Babak Fakhamzadeh
1.
Buarque positions ‘Iberia’, the nation from which Brazil ‘received its heritage’, as a ‘bridge-territory’, through which Europe communicated with other worlds. He characterizes Iberians as 'unique in developing the cult of the personality', individualism, independence, within society. This implies that ‘lasting group agreement’ is not possible unless imposed from the outside, with a lack of social cohesion the norm, with weaker hierarchies as compared to other European nations, as a consequence.
The Iberian, says Buarque, values individual responsibility, meaning that, because of this, not natural human association, but governments were the unifying factor, with military dictatorships being particularly well suited to facilitate this.
Valued personal attributes were things like ‘integrity’, ‘honor’, and ‘seriousness’, not, specifically, a Protestant work ethic; a dignified idleness being seen as more ennobling than the struggle for daily bread. And, with a limited work ethic comes limited social solidarity, except in the personal, domestic, sphere.
2.
The Portuguese were well suited to conquering equatorial lands, particularly because their negligent and careless nature.
Buarque divides societies in ‘adventurers’ and ‘workers’. A society is one, or the other. For the former, the world is of unlimited space. For the latter, one of overcoming difficulties. They are not compatible, though neither exists in pure form. But, 'naturally', nations favoring the adventurous spirit were ideally suited for conquering South America. Spain, Portugal, but also, apparently, England.
The fertile tropical lands could not be scaled up in their exploitation through free labor, as the indigenous population couldn’t, or refused to, work under meticulously organized conditions. Slave labor was a necessity.
Buarque notices that agriculture in Brazil slid into using ‘bad’ methods. “In the agrarian economy, bad methods… have always tended to push out good methods”. To me, this seems a bold statement, but, it appears, is based on the desire for short term gains, only, supposedly connected to the adventurous spirit of the Portuguese. Then again, the destruction of the Amazon could be seen as fitting this pattern, though that could also simply be (more likely, even?) a dovetailing with the root features of capitalism.
Buarque also observes a comparative lack of racial pride in the Portuguese, comparing this with other nations of Latin origin and, more so, with African Muslims. Buarque claims Portuguese have a large proportion of African blood. Quoting 1926 research, Buarque claims that Swahili speakers differentiate between Europeans and Portuguese. But also, Buarque makes the claim that, in the 1500s, Portugal had significant numbers of slaves work the land and function as servants. Either way, ‘racial exclusivity’ was less prominent in Brazil, though Africans were very much considered inferior, even if the native population was less so.
Worker cooperatives, guilds, were not established in Brazil due to the prevalence of slave labor, home industries, and the general shortage of skilled workers. Also, with many regularly switching careers in pursuit of greater profits, craftsmanship was not established.
Buarque puts the spirit of cooperation, when it exists, not towards the achievement of material object, but to the satisfaction of providing assistance to a neighbor or friend.
Then, the Dutch occupation is discussed. The Dutch focus on urban development was significantly different from the Portuguese process. Buarque mentions that ‘the first parliament ever convened in the western hemisphere met in Recife in 1640’. Buarque positions the Dutch as destined to fail; they tried to make Brazil into a tropical Europe, whereas the Portuguese lack of true understanding of the difference between the motherland and the colony, a weakness, was their strength as a consequence. Earlier, Buarque posits that the relatively small numbers of Dutch making the journey was testament to the success of the United provinces at home. The Dutch, like other Northern Europeans, were just not suited to the tropics. The Portuguese adapted. Quoting from a German source, “they became negroes”. In addition, Buarque says, both the Portuguese language and faith found much more fertile grounds amongst Africans and indigenous populations.
3.
Brazil has primarily been a country centered around agriculture. According to Buarque, the industrialized and capitalist shift carried as a consequence the incompatibility with slave labor. Seems to me like a misunderstanding of capitalism, as we now very well understand that modern capitalism and effective slavery go hand in hand.
