Bandeirantismo, supremacism and whitening

Image: Johannes Plenio
Whatsapp
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Telegram

By LEONARDO SACRAMENTO*

A final critique of Felipe Maruf Quintas' integralist idealism

Felipe Maruf Quintas wrote a "quadruple"  to the criticism I made of your text. Let's not lose track: initially I wrote a text about the interface of criticism by Rui Costa Pimenta and Aldo Rebelo with proto-fascism and right-wing movements, such as Integralism; Thursdays replied, alleging that, in good faith, I committed “historical falsifications”. I wrote a review of your text understanding that, deep down, his arguments were synchronized with those of Rui Costa Pimenta and Aldo Rebelo: the mythologizing of the bandeirantes in the light of processes established and promoted by the elite of São Paulo in the 1920s. that Quintas's historiography is memoirist, as it reproduces eugenicists as if it were absolute truth and history.

Quintas responded with more memorialism. Since Quintas' arguments are not based on what I wrote, they only contrast facts and analyzes with other facts, casuistry and opinions (doxa), as if they overlapped with a predilection perspective of the author, the present text is the last of the debate on my part, due to the author's text being more similar to the typical parameters of a social network and to what I initially discussed about Aldo Rebelo and the Fifth Movement: a white identity, in his case, with Portuguese-speaking roots, transformed into a universal identity. In Quintas' last text, we will find the naturalization of Nazism, eugenics and racism, this one on the arguments related to the Brazilian ban on black immigration in 1921. I will discuss this similarity throughout this article.

The author decided to “enumerate the observations according to the order present in Sacramento's rejoinder” – it was about time. First, he returns to my first article on the division I made between sertanejos and bandeirantismo as a supremacist movement created by the São Paulo elite, which I pointed out as its original sin, since it ignored it. In fact, at no time was I concerned with the sertanejo in the first text, a reply being intelligible based on what I did not. However, says the author in his “quadruple”: “I demonstrated to him, then, the existence of São Paulo prior to its agro-industrial modernization in the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries and its relationship not only with the bandeirantes/sertanistas, but with Brazil, in order to highlight the importance of the São Paulo flags for all of Brazil, in its historical entirety”. That is, Quintas returned to original sin.

Realize that a debate with a defined object becomes impossible. There is no object. He tries to correct it: “As I stated in my reply, it is natural that, given the importance of bandeirante movement, its legacy was disputed by different social and political groups”. The author, in fact, spoke about, without mentioning which popular forces, with popular origin, it should be noted, pleaded for the Bandeirante legacy. Anarchists, communists, trade unionists, peasants, workers? However, he did not mention any other than three eugenicists from the São Paulo elite, which corroborated what I wrote in the first text. Bandeirantismo was not a popular movement in the 1890th century, but rather built by the São Paulo elite with the aim of laying the foundations for a national project in which, because it was more capable, it would have ascendancy over other regional elites. This is the data. The only positive sources for the bandeirantes come from the São Paulo elite, immersed in eugenics and the racialization of whitening. Quintas would solve this problem by proving that, at some point before the São Paulo elites, in the 1900s and 1870s, for example, there was a popular movement in defense of the Bandeirantes legacy with great capillarity in Brazilian society, especially among the popular layers, more concerned in not being expelled from the places where they resided, represented in the whitening and construction of Parisian centers in large and medium-sized cities. For example, were there popular abolitionist defenders of the bandeirantes? Any data? Any source? Something in the 1880s and/or 1920s? Something that can be concluded by some great capillarity between the popular layers? Quintas did not understand that those he cites, eugenicists who promoted whitening in the 1930s and XNUMXs, belonged to the São Paulo elite of the first half of the XNUMXth century, which corroborates what I defended in the first text.

He accuses me of having stated that he “'resultingly' ignores slavery and, by extension, the 'class struggle' between slaves and masters”. He said and I repeat. Let’s go to what he wrote next: “He does not realize, however, that it was not the bandeirantes who were responsible for slavery, nor was or could slavery be the dominant mode of production in the bandeiras”. Let's go to what I wrote: “Therefore, for the author, repression and freedom constitute equality in the construction of nationality, and not antagonistic poles. There would have been no class struggle in slavery. Or, in a more coherent hypothesis with its construction, there would have been, but of the Paulistas against the Portuguese, not of the enslaved Africans against the Brazilian slavers and the Portuguese Crown – therefore, Africans are seconded, in the author’s sense”. The author's defense in his most recent text corroborates what I wrote, as I did not make, at that moment, any relationship between the bandeirante and slavery, but the relationship between the denial of the enslaved African and the class struggle - note that the author, once again time, he omits that the enslaved were Africans, preferring to make an impassioned defense of the bandeirantes. The class struggle in slavery, obviously, as Jacob Gorender and Clóvis Moura recall, was between the enslaved and the enslaver. For Quintas, the class struggle of antagonistic poles in slavery is replaced by the struggle for nationality between bandeirantes and Portuguese, although the bandeirantes were hired by the Portuguese Crown in the bandeiras by contract and by seizure.

The fallacy is evidenced in the following sentences: “Being nomadic by definition and having practiced subsistence polyculture on small plots of land inland, slavery, sedentary by definition and having been adopted, above all, in large land units aimed at export, it was impracticable in the social regime of the bandeiras”. Careful, nomadism is a very defined concept in historiography and anthropology, not belonging to the bandeirantes. If they were “nomads”, they weren't from São Paulo. It makes no sense to equate flag with nomadism. However, I did not write that the bandeirantes were slave owners, “but employees, servants and executors of slave owners in the flags of contract and seizure, structurally replaced by captains of the bush in the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries. Therefore, fundamental elements of the slave economic structure”.

Renato Nucci Jr outlines this process well,[1] in a recently published text, referring to John M. Monteiro (The Blacks of the Earth) and Décio Freitas (Palmares, the Slave War), which defines “the bandeirantes” as “a shock force at the service of Portuguese colonialism, and not something else” in opposition to the counterproductive structure of transatlantic slavery, with a predominance of more communal social relations and disparate social experiences, such as polygamy and polyandry, as Clóvis Moura recalled.[2] The way it was produced in the quilombo “collided with the slave-owning latifundio type planting that existed in the Colony”, becoming an “antithesis of the monopoly appropriation of the planters and the total indigence of the producing slaves”.[3]Therefore, they break with the relationship between owner and slaves for export to the metropolis, as well as becoming counterproductive for the legitimation of property and the objectification of the African in the slave mode of production mediated by the private and state trafficking of slaves. This is class struggle, an antithesis that is expressed in the reproduction of production relations. That is why the quilombos should be destroyed, as they were by the bandeirantes, “a shock force at the service of Portuguese colonialism”. Therefore, in addition to being fundamental elements of the slave economic structure, they were fundamental elements of Portuguese colonialism.

