tragedy
of such an imported ideology is that it prolongs Brazil's colonial
agony. First, and of course, necessary since there had to be a beginning,
there were the Portuguese colonizers. By 1776, when the North Americans
won their independence, the colonial hold on Brazil which had existed
since 1500 was reinforced following the abortive Inconfidência
Mineira uprising and execution of Tiradentes, hero of Brazil's fight
for freedom. (Image: Tiradentes, oil by Washington Rodrigues,
Museu Historico Nacional, Rio de Janeiro.)
- With colonialism
entrenched, Brazil witnessed the incredible transplant of the colonizer
to the colony - the migration of the royal household to Brazil.
Until 1889, Brazil was an “Empire” and, indirectly,
a financial outpost of England, which had long sought a foothold
in South America. Through its support of the Brazilian emperors,
England was able to obtain the most unrealistic (to the Brazilians)
trade terms.
- The Republic came
in 1889 but for all outward appearance of an independent republic,
Brazil was still a nation essentially dominated from beyond, through
the light and power companies that lay in foreign hands, the vast
coffee estates held by foreign firms, the non-acceptance of the
feasibility of a Brazilian “solution. A nation of ex-slaves,
ex-colonels, of “sons of the Empire” still unable to
direct it own destiny.
- Then came 1930/32
and Vargas, who for all his faults must stand as the first Brazilian
nationalist on a world platform. (There was, of course, Rui Barbosa
at the Hague and Washington but his image was tainted by the legacy
of Empire and Colony. A fine, intelligent man but compromised.)
Vargas attempted to promote a true Brazilian base i.e. independence
but as events were to prove, he failed. Let's assume his suicide
note was genuine: He says clearly that outside interests frustrated
his attempts to create a truly independent nation.
- By this time there
had emerged the giant of the 20th century, the U.S., and it continued
the usurpation of Brazilian independence by drawing the South American
nation into its orbit. Vide Ambassador Lincoln Gordon's comments
after the 1964 coup: “The greatest blow for freedom.”
Or was he saying, the greatest blow for continued American domination
of this vast country?
- Today, the great
fazendeiros in the “sky” atop the skyscrapers of Rio
and São Paulo are getting richer by the day, the gap between
them and the poor is growing. There is an emergent middle class
who move toward perceived ideas of comfort and progress, two cars,
holiday home, happy materialism etc - The great majority of Brazil
stays exactly as it is or gets worse off. As the top races to get
into the “American orbit” it tries to close the technological
gap to improve its output, make its factories more productive etc.
The result - Capital and technological intensive industries actually
reduce the labor opportunity.
- Of course, you
can counter this argument by saying that benefits for this technological-industrial
push filter down to those who don't share directly in it. You might
say that, but traveling through the North-east, I sure as hell didn't
see it.
- On a slow erosion
of a truly Brazilian way of life through absorption of important
values: As a reference point take Gilberto Freyre's 1930s publication
of Master and Slaves which led him to his conception of
Luso-Tropicalism, of Brazilian man and woman “emergent,”
of this dynamic fusion of races that, he said, promised to produce
the first of a “new man,” a triumphant blending of nature
and culture. Ignore the recent and often frivolous criticism of
Freyre, (for example, the nonsense about his overemphasizing the
kitchen,) ignore the critique of the intelligentsia — often,
jealous, frustrated intelligentsia — take what he said in
a 1930s context and accept that this was the promise of Brazil as
Freyre saw it in the 1930s and beyond.
- Now, instead of
expanding all those wonderful attributes, the legacy of the Indians,
the tremendous spirit of the mameluco pioneers, the mysterious,
exotic appeal and contribution of the African, the wisdom, daringness,
potency of the Portuguese, the steadfastness of St. Peter's creed;
instead of expanding these marvelous gifts, the nation is once again
- for they have been similar times in the past - seeking to mold
itself in the image of the outlander. It may be through soft means,
the proliferation of American music, literary styles, movies, junk
food etc, or through more direct influences such as over strategic
collaboration with a specific power block, be it the U.S. or other
- it undermines the possibility of developing Brazilian “answers,”
a true Brazilian nationalism, no matter how agonizing the process
of reaching that independence of mind, action and spirit may be.
- I pause here, for
I would not want to make such a statement without perspective: I
don't flinch at a “ U.S.ARMY” T-Shirt or Big Mac, I
do not deny the inter-dependence of nations. I see nothing wrong
with the free exchange of “lifestyle,” but I do fear
the easy slide toward total absorption of an outlander culture and
domination of a nascent local culture. Despite Gilberto Freyre's
somewhat premature optimism, the Brazilian nation is still in the
womb, still awakening, still striving for self-definition. At this
critical period, it needs desperately to be left alone to find its
way to the life it has sought for centuries. Interfere with this
process and the result may be tragic. There is a danger, for example,
of driving a major element of the nation toward a desperate point
where violence — as evidenced in Nicaragua, San Salvador —
can be seen as the only solution. A point where Brazilians struggling
for freedom find themselves chained to yet another dominant ideology,
as far from a natural, self-directed Brazilian solution as ever.