Interestingly, from around 1850, the import of slaves dried up. As a consequence, to channel the funds that were freed up, the bank of Brazil was founded. But, patriarchal features remained; party politics became a process of staying loyal to the party, not to principles. Buarque connects this to a central feature of Brazil’s agricultural history, where every fazenda itself functioned as a small republic, self sufficient, with the patriarch at its head, while, at the time, the country as a whole did not function as such. Interestingly, apparently, the patriarch in these rural settings had de facto jurisdiction over his family and possessions, able to condemn his family members to death, which Buarque connects to the power of the pater familias in ancient Roma. Buarque then makes a case that, historically, mental capacity, intelligence, in Brazil, has been seen as a kind of commendable feature of the human individual, but not as a source for meaningful potential advancement. Then, pointing out that as a country of slaves and masters, with trade engaged in by foreigners, there was very little base for the creation of an (urban) middle class. The result, on the whole, was a prolonged dependence on agricultural regions and practices. To the extent that cities, until the arrival of the royal court, were surprisingly quiet and run down due to the owners of the houses, landowners, would only visit cities during specific holidays, keeping their wealth in the countryside.
Buarque ends this with another comparison with the Dutch, saying that they actually favoured the city over the countryside.
4.
Buarque draws a distinction between Spanish and Portuguese colonization efforts: the Spanish 'are meticulously organized', emphasizing the role of a well organized, Roman, city as the center of control, with the intention to expand the Spanish state. The Portuguese focused on commercial exploitation, which Buarque compares to Phoenician or Greek methods. So, by the 1550s, the Spanish had already established multiple universities in the new world.
Similarly, the Spanish pursued settlements more inland, at altitudes, with less extreme climates, whereas the Portuguese stayed along the coasts, testament to the often used term ‘interior’, to describe Brazil away from its shores. It’s no coincidence, to Buarque, that the call for Brazil’s independence started in São Paulo, away from the coast, in a city less connected to the coast and, thus, less connected to Portugal. This focus on the coast only reduced after the discovery of gold in Minas Gerais.
Buarque observed that the Portuguese primarily occupied coastal regions that only recently had been taken over by Tupi, they themselves pushing other indigenous groups into the hinterland, while creating a coastal environment occupied by a fairly homogenous group, speaking one language, making it easier for the Portuguese to replace them exactly in these territories. Perhaps more interesting was the mentality of extraction, not settlement, the colonizers favoring exploitation, for they all expected to return to the motherland. The Portuguese went so far that, as late as the end of the 18th century, Brazil was forbidden to produce numerous goods that were manufactured in Portugal.
Buarque continuous to compare the Portuguese mindset with that of the Spanish, through which he explains the differences in colonial administration. The Spanish, more strict, sought control through rules. The Portuguese, with a trader mindset, allowed for more freedom. And Buarque introduces what he sees as the typical Portuguese concept of desleixo; not quite laxity but “it’s not worth the trouble”, accepting life as it is, with a disdain for efficiency and social solidarity. This is followed by a broad range of literary references that, for their obscurity, to me, confuse, as opposed to enlighten.
In the same chapter, appendices mention the lack of the printed word, by design up to the imperial period, in Brazil, and the common use of Tupi as the língua franca in the 17th century.
5.
Buarque argues that Brazilian bureaucracy has not been formal, but has been infused by ideals coming from relationships within the context of family. Interpersonal relations, intimacy, not cordiality, are essential to the Brazilian.
Buarque continues to say that this attitude extended to religion and that that desire for intimacy meant that, by necessity, the republic needed to be created by those outside of religion.
6.
The Brazilian republic was constructed top to bottom, not based on popular demand.
Buarque sprouts flowery prose, including skepticism that full literacy would not necessarily be desirable to improve the fate of the nation. Buarque then mentions an innate shame of Brazilians of being Brazilian, effecting their perception of themselves in relation to others. This recalls the 'viralata' attitude, the mixed-breed inferior dog, often ascribed to Brazilians.
7.
The end of slavery marks the switch away from a state built on agricultural and Iberianism.
Buarque points out that coffee, less intensive agriculture requiring fewer financial investments, made it more democratic, as smaller farms were sustainable, in comparison to sugar exploitation. This also lead to a less rural autonomy.
Interestingly, Buarque makes the case that the trappings of the monarchy remained after abolishing slavery and royalty, while the economic systems, and the societal layers, supporting those structures had fallen into irrelevance, creating a framework of pompous irrelevance.
Also interestingly, Buarque points to the perception of Brazil on the world stage as being full of elevated goodwill toward all nations of the world, resonating even today. However, this policy stemming from that disconnected elite also meant it was disconnected from society at large.
Buarque makes the observation that fascism flows from liberalism, similar to how, more recently, it’s understood that neoliberalism is capitalism that feels secure, while fascism is capitalism that feels threatened.