Quintas states that, “evidently, some bandeirantes participated in the arrest of fugitive blacks and the destruction of quilombos”. All possible quilombos, right?! Let's continue: “What I highlighted, however, was the complexity of the phenomenon. Neither the flags were “white”, nor the quilombos were “black” – there were people of all colors and origins both in one and in the other, as is widely known”. What the debatable racial composition of the sertanejos would justify the complexity of the existence of the capture and contract flags is anyone's guess. For the author, the flags were not white and the quilombos were not black, and that would be the complexity of relativizing the flags of seizure and contract, especially to the Portuguese Crown (sic!). Unintelligible sentence obeying formal logic. It should be noted that, in Brazilian slavery, Africans were enslaved by chance, and not by the slave trade led by Europeans and white Brazilians from Rio de Janeiro.

But of course, such a construction would have to have some problematic conclusion: “If the criterion of 'cancellation' of an entire historical group, such as the São Paulo sertanistas, is based on the participation of some of its exemplars in transatlantic commercial slavery, we would have to commit the misfortune to condemn, equally, the Africans, whose tribal chiefs sold their subordinates to the slave traders”. Here the author makes a mistake that Bolsonaro made: tribal chiefs did not sell their subordinates; in fact, the concept of subordination does not apply in a mode of production linked to the tribe. The lapses and jokes under the prism of an identitary racialization that makes him racist are many, as we will see.

The author treats the African as a unique being, which he does not do with Europeans, obviously, since he differentiates the Portuguese from the Dutch and “English pirates”. This is one of the great elements of Brazilian liberal-conservatism that even subsidizes Bolsonarism. Ronaldo Vainfas, in 2006, gave an interview to Folha de São Paulo who stood against quotas and Lula's apology to African countries. He said: “This story of victimizing Africa, hiding that Africa was involved in trafficking, is misplaced, mystifying and historically fragile. There was an enormous complicity of the African kings. Europeans did not conquer Africa and capture Africans themselves to take to the Americas”. Once on Roda Viva, Bolsonaro stated that “the Portuguese did not even set foot in Africa”, it was “the blacks themselves who delivered the slaves”. The two generalize the black and the African as if they were one thing, a unit, without understanding the difference between customary slavery, the predominant mode of production on the planet until then, and mercantile slavery, which was worked on by Manolo Florentino in Black Back. Marx differentiated them in Primitive Accumulation, section of book I of The capital: “the discovery of the lands of gold and silver in America, the extermination, enslavement and stuffing of the native population in the mines, the beginning of the conquest and plunder of the East Indies, the transformation of Africa into an enclosure for commercial hunting to black skins mark the dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic processes are fundamental moments of primitive accumulation”.[4] Quintas makes a culturalist and conservative appreciation, just as Rui Costa Pimenta had done, duly accused in the first text I published on the subject.

The author reproduces the Bolsonarist and Portuguese mantra. Incidentally, this interpretation is typically Portuguese, of Portuguese officialdom, which should be an irony for the nationalist – it will be seen that it is not. In the book I will publish, I state the following: “This argument represents a fallacy: it treats Africa as a whole, as a synonym for black. The black person, as Mbembe (2019) demonstrates, is a product of capitalism, and as such, represents the African continent in the process of production and global reproduction of capital. In summary, the argument presupposes a sense of continental belonging where the nation-state did not exist. Based on this argument, which coexists with the ultrageneralization of the continent and racial identification, it is not uncommon to recognize Africa as a country, that place that has black people. The same is not applied to the European continent. In World Wars I and II, no one in their right mind maintains that war is a product of Europeans killing Europeans, or that some Europeans imprisoned Europeans in concentration camps and killed them by bombing European cities on the Eastern Front and Western Front, and that , therefore, would be a European problem that the Europeans themselves created – although they did, in fact, create it, under the privileged position of neocolonial empires. There is a historiographical and historical care to distinguish Germans from Austrians, Austrians from Swiss, Swiss from Poles, Poles from Russians, Russians from Frenchmen, Frenchmen from Englishmen, Englishmen from Italians”.

Therefore, Quintas establishes an ultra-generalization, as if Africa were a country, a place for Africans or blacks – a confusion made by Bolsonaro –, assuming a national cohesion that it does not suppose for Europeans, differentiating them between Portuguese, Dutch, English and Spaniards in the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries. With this ultra-generalization, based on white and Eurocentric identity, it makes sense that “blacks themselves enslaved slaves” (Bolsonaro) and “tribal chiefs sold their subordinates to slave traders” (Quintas). This generalization among Africans and non-generalization among Europeans has the function of granting a mythologizing protagonism to the bandeirantes, as if they had been the first Brazilians, ontologically anti-Portuguese, even if, in practice, the memorialist bias of Portuguese officialdom is adopted. A racialization of Quintas, made only by those steeped in “white identity”, also applied to indigenous peoples in the following paragraph, but not to New Christian Jews, those with the specificity of identity.

He states that “manumitted blacks also acquired slaves”, which is true. But what about the ratio, Thursdays? What does that mean? Where's the analysis? Are you claiming that, due to an exception cited by a man in Bahia, it would be the rule of the Brazilian slave-owning mode of production? Memorialists are very close to the School of Annales and the History of Ideas: it is easy to generalize cases about a structural misunderstanding of production relations, making the exception a rule that could compete with the general rule of African trafficking – 5 million Africans kidnapped for Brazil, being 20% ​​by Portuguese traffickers and 80% by Brazilian traffickers, mainly from Rio de Janeiro.[5] That is why the author ends up concluding that “the phenomenon of slavery is much more complex than what racialist identity assumes”, which I agree with. It so happens that Quintas's Luso-Brazilian identity is the “racialist identity” that relativizes slavery under the mantra of “complexity” that he is far from understanding.

Another point that Quintas concludes something he did not say was when he found that “no historical process can, therefore, be adequately understood through the prism of repression vs. freedom". He would have “the kind that a self-declared materialist, of Marxist verve due to the emphasis given to class struggle, demonizes violence in history and judges it before understanding it in historical totality”. The problem, again, is that I didn't demonize her. I criticized what Quintas wrote when he stated that bandeirantes were not violent and quilombolas were violent, based on a quote from Roquette-Pinto, a eugenicist who defended that blacks, atavistic beings, disappeared in 2012 because they were expendable in the Brazilian formation and to development. I wrote that “the author compares the bandeirantes who enslave and kill indigenous peoples with the 'French and Russian revolutionaries', confusing, once again, as he did with the Quilombos, repressive violence with revolutionary violence”. He said that one belongs to the exploited and the other to the exploiters. The positive and the negative are determined by class struggle and class position. That of the enslaved was one; that of the bandeirantes, constituent members of the slave structure – non-owners, in a decisive way, as I have already explained – was another. Who will give positivity or negativity is the class struggle and the class. Marx did not naturalize and relativize the repressive violence against the Paris Commune, unless I am mistaken. Therefore, the statement that “it makes no sense the difference he establishes between 'repressive violence', considered bad, and 'revolutionary violence', considered good”, followed by a meaningless question that “wouldn't have “Bandeirantismo, which formed one of the largest countries in the world, was a revolutionary phenomenon, transforming, in a progressive sense, social structures”, is another diversion not to register a conservative position, close to proto-fascism and right-wing movements.