- On 1964 coup and
current situation: If you read the speeches of those who toppled
Goulart dispassionately, there emerges a picture of a military group
“genuinely” concerned about a drift away from essential
Brazilian values. Depending on who you look at you can place a broad
interpretation on the meaning of those values! Let's hypothesize:
so serious a business as a coup d'etat does not arise from simplistic
causes, nor is there any simple consensus on the part of those involved,
whatever side they may be on. In 1964, you have reformers and revolutionaries,
reactionaries and opportunists, and a ferment that circumstances
make necessary. I find aspects of both sides repugnant: the military
taking up weapons against their civilian brothers, and equally I
am saddened by the image of students crying for “Civil War!,”
“Civil War!” in the streets of Rio and raising their
voices for the destruction of fellow Brazilians. But crisis + ferment
often = progress.
Cinelandia Protestors
slain, April 1, 1964
Military police and students clash, 1968
Rio de
Janeiro's Street
Photos
from the archives of Ultima Hora, Fundacao
Perseu Abramo
- Try as I might
to look for positive outcomes of 1964, I can't find them: A few
years after the military regime became accustomed to the pleasant
taste of power, (no doubt backed by the age-old civilian power structure,)
they held onto it by whatever means possible. They entered the self-deceiving
position of seeing an enemy behind every coffee bush, enforcing
their rule and eradicating perceived opposition under guise of combating
“enemies of the state,” “those seeking to undermine
the Brazilian way of life,” “liberalists, humanists
etc, who are all Communist revolutionaries.” - Equal to the
distorted view of the “enemy” so effectively presented
to the establishment in sunny South Africa. Equal, too, to the terrible
consequences of repression, human indignity - What was worse was
that once again, the mass of people who needed “change”
stayed exactly as they were and in many respects were worse off.
- Temporary guardians
of national security is one thing; long term controllers of national
interest is another. As the years passed, the military began to
prove that their place was in the barracks, not standing behind
the ballot box or in the boardrooms. Those watching them, even many
who had first supported them, grew exceedingly disenchanted until
today the intellectual and political opposition is stronger than
ever. (Remember, today's leaders are from the 60s student generation.)
The Trade Unions are mobilized as at no time before in Brazilian
history. It's also a fact that a significant element of the military
itself is tired of its role and wants to get back to barracks so
the stage is set for change. So, there is this promise (dream) of
democracy ahead, but how many really have a valid concept of Brazilian
and only “Brazilian” democracy?
September
21 (continued) One wonders, with the military marching the
nation deeper into the U.S. orbit, with its chronic dependencies as
evidenced by the world's biggest foreign debt - whether Brazil is perhaps
further away than ever from “independence?” As noted last
night, I see nothing wrong with multinational development but everything
wrong with multinational exploitation. As base, take classic sugar plantation:
the great landlords controlling vast estates: project the same image
on a world basis and the country becomes a “latifundia”
with the coronels and fazendeiros be they in São
Paulo, New York, Germany continuing the same process: vast multinational
latifundia built on the tradition of centuries of intensive “farming”
of Brazil. Their activities, of course, may have nothing to do with
farming, only in figurative sense.
Lincoln
Gordon's “fateful blow” may have been just that for in postponing
the inevitable “reform” it added fuel to the disenchantment
of the masses. It made their situation “16 years” worse
and when the time comes for them or their sons to flex their muscles
they could be that much more intractable, that much more against North
America which they may come to see, with justification, as the “block”
to their advance.
Oh,
the parallels with South Africa! The blacks striving for freedom and
wanting desperately not be to aligned with anyone but driven to the
East-bloc through the West's preoccupation with the establishment. The
building up, decade by decade, of frustrations. The slow, agonizing
struggle to free themselves. Small wonder Antonietta sees Brazil as
the “South Africa of South America," not simply on a racial basis
which though bearing some comparison is weak but on its overall positioning,
its people's striving for independence and their being so often frustrate
by outside interests.
To
speak of education as a key is correct, but it must include broad, adult-oriented
education, not in the Three R's which is too late for many but in developing
a sense of existence freed from a “slave mentality,” from
the paternalistic hold on millions. — This is essentially Antonietta's
program, with which I still find fault believing there has to be grass
roots tutelage or, ultimately, the product will wither and die.
Again,
you have to ask yourself whether as happened in South Africa, there's
a deliberate attempt to hold back the education of masses, a fear of
giving them knowledge (and the power that will threaten the establishment).
One has only to consider the Verwoerdian speeches and polices, Verwoerd's
talk of blacks being hewers of wood and drawers of water etc, and a
similar possibility arises. It would be very difficult to get a Brazilian
to admit this directly and there are probably no written statements
but there is a tradition of “keeping the peasants in their place;”
of accepting the souls of the sertão as lost and hopeless. Were
you to develop this line of thought, you'd come to see why there is
a real need to keep the “illiterate” 45 per cent away from
the ballot box, why there is a fear of priests who go about informing
the backlanders...
On
'64 to '81: Today's opposition is older, wiser, more cautions, and by
experience more prepared. Again, consider the phases of the liberation
struggle in South Africa, the late 50s belief in a hasty revolution
that would overthrow the regime, the total failure of this, the two
and half decades of regrouping and the split (in sense of some genuinely
working with regime for reform,) the preparation for the final
assault with knowledge that it's going to take a long time but that
ultimately, the vast gap is going to be closed...
And,
all, as always returns to Cry, the Beloved Brazil.
|
|
BUY ON AMAZON
 
|
KINDLE E-BOOK
 
|
São
Paulo - September 22 — October 6
1 2 3
4
|