Buarque identifies victory of the revolutionary change centred on the abolishing of slavery and monarchy through the dissolution of the archaic systems that float on top of society. But, related, Buarque sees Brazil’s struggle as yet being unable to do away with politics centered around individuals, as opposed to ideas.
1.
Buarque positions ‘Iberia’, the nation from which Brazil ‘received its heritage’, as a ‘bridge-territory’, through which Europe communicated with other worlds. He characterizes Iberians as 'unique in developing the cult of the personality', individualism, independence, within society. This implies that ‘lasting group agreement’ is not possible unless imposed from the outside, with a lack of social cohesion the norm, with weaker hierarchies as compared to other European nations, as a consequence.
The Iberian, says Buarque, values individual responsibility, meaning that, because of this, not natural human association, but governments were the unifying factor, with military dictatorships being particularly well suited to facilitate this.
Valued personal attributes were things like ‘integrity’, ‘honor’, and ‘seriousness’, not, specifically, a Protestant work ethic; a dignified idleness being seen as more ennobling than the struggle for daily bread. And, with a limited work ethic comes limited social solidarity, except in the personal, domestic, sphere.
2.
The Portuguese were well suited to conquering equatorial lands, particularly because their negligent and careless nature.
Buarque divides societies in ‘adventurers’ and ‘workers’. A society is one, or the other. For the former, the world is of unlimited space. For the latter, one of overcoming difficulties. They are not compatible, though neither exists in pure form. But, 'naturally', nations favoring the adventurous spirit were ideally suited for conquering South America. Spain, Portugal, but also, apparently, England.
The fertile tropical lands could not be scaled up in their exploitation through free labor, as the indigenous population couldn’t, or refused to, work under meticulously organized conditions. Slave labor was a necessity.
Buarque notices that agriculture in Brazil slid into using ‘bad’ methods. “In the agrarian economy, bad methods… have always tended to push out good methods”. To me, this seems a bold statement, but, it appears, is based on the desire for short term gains, only, supposedly connected to the adventurous spirit of the Portuguese. Then again, the destruction of the Amazon could be seen as fitting this pattern, though that could also simply be (more likely, even?) a dovetailing with the root features of capitalism.
Buarque also observes a comparative lack of racial pride in the Portuguese, comparing this with other nations of Latin origin and, more so, with African Muslims. Buarque claims Portuguese have a large proportion of African blood. Quoting 1926 research, Buarque claims that Swahili speakers differentiate between Europeans and Portuguese. But also, Buarque makes the claim that, in the 1500s, Portugal had significant numbers of slaves work the land and function as servants. Either way, ‘racial exclusivity’ was less prominent in Brazil, though Africans were very much considered inferior, even if the native population was less so.
Worker cooperatives, guilds, were not established in Brazil due to the prevalence of slave labor, home industries, and the general shortage of skilled workers. Also, with many regularly switching careers in pursuit of greater profits, craftsmanship was not established.
Buarque puts the spirit of cooperation, when it exists, not towards the achievement of material object, but to the satisfaction of providing assistance to a neighbor or friend.
Then, the Dutch occupation is discussed. The Dutch focus on urban development was significantly different from the Portuguese process. Buarque mentions that ‘the first parliament ever convened in the western hemisphere met in Recife in 1640’. Buarque positions the Dutch as destined to fail; they tried to make Brazil into a tropical Europe, whereas the Portuguese lack of true understanding of the difference between the motherland and the colony, a weakness, was their strength as a consequence. Earlier, Buarque posits that the relatively small numbers of Dutch making the journey was testament to the success of the United provinces at home. The Dutch, like other Northern Europeans, were just not suited to the tropics. The Portuguese adapted. Quoting from a German source, “they became negroes”. In addition, Buarque says, both the Portuguese language and faith found much more fertile grounds amongst Africans and indigenous populations.
3.
Brazil has primarily been a country centered around agriculture. According to Buarque, the industrialized and capitalist shift carried as a consequence the incompatibility with slave labor. Seems to me like a misunderstanding of capitalism, as we now very well understand that modern capitalism and effective slavery go hand in hand.