The author is so stunned by the exogenous “identitarianism” of the black that he states that I consider “Africanness the only element that formed Brazil or it is completely disregarded, in a Manichaeism that is not at all healthy for scientific analysis”. He did not understand. I stated the opposite: the national formation is a construction of the ruling class; therefore, it is not African, indigenous and/or black. I affirmed that she is white, as the eugenicists Roquette-Pinto, Cassiano Ricardo, Júlio de Mesquita Filho, Alfredo Elias Júnior and Manoel Bonfim affirmed, of European descent, as decreed by Vargas in an immigration law. The two texts explicitly defend this thesis, supported by data. But, as Quintas is on a crusade against the exogenous elements of the “Brazilian mestizo formation”, fundamentally a “eugenic formation”, as the author defended throughout his text – will be seen later –, he concluded that I would defend that the African would be the “only formative element of Brazil”. Bewildering.

Quintas claims that I committed fallacy ad hominem with Roquette-Pinto, but did not demonstrate how. The denunciation of a fallacy needs to be explained, as Aristotle recalled. Just claiming that someone has committed some fallacy without explaining is itself a fallacy. In the text I criticized him for, I exposed not only his participation in the World Congress of Races, in which he stated that Brazil would no longer have blacks in 2012 (this is the author's contextualization), but his thinking in favor of miscegenation, understanding that, in this way, In this way, blacks disappeared faster, concomitant with European immigration and the death rate of blacks, openly defended by the aforementioned eugenicist. Quintas should focus on the contextualization and thought of his favorite author to try to expose why he considers a fallacy ad hominem. In a simple and crude way, the truth is that the author is referring to a eugenicist who believed in the disappearance of blacks and the promotion of white immigration for the improvement of the race. Worse, he used it to try to show that there was no bet on European immigration and the disappearance of blacks among the São Paulo elite. And this, not even in the most recent text, was refuted – Roquette-Pinto is quoted only once in the entire long text, in a short and generic sentence of accusation of fallacy.

The author then asks a surprising question: “Now, why can't Manoel Bomfim, a great scholar of national history, be used as a reference, just as an 'object of study'? Why would he be a 'memorialist' and in what way would 'memorialism' be inferior to the so-called 'historiography', if a large part of the latter was done using as bibliographical references what Sacramento calls 'memorialism'? Why can't Bomfim be a reference to demonstrate a thesis, but Júlio de Mesquita can?”. Here it shows all its conceptual confusion. First, scientific historiography is, epistemologically, superior to memorialism, the heroic and mythical construction of a regional or national elite, the construction of history through a collection of predisposed ideas, erecting an official history. Second, any author can be used as a reference, as long as it is contextualized, which was not the case; it was only memorized as an absolute source, reproducing its eugenics uncritically. Third, Júlio de Mesquita Filho, in my text, is the object of study, not a means of reproducing his memory, as done by Quintas with Manoel Bonfim, Roquette-Pinto and Cassiano Ricardo. The analysis I made was precisely – the initial object – to show that he and his group were responsible for the mythification of the bandeirante and for the creation of bandeirante movement as a political movement rooted in supremacism. What I criticized in Quintas was its verve in fully and positively reproducing an author from the 1920s without contextualizing him and, therefore, analyzing him, which makes him have a memorialist and anti-scientific historiographical perspective. To make such a relationship, the author literally did not understand, or ignored, the object of the first text I produced, which gives meaning to his attachment to the 1920th-century sertanejo, completely ignored by me in the first text – I insist, the object was the São Paulo elite of the XNUMXs.

Quintas is such a memoirist that he stated that “Sacramento distils all the poison originally spread by Júlio de Mesquita Filho and other bigwigs of the São Paulo oligarchy”. The confusion between object and veneration, as he has with the eugenicists, makes him think that I am reproducing the ideas of Júlio de Mesquita Filho, when I am linking, critically and negatively, his thought to that of Rui Costa Pimenta and Aldo Rebelo (objects). This is explicit in the first text. This statement was the introduction to a long exposition that makes Vargas. He cites three works to prove that Vargas is not racialist and pro-white and European immigration. Two of them I know well: The Invention of Labor e Dialectics of Colonization. He does not cite or refer to any data in the works, he only states that Vargas' “supposed fascism is a liberal lie long since dismantled” by the authors. It would be a fallacy ad hominem?

The three works are abandoned for the construction of embarrassing excerpts by Quintas, without any relation to them: “Even more regrettable and mistaken is the attempt to frame Getúlio Vargas as a 'white supremacist'. Then he, who legalized samba and capoeira and professionalized carnival and football, definitely opening the doors of the latter to blacks!!” If he opened the “doors”, it follows that they were closed, I imagine, which would oblige him to inquire and discuss why it was closed and Vargas would have been the man who brought blacks to the forefront of nationality. His persecutory content with the “exogenous” black is so great that it was left to me when he tried to refute (sic!) Getúlio’s relationship with an official visit of Nazi scientists: “Let Henry Ford, a confessed admirer of Hitler and founder of the Fundação Ford, one of the greatest disseminators of racialism pontificated by Sacramento”. This connection that the author makes between me and racialism is interesting, considering that all black identity is the result of an internationalist plot. Of course, here is a false analogy fallacy mixed with a false analogy fallacy. ad hominem. What that statement refutes the data it brought from an academic thesis on the relationship between Vargas and Nazism is a mystery. However, it reaffirms the lunacy of the Quinto Movimento and Aldo Rebelo.

Let's recover what I wrote: “In 1936, Hitler sent a team of doctors to assess the racial purity of German immigrants in Espírito Santo. The German State believed that the Germans living in the state of Espírito Santo were not of mixed blood because they were geographically isolated, unlike the Germans from the south, who did not pass the Nazi seal of Germanic purity. The idea was to study whether the Germanness did not change with the warmer environment. The study was intended to promote German colonization in Africa. Doctors Gustav Giemsa and Ernst Nauck, who were received with pomp by Getúlio Vargas, concluded that 'Espírito Santo presents, in particular, the dimension and possibility of recognizing the presuppositions on which this can occur in a sensible way and of making the experiments carried out are useful for the question of eventual possibilities of colonization in some colonial countries'”. In addition to the statement that Ford was also a Nazi - what this data conflicts with the fact narrated by me is a mystery, I insist -, giving the impression that the author is stating that, as Ford was a Nazi, everyone was and that's okay, once would it be the context of the time, it states that several “German citizens” lived in Brazil – weren't they Brazilians?! Were they exogenous?! They came because of an immigrant policy of Europeans and whites?! Was Vargas privileging “German citizens” over “Brazilian citizens”?!–, and it was not up to Vargas to prevent the team from entering, not least because “there was no eminently racist and eugenic sense in it”, as it was “just a study of the German government to study the conditions of adaptation in tropical regions of a people accustomed to a cold climate”.

We note that Quintas ignored a doctoral thesis, one of the most impactful theses in the area in the 2010s. There is no author's reference to support this thought, which conflicts with a production that focuses on the relationship between Brazil and Germany in the period. It is merely a morally personal thought. Therefore, denialist. His contestations are merely opinionated, naturalizing a eugenic study in Brazil whose objective was to study the adaptation of Germanicity in the tropical climate to create colonies on the African continent. He is unaware of the text, but categorically states that “there was no eminently racist and eugenic sense in it”, although the official justification for the mission was to study racial transformation and the way in which the tropical climate would negatively influence Germanity. From the naturalization of the repressive violence of the bandeirantes, Quintas arrives at the naturalization of Nazi racial and eugenic studies. I consider it coherent, as I stated in the conclusion of the last text I published.[6]

At least, when the author confesses that there were many "German citizens", he should confess that Brazil had the largest Nazi party in the world outside of Germany, with a club of the São Paulo elite prohibited for blacks - Clube Germânia, today Clube Pinheiros, which rivaled and still rivals as Clube Paulistano, originally from the white bourgeoisie of São Paulo. Ana Maria Dietrich, author ofTropical Nazism? The Nazi Party in Brazil, another thesis of great impact from the previous decade, states that “much has already been discussed about the possible ideological alignments of President Getúlio Vargas with Nazism. However, what is clear is that during the 1930s there were interests behind the friendly relationship between the two countries. Any sound of order to 'crack down' the foreign Nazi party could damage that relationship”.[7] Thus, the DIP – controlled by Cassiano Ricardo in São Paulo – and the DEOPS ignored, by order of Vargas, the Nazi party. One of the points considered positive by the Nazi State regarding Vargas was his fight “against communism”,[8] with “Gestapo training of Brazilian police officers”.[9] In other words, Vargas forbade repression of the Nazi party, but persecuted communists, eventually handing them over to the Nazis, as he did with Olga Benário.

Quintas' opinionated considerations continue by stating that I confuse “eugenics” with “racism”. According to him, eugenic education “concerned an education aimed at improving the health, hygiene and material living conditions of young people”, only. There has already been a naturalization of eugenics with the naturalization of the eugenic-racial study of the Nazi medical team. However, for the author, proof of the naturalization of this conception of eugenics would be the Soviet Union, which would also have been eugenic (“present even in the USSR”). To substantiate his thesis, he offers a link. In the link, there is a small text, which, I believe, you must not have read.

The short text, written by Per Anders Rudling, begins as follows: “the intellectual history of eugenics in the Soviet Union has developed quite differently than in other European states. Compared to many of its neighboring states, its history was short, mostly limited to the 1920s.” At the beginning of the text, it is already announced that eugenics in the USSR did not develop as it did in European and, therefore, American States, since the references of eugenics, like Lombroso, were shared between Europeans and American elites, all white and rooted in “ European descent”.

According to the text, eugenics was supported by the People's Commissariat for Health and Education because it was designed as a modernizing project. According to the author, this happened because “Soviet racial science was largely led by men who were educated and were products of the late imperial era”, who were “heavily influenced by German racial anthropology and followed similar modules to establish blood groups and characteristics”. 'racial' and physical to define and categorize populations”. Therefore, according to the historian, in the 1920s, eugenics would be carried out by former tsarist cadres. Rudling ponders: “in the Soviet case, it would be necessary to make a very clear distinction between racial anthropology and eugenics. In many European countries, the concept of eugenics and racial hygiene came to merge, while in the USSR they were kept separate”. Eugenics was abandoned in the USSR and became a “racial science”, in which it was believed that, under communism, races disappeared along with classes and nations. This means that “applied eugenics, on the other hand, as a concept, had a short history in the USSR, limited to half a dozen years in the 1920s” (emphasis added), being “prohibited” at a time when “several sterilization programs” were being implemented in “various European and North American states”. The author concludes that, “since state eugenics was abandoned in its infancy, it is difficult to talk about a post-eugenics era in Russia and other Soviet successor states”.

Therefore, the author used a source, in practice not used in his text, just offering the link (attempt to ad hominem fallacy with the USSR, seeking to build the idea of ​​universality for eugenics), which differs from the construction of its small and only paragraph, with a quote thrown in, which would prove that the USSR would have had great experience in eugenics. On the contrary, she forbade it. When Vargas implemented racialist eugenics, in the 1930s, it was prohibited by law in the USSR. In addition to proving the opposite, even if the argument were based on some decent data, the USSR being eugenic would not prove that Vargas did not reconcile eugenics with racism. It would, once again, be a fallacy of false analogy. In practice, the author is defending what he defended with Nazism: as everyone was eugenicist, “including” the “USSR”, it's okay for Vargas to have been too. Realize that it is the same argument for the naturalization of bandeirante violence, a large and generalized discourse on the naturalization of the violence of repression, transforming it, through a conservative vision, into pacifying agents and builders of an applied nationality, perhaps, in the south zone of Rio de Janeiro, except for the communities formed, mostly and predominantly, by blacks. The fact extracted from Quintas' text is an attempt at falsification, a “falsification”, as he said.

But why would Quintas try to tamper with a source? To try to prove that the Decrees promulgated by Vargas had nothing to do with eugenics and European racialization. If Decree no. 7.967/45 allowed immigration in order to “preserve and develop, in the ethnic composition of the population, the most convenient characteristics of its european ancestry”, two months after the end of World War II, says Quintas that Vargas did not want to defend that “Brazil would be and should remain 'European', but that it had European ancestry”. The fact that only Europeans then entered the country, or whites from other continents (or considered white in Brazilian racialization, such as Syrians, Jews and Lebanese), was a mere coincidence. As a matter of fact, preserving and maintaining in the ethnic composition of the population the “most convenient” characteristics of “its” – magic word –“European ancestry” has become a necessity for Brazil … to “remain 'European'”. Quintas' argument is so incomprehensible that it is difficult to explain. But, why did Vargas not write: preserve and develop, in the ethnic composition of the population, the most convenient characteristics of its African and European ancestry? Why not put "African descent", if, supposedly, Vargas was not a supremacist, if he didn't want to preserve and "develop" - another magic word, because to develop means, according to Aurélio, to increase and expand - the "European ancestry" in " ethnic composition of the population”? Why was the term “African descent” not included in the Decree? Quintas' argument is, to say the least, stupid and typical of a social network. There is no logical-formal parameter, which makes sense, as it is a characteristic of a denialist conception. The Decree, obviously, imposed a restriction on the immigration of non-whites, allowing exclusive of whites (“European descent”). That's the fact!

Then he accuses that I deleted article 3 of the Decree, as he did with article 18 of the Land Law, which he deleted when trying to argue that the Land Law did not contribute to the construction of European immigration policy. I didn't delete it, I didn't quote it because it wasn't part of the object of that moment in the text: the construction of a legislation that whitens the population. However, let's get to the article. In fact, there was a limitation of foreigners, at a time when more than 2 million had entered the state of São Paulo alone, as I demonstrated in the previous text. This legislation, as Quintas wrote, came from a specific legislation of 1933. However, to be more precise, it came from a legislation of 1930 – to contribute – the Presidential Decree n. 19.482, of December 12, 1930. This legislation was created due to the 1929 crisis, generating a high unemployment rate. Vargas himself alleges in the recitals of the law: “WHEREAS the financial conditions in which the revolution found Brazil call for emergency measures capable of, by improving the situation, allowing the continuation of its renovating and reconstructive work; WHEREAS the economic situation and the disorganization of work call for State intervention in favor of workers; WHEREAS one of the most pressing concerns of society is the situation of forced unemployment of many workers, who, in large numbers, flocked to the Capital of the Republic and to other main cities, in the desire to obtain employment, creating serious embarrassments to the public administration, that it does not have ready means to meet such needs; WHEREAS only assistance through work is recommended for situations of this nature, as it does not embarrass or demoralize assistance; WHEREAS, also, that one of the causes of unemployment is found in the disorderly entry of foreigners, who do not always bring the useful assistance of any abilities, but often contribute to an increase in economic disorder and social insecurity; WHEREAS, also, that ordinary financial resources do not allow the Government to carry out, by itself, the aforementioned assistance (my emphasis)”.

Let's see. The first recital states that the “financial conditions” require “emergency measures” that would develop the economic constraints to “allow the continuation of its renovating and reconstructive work”. The second recital informs that the crisis generated a “disorganization of work”, calling for State intervention; this disorganization would be the “forced unemployment of many workers”, who went to “the Capital of the Republic”, causing “embarrassment to the public administration”. But what caused unemployment, according to Vargas? The “disorderly immigration of foreigners”. Oops, do we have yet another confession of an immigration policy for Europeans and whites until the date I stipulated? By all appearances, yes. What caused your interruption? In a first moment, the crisis of 1929, as explained by the Law. In a second moment, Brazil's entry into World War II. That is, external and structural factors were responsible for the interruption or reduction of the state policy of European and white immigration. However, even so, sixteen years old, Vargas did not fail to include and register the need to “preserve and develop, in the ethnic composition of the population, the most convenient characteristics of its european ancestry” (emphasis mine).

Getúlio and Júlio de Mesquita Filho were very close until 1937, especially for the construction of legislation to combat the communists. Irene Cardoso, in The São Paulo Communion, registers this proximity not only in alliances, but in newspaper editorials, resulting in the construction of the University of São Paulo, in 1934. That is, it settled after 1932 with Getúlio, in which the common denominator was anticommunism and the “alliance with the most intransigently reactionary sectors”, which meant “covering the entire sequence of Vargas’ actions (state of siege, state of war, disrespect for parliamentary immunity, arrests and arbitrary and violent persecutions)”.[10]Júlio de Mesquita Filho was an anticommunist and saw in Vargas a solution for the advancement of revolutionary forces, as well as the Nazi State, which Vargas fulfilled efficiently, by the way.

Quintas registers my criticism of his attachment to the idea of ​​the birth of the Nation as a Luso-Brazilian construction. He says that he would not have “defended the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves as the ideal model of national organization, the only form in which the so-called 'Luso-Brazilian nationalism'”. However, in the text itself, in order to try to explain that it made sense for Vargas to enact an immigration policy that exclusively preserved the “European ancestry”, he stated that Brazil did have “European ancestry, which is undeniable, unless Sacramento wants to remake the map- mundi and convince the reader that Portugal is not part of Europe”. Great and profound argument! (sic!) Let's get back what I wrote. When I was talking about Cassiano Ricardo and his understanding of nationality, when he was a signatory to the Green-Yellow Manifesto, which resulted in two dissidents, Integralism and Bandeirismo, I stated that the uncritical reproduction of the author, without any contextual and conjunctural analysis, reproduced the understanding proto-fascist of Cassiano Ricardo, thus reproducing “an 'anti-Jacobin nationalism with naturally Luso-Brazilian roots'”, which was, ipsi litteris, which Quintas wrote to justify the promulgation of the Vargas Decree that exclusively allowed the entry of immigrants who preserved the “European ancestry” of the Brazilian population. Thursdays is a paradox in person.

The author seems to have been quite disconcerted by the criticism I made about how he ignored scientific production from 1950 onwards. scientific institutions since 1950, inaugurated by Roger Bastide and Florestan Fernandes, with Whites and Blacks in São Paulo, are wrong. And the issue here is not the fact that he is a doctoral candidate and not a doctor, but that he belongs to the scientific community and denies a vast production, such as those of Octavio Ianni, Clóvis Moura, Petrônio Domingues, Viotti da Costa, Guerreiro Ramos, Robert Conrad, Abdias do Nascimento, Thomas Skidmore”. To try to prove that he did not ignore it, despite having ignored it, citing only eugenicists who believed in whitening as an instrument for the improvement of Brazilians (Roquette-Pinto, Cassiano Ricardo and Manoel Bonfim), he cites Roger Bastide, for whom “Brazilian colonization destroyed borders and brought together in fraternal relationships, in sweet camaraderie, the most heterogeneous colors and the most disparate civilizations” (emphasis added). He does the same with Guerreiro Ramos. However, let us repeat what I wrote so as not to leave any doubts: “the author, a doctoral student, is defending that all scientific production since 1950, inaugurated by Roger Bastide and Florestan Fernandes, with Whites and Blacks in São Paulo, are wrong”. To inaugurate means to begin, according to the Aurélio dictionary. And that's the meaning I gave.

A simple example of the need for contextualization is his explanation of the need to import European labor to Brazil, using some authors as a need for industrialization. Today it is known that industries until 1888 used the labor of enslaved and free Africans. There is a wealth of literature on this, which resulted in the position of the Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro benches in the Agricultural Congress of 1878 on the use of national labor, refuted by the Paulista benches, who defended European immigration to whiten the population. This data was ignored on two occasions.

According to Quintas, this need would justify the prohibition of the immigration of North American black labor, in 1921 (discussed in the previous text): “naturally, in these conditions, European workers were preferred, more accustomed to the waged work routine that was established in Brazil, as well as imposing proposals from the US, such as the Brazilian-American Colonization Syndicate, to use Brazil as an escape valve from the racial tensions that were inherent in them, with unpredictable consequences for Brazil and for which Uncle Sam would never be responsible”. The author naturalizes the justification of the law that prohibited the immigration of “blacks”, as well as the newspaper articles and the defense of the nationalist Coelho Neto. He simply naturalized to agree with Cincinato Braga and the authors of the time that North American blacks “would bring unpredictable consequences to Brazil” (words by Felipe Maruf Quintas). Thursdays is a racist! There is no other term to be used. It reproduces in full the speech of the defenders of the project that prohibited the immigration of blacks, claiming that only Europeans could come to Brazil, since white immigrants would not bring “unpredictable” consequences, but only black North Americans. Here is an undisputed data from a defender of immigration as an improvement of “Brazilian miscegenation”. The “unpredictable” means that the Brazilian racial constitution needs predictability, as a good eugenicist defended in the 1920s. Here is a confession: the need for predictability, in which North American blacks would be unpredictable and Italian and German whites would not. If blacks “brought unpredictable consequences” for being racist against Brazilian whites, as Coelho Neto and Cincinato Braga defended, why wouldn’t European whites bring “unforeseeable consequences”? Wouldn't they be racist against blacks? Or it doesn't matter, because they would be black... In the face of such a statement with a predilection for European and white immigration, the conclusion is produced that links the Fifth Movement with racism against blacks and the African element, owing, as the eugenicists of the time believed , being subsumed, or as Aldo Rebelo believes, being repelled from the “Brazilian mestizo formation”. It's just undercover racism. Blacks “would bring unpredictable consequences to Brazil”, not whites! An explanation of the racialized foundation of the arguments of a disguised eugenicist. Understand, who wrote it was the brain and hands of Quintas. It is not fitting to blame others for what he writes.

To this end, he cites Caio Prado Júnior, for whom “immigration progress in the last quarter of the century will be rapid. […] but if this progress of free labor was largely conditioned by the decay of the serf regime, conversely it will considerably accelerate the decomposition of the latter. [...] the presence of the free worker, when it ceases to be an exception, becomes a strong element of dissolution of the slave system”. Let us explain, once again, how to do a contextualization. In contemporary historiography, Caio Padro Júnior is perceived as an intellectual who carried out an excellent work on the transformation of colonial Brazil into an agro-export platform, as a constitutive element of capitalism. However, it is known, contextualizing it, that Caio Padro Junior, like all the authors of that time, believed that the substitution of the black for the white was necessary because the black would be cognitively limited. In the case of Caio Padro Junior, it would be due to having come from a region with little development, which would have been transmitted to enslaved descendants, despite the fact that the first industries used enslaved labor and all the specific jobs in the 1815th century were undertaken by free and enslaved (gain enslaved) Africans. Caio Padro Junior states: “Let us not forget that the Brazilian slave was, as a rule, the boçal African recruited among the nations of the lowest cultural level of the black continent. The most cultured black peoples are those of Sudan, that is, regions located north of the Equator where trafficking had been prohibited since XNUMX”.[11] It is known that the Africans from Benin mastered metallurgy, which was fundamental for the production of sugar in the Northeast and the extractive industry of minerals, a technology that the Portuguese and the backlanders of São Paulo did not master.

Celso Furtado would develop this argument by stating that slavery would have numbed the African. He had written the following in his chapter “The Manpower Problem” by Economic Formation of Brazil: “It is only necessary to remember that the reduced mental development of the population subjected to slavery will cause its partial segregation after abolition, delaying its assimilation and hindering the economic development of the country”.[12]According to the economist, “having almost no habits of family life, the idea of ​​accumulating wealth is practically strange”, since “work for the slave” was “a curse and idleness the unattainable good, the elevation of his salary above his needs – which are defined by the subsistence level of a slave – immediately determine a strong preference for idleness”. Deepening the sentence of Caio Prado Junior, to whom the problem was due to the “dumb African”, for Celso Furtado the problem would be the numbness that would limit, cognitively, the black to salaried work. None of them discusses the expansion of the industrial reserve market as a central object, or what, exactly, the European immigrant would bring in terms of technical knowledge that would be decisive for industrial development, but rather the problem of the “African”, a non-ideal workforce.

Florestan Fernandes and Roger Bastide develop Celso Furtado's concept for the idea of ​​“social and economic maladjustments”.[13] For the authors, despite the trades opening spaces for free men and some enslaved men, there would be a maladjustment of blacks to work, from an educational point of view, which would have justified immigration. To justify this thesis, they analyzed newspapers of the time, among them, the Sao Paulo Province, which would become The state of Sao Paulo, the Mesquita family’s slave newspaper, which stated that “slaves, like most caipiras, run away from work”.[14]It is a consensus, as brought by Juremir Machado da Silva, that the newspaper was slave-owning, anti-abolitionist and whitening, as it distrusted the national worker.[15]Today there is criticism (analysis) of the inappropriate way in which the authors incorporated the primary source, without contextualizing the newspaper's pro-European immigration position.[16] The three theses already existed in the Old Republic to justify exclusively white immigration, since only whites and Europeans, even living in semi-feudal regimes, were illiterate in Italian (a language that, in practice, did not exist at the time, since regional languages ​​predominated over Italian oficial) and the vast majority had never seen an industrial machine, as the southern Italians, subjected to subsistence production, would have the ability to industrialize. The three theses had the staged model of transition from feudalism to capitalism, from the peasant to the proletariat, despite today's abundant data on the use of enslaved labor in the industrial boom of 1880. They presuppose that the worker is formed before capital, which, if true, would make primitive accumulation impossible. They mechanically link a white immigrant with salaried work, when the classification of salaried work occurs when a worker is dispossessed of the means of production, forcing him to sell his workforce, which already happened in 1887 in the sugarcane plantations of São Paulo with blacks who fled and sold their labor force to another coffee grower. Logic, in turn, mechanically link black people with slavery. They proclaim a staged formation of the capitalist mode of production, as if the salaried worker had to be culturally formed, as if the peasant were naturally ready to wage wages during the English primitive accumulation, ignoring the state violence of primitive accumulation for the formation of the working class wage labor and for the constitution of typically capitalist population laws. As Marx reminds us, it is the State that violently produces the constituent elements of capitalism, including the workforce, from formal (violent) subsumption to real subsumption. In the Brazilian case, the State inserted the racial element in its formation – this is what the two previous texts deal with. Nevertheless, Quintas agrees with Celso Furtado's thesis: “I agree with him [Sacramento] regarding the unhappiness and absurdity of the abandonment of native blacks in the post-Abolition period, relegating them to a marginal position where disability” (emphasis mine). But it was the enslaved who performed any and all manual work, from the simple to the most complex! Never mind, they were “unfit”, not fit. Quintas' thesis has not been accepted in academia for at least thirty years. He is stuck in Celso Furtado's position, which is just a position cited in an essay. The author does not develop it, he just presupposes it, in a racialist way, therefore, as it is a thesis that existed in the Old Republic, configuring the famous “black service”, a term to designate “disability” of blacks for more complex works.

Does this mean that the three are invalids, like Gilberto Freyre, who disagreed with Caio Prado Junior about the stupidity of the African who came to Brazil? No! It means that the authors must be analyzed, not just reproduced, as a history of ideas, a memoirist history that aims to reproduce interests and personal views, such as justifying the non-immigration of blacks as “unpredictable” elements of nationality – white identity.

Today it is known that, from 1884 to 1888, there was a generalized crisis in São Paulo farming due to the insurrectionary struggle of the African in the countryside,[17] causing the São Paulo elite to promote European immigration only from 1885 and 1886, after the introduction of the Sexagenarian Law, which subsidized with the federal budget “the colonization through the payment of transport of settlers who were effectively placed in agricultural establishments of any nature” (§ 3, art. 2nd). The Sexagenarian Law was, in practice, a law to finance European immigration. In the book that I will publish, I also bring some elements about the mistaken idea of ​​relating immigration to abolitionism, in the light of Jacob Gorender’s data: “the The growth between 1854 and 1886 of the enslaved population in the New West was 235%. While there were 20.143 slaves who produced 305.220 arrobas of coffee in 1854, 67.036 slaves worked on 4.720.733 arrobas of coffee in 1886. In the Old West (Campinas), respectively in the same periods, there were 40.506 slaves for 491.397 arrobas of coffee and 52.952 enslaved to 3.008.350 arrobas of coffee. In the Paraíba Valley, there were 33.823 slaves for 2.737.639 arrobas of coffee and 43.361 enslaved for 2.074.267 arrobas of coffee, respectively”. The factors were not themselves in the workforce. Productivity was, above all, in the form of dealing with the land, production and the constituent elements of the soil – that is why the expansion of coffee in the Novo Oeste to the detriment of the Campinas region and, above all, the Paraíba Valley, with an increase in enslaved labor. The cities of São Paulo had a significant increase in enslaved labor until 1885, when they lost control of farming and used the mechanism for financing European and white immigration from the Sexagenarian Law, initially inaugurated in the Land Law. Viotti da Costa[18]and Robert Conrad[19]show that the change of position of the Paulistas took place only from 1886 onwards: the famous “conversion of the Paulistas”, the last to defend, as a group, the maintenance of slavery. Gorender,[20] in turn, shows that immigration took off in 1886, with the subsidy created by the São Paulo bench in the Sexagenário Law. In 1886, 16.036 European immigrants entered São Paulo; in 1887, 32.112, an increase of practically 100%. The following year, the number of immigrants jumped to an impressive 92.086. The same happened with manumissions (§ º 3, Art. 1, of the Sexagenarian Law), an indemnity, and with the hiring of Africans who fled as wage earners, being common for other landowners to hire them.

The author complained about what I said about the whitening, stating that Borba Gato was a Mamluk and that the doll was built with “the very choice of material, with dark colored stones, reinforces the caboclo miscegenation of the character, in absolute opposition to the pictorial representation custom of Jesus Christ, taken by Sacrament as a parameter of comparison”. I also used Tiradentes and the Egyptians, it is registered. I only enlist a small material from the Paulista Museum, Called Bandeirante: a character in debate, about the way paintings, statues and the like of bandeirantes in the city of São Paulo are represented.[21]Thursdays too, when analyzing quantitative data, show inexplicable awkwardness. I spoke of the need to relate absolute and relative quantitative data in order to reveal proportions. The author wrote a paragraph about quantitative data in absolute value, ignoring the proportional data produced by me about the growth of the white population far above the black population. Producing the same quantum for whites, they grew 4.890%, 3,6 times more than blacks, making it go from 2,3 whites for every black to 11 whites for every black in the city of São Paulo. But Quintas complained about the classification I made of blacks, putting together blacks and browns – a damn NGO from the IBGE, rewarding “anti-national identity” –, as he insisted on “recording the absurdity of arbitrarily classifying, without any logical foundation, browns in the category of blacks”, returning again to affirm about the race of Borba Gato and the bandeirantes. No problem, in proportion only with blacks, in the 1886 Census, there were 6 white Brazilians for every black. In the 1940 Census, there were 19 whites for every black, expressing the role of whitening as a State Policy. It seems that the data brought by Quintas does not help him, but, as I explained in a previous text, “the author's confusion, in addition to mixing Brazil with São Paulo, is not understanding and/or not knowing how to treat quantitative data in absolute and proportional terms. in the light of cohorts and variables, which is simple in scientific work”.

Finally, Quintas says that he will not analyze Karl Monsma, as he is an “American (...) whose work I do not know and, therefore, will not be evaluated by me – at least he has the excuse of not being Brazilian and not living in Brazil in time enough to adequately know this reality, in case you really don't know it”. The pathetic argument, another fallacy ad hominem based on xenophobia, ignored by Roger Bastide, whose citation satisfied the eugenicist, brings a dose of childishness. It is not surprising coming from someone who considers African a nationality and justifies the prohibition of black (American) immigration as a fair measure to avoid the “unpredictability” of the Brazilian racial constitution, ignoring the same for European immigration, because in that case there would be one predictability positive, as he allows to escape in the lines and between the lines of his text. Let us not forget the argument that preserving “European ancestry” as the sole criterion of immigration policy would only consist of respecting the Portuguese legacy, which is identified differently from the Dutch and the English, luck that Africans and indigenous people do not have in their text. Neither did Vargas’ respect for “German citizens” and the Nazi party in Brazil, as well as the arrival of Nazi scientists, “just a study by the German government to study the adaptation conditions in tropical regions of a people accustomed to a cold climate ” (sic!). How childish! These are typical social network arguments, an expression of white identity treated as a universal element. As I consider that Quintas does not have an object, he changes it at the whim of humor, as is evident in the work of Monsma, a professor at UFSCar, a researcher who would not “properly know this reality” – he did a research and Quintas did not –, I consider, for me, the debate ended. At the very least, the texts served to show, along with Quintas' texts and confessions, Aldo Rebelo's connection with the supremacism and proto-fascism of the São Paulo elite in the 1920s. Rui Costa Pimenta with group 666, a neo-Nazi group from São Paulo, is nothing more than a big handshake between friends.

*Leonardo Sacramento He holds a PhD in Education from UFSCar and is president of the Association of Teaching Professionals of Ribeirão Preto. Book author The mercantile university: a study on the public university and private capital (Appris).

Notes


[1] Available in https://aterraeredonda.com.br/o-medo-da-queda-de-simbolos/.

[2] MOURA, Clovis. Sociology of the Brazilian Black. 2nd ed. São Paulo: Perspectivas, 2019. On the palm economy, see pages 202 to 208. On social and sexual relationships, see pages 208 to 212.

[3] MOURA, Clovis. Sociology of the Brazilian Black. 2nd ed. São Paulo: Perspectives, 2019, p. 203.

[4]MARX, Carl. Capital: the capital production process. Presentation by Jacob Gorender. Translation by Regis Barbosa and Flávio R. Kothe. Volume 1. Volume I. São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1983, p. 285).

[5]FLORENTINO, Manolo. On black coasts: a history of the slave trade between Africa and Rio de Janeiro (XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries). São Paulo: Editora UNESP, 2014.

[6]Available in https://aterraeredonda.com.br/bandeirantes-e-bandeiritismos/.

[7] DIETRICH, Ana Maria. Tropical Nazism? The Nazi Party in Brazil. Thesis defended at the Department of History of the Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Human Sciences. University of São Paulo, 2007, p. 120.

[8] DIETRICH, Ana Maria. Tropical Nazism? The Nazi Party in Brazil. Thesis defended at the Department of History of the Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Human Sciences. University of São Paulo, 2007, p. 200.

[9] DIETRICH, Ana Maria. Tropical Nazism? The Nazi Party in Brazil. Thesis defended at the Department of History of the Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Human Sciences. University of São Paulo, 2007, p. 119.

[10] CARDOSO, Irene. The University of Communion Paulista (the creation project of the University of São Paulo). São Paulo: Editora Autores Associados/Cortez Editora, 1982, p. 18.

[11] PRADO JUNIOR, Caio. Brazil's economic history. 43rd edition. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1998, p. 175.

[12] FURTADO, Celso. The economic formation of Brazil. 12th edition. São Paulo: Editora Nacional, 1974, p. 140.

[13] BASTIDE, Roger; FOREST, Fernandes. Whites and blacks in São Paulo: sociological essay on aspects of formation, current manifestations and effects of color prejudice in São Paulo society. Presentation by Fernando Henrique Cardoso. 4th edition. São Paulo: Globo, 2008, p. 72.

[14] BASTIDE, Roger; FLORESTAN, Fernandes. Whites and blacks in São Paulo: sociological essay on aspects of formation, current manifestations and effects of color prejudice in São Paulo society. Presentation by Fernando Henrique Cardoso. 4th edition. São Paulo: Globo, 2008, p. 74.

[15] SILVA, Juremir Machado da. Roots of Brazilian conservatism: abolition in the press and in the social imaginary. 1st ed. Rio de Janeiro: Brazilian Civilization, 2017.

[16] DOMINGUES, Petronio. An untold story: black people, racism and whitening in post-abolition São Paulo. São Paulo: Editora Senac São Paulo, 2004.

[17]DOMINGUES, Petronio. An untold story: black people, racism and whitening in post-abolition São Paulo. São Paulo: Editora Senac São Paulo, 2004. See the session Racial hatred in the framework of abolition in São Paulo of Chapter I.

[18] COSTA, Emilia Viotti da. the abolition. Sao Paulo: Global, 1982.

[19] CONRAD, Robert. The last years of slavery in Brazil (1850-1888). Translation by Fernando de Castro Ferro. 2nd edition. Rio de Janeiro: Brazilian Civilization, 1978.

[20] GORENDER, Jacob. colonial slavery. 4th edition. São Paulo: Editora Fundação Perseu Abramo, 2010.

[21] Available in http://www.mp.usp.br/chamadas/estamos-aqui-bandeirante-um-personagem-em-debate-pracegover.

 

See this link for all articles

10 MOST READ IN THE LAST 7 DAYS

______________
  • About artificial ignoranceEugenio Bucci 15/06/2024 By EUGÊNIO BUCCI: Today, ignorance is not an uninhabited house, devoid of ideas, but a building full of disjointed nonsense, a goo of heavy density that occupies every space
  • Franz Kafka, libertarian spiritFranz Kafka, libertarian spirit 13/06/2024 By MICHAEL LÖWY: Notes on the occasion of the centenary of the death of the Czech writer
  • The society of dead historyclassroom similar to the one in usp history 16/06/2024 By ANTONIO SIMPLICIO DE ALMEIDA NETO: The subject of history was inserted into a generic area called Applied Human and Social Sciences and, finally, disappeared into the curricular drain
  • Letter to the presidentSquid 59mk,g 18/06/2024 By FRANCISCO ALVES, JOÃO DOS REIS SILVA JÚNIOR & VALDEMAR SGUISSARDI: “We completely agree with Your Excellency. when he states and reaffirms that 'Education is an investment, not an expense'”
  • A look at the 2024 federal strikelula haddad 20/06/2024 By IAEL DE SOUZA: A few months into government, Lula's electoral fraud was proven, accompanied by his “faithful henchman”, the Minister of Finance, Fernando Haddad
  • Strengthen PROIFESclassroom 54mf 15/06/2024 By GIL VICENTE REIS DE FIGUEIREDO: The attempt to cancel PROIFES and, at the same time, turn a blind eye to the errors of ANDES management is a disservice to the construction of a new representation scenario
  • PEC-65: independence or patrimonialism in the Central Bank?Campos Neto Trojan Horse 17/06/2024 By PEDRO PAULO ZAHLUTH BASTOS: What Roberto Campos Neto proposes is the constitutional amendment of free lunch for the future elite of the Central Bank
  • Chico Buarque, 80 years oldchico 19/06/2024 By ROGÉRIO RUFINO DE OLIVEIRA: The class struggle, universal, is particularized in the refinement of constructive intention, in the tone of proletarian proparoxytones
  • Volodymyr Zelensky's trapstar wars 15/06/2024 By HUGO DIONÍSIO: Whether Zelensky gets his glass full – the US entry into the war – or his glass half full – Europe’s entry into the war – either solution is devastating for our lives
  • The melancholic end of Estadãoabandoned cars 17/06/2024 By JULIAN RODRIGUES: Bad news: the almost sesquicentennial daily newspaper in São Paulo (and the best Brazilian newspaper) is rapidly declining

AUTHORS

TOPICS

NEW PUBLICATIONS