Interestingly, from around 1850, the import of slaves dried up. As a consequence, to channel the funds that were freed up, the bank of Brazil was founded. But, patriarchal features remained; party politics became a process of staying loyal to the party, not to principles. Buarque connects this to a central feature of Brazil’s agricultural history, where every fazenda itself functioned as a small republic, self sufficient, with the patriarch at its head, while, at the time, the country as a whole did not function as such. Interestingly, apparently, the patriarch in these rural settings had de facto jurisdiction over his family and possessions, able to condemn his family members to death, which Buarque connects to the power of the pater familias in ancient Roma. Buarque then makes a case that, historically, mental capacity, intelligence, in Brazil, has been seen as a kind of commendable feature of the human individual, but not as a source for meaningful potential advancement. Then, pointing out that as a country of slaves and masters, with trade engaged in by foreigners, there was very little base for the creation of an (urban) middle class. The result, on the whole, was a prolonged dependence on agricultural regions and practices. To the extent that cities, until the arrival of the royal court, were surprisingly quiet and run down due to the owners of the houses, landowners, would only visit cities during specific holidays, keeping their wealth in the countryside.
Buarque ends this with another comparison with the Dutch, saying that they actually favoured the city over the countryside.
4.
Buarque draws a distinction between Spanish and Portuguese colonization efforts: the Spanish 'are meticulously organized', emphasizing the role of a well organized, Roman, city as the center of control, with the intention to expand the Spanish state. The Portuguese focused on commercial exploitation, which Buarque compares to Phoenician or Greek methods. So, by the 1550s, the Spanish had already established multiple universities in the new world.
Similarly, the Spanish pursued settlements more inland, at altitudes, with less extreme climates, whereas the Portuguese stayed along the coasts, testament to the often used term ‘interior’, to describe Brazil away from its shores. It’s no coincidence, to Buarque, that the call for Brazil’s independence started in São Paulo, away from the coast, in a city less connected to the coast and, thus, less connected to Portugal. This focus on the coast only reduced after the discovery of gold in Minas Gerais.
Buarque observed that the Portuguese primarily occupied coastal regions that only recently had been taken over by Tupi, they themselves pushing other indigenous groups into the hinterland, while creating a coastal environment occupied by a fairly homogenous group, speaking one language, making it easier for the Portuguese to replace them exactly in these territories. Perhaps more interesting was the mentality of extraction, not settlement, the colonizers favoring exploitation, for they all expected to return to the motherland. The Portuguese went so far that, as late as the end of the 18th century, Brazil was forbidden to produce numerous goods that were manufactured in Portugal.
Buarque continuous to compare the Portuguese mindset with that of the Spanish, through which he explains the differences in colonial administration. The Spanish, more strict, sought control through rules. The Portuguese, with a trader mindset, allowed for more freedom. And Buarque introduces what he sees as the typical Portuguese concept of desleixo; not quite laxity but “it’s not worth the trouble”, accepting life as it is, with a disdain for efficiency and social solidarity. This is followed by a broad range of literary references that, for their obscurity, to me, confuse, as opposed to enlighten.
In the same chapter, appendices mention the lack of the printed word, by design up to the imperial period, in Brazil, and the common use of Tupi as the língua franca in the 17th century.
5.
Buarque argues that Brazilian bureaucracy has not been formal, but has been infused by ideals coming from relationships within the context of family. Interpersonal relations, intimacy, not cordiality, are essential to the Brazilian.
Buarque continues to say that this attitude extended to religion and that that desire for intimacy meant that, by necessity, the republic needed to be created by those outside of religion.
6.
The Brazilian republic was constructed top to bottom, not based on popular demand.
Buarque sprouts flowery prose, including skepticism that full literacy would not necessarily be desirable to improve the fate of the nation. Buarque then mentions an innate shame of Brazilians of being Brazilian, effecting their perception of themselves in relation to others. This recalls the 'viralata' attitude, the mixed-breed inferior dog, often ascribed to Brazilians.
7.
The end of slavery marks the switch away from a state built on agricultural and Iberianism.
Buarque points out that coffee, less intensive agriculture requiring fewer financial investments, made it more democratic, as smaller farms were sustainable, in comparison to sugar exploitation. This also lead to a less rural autonomy.
Interestingly, Buarque makes the case that the trappings of the monarchy remained after abolishing slavery and royalty, while the economic systems, and the societal layers, supporting those structures had fallen into irrelevance, creating a framework of pompous irrelevance.
Also interestingly, Buarque points to the perception of Brazil on the world stage as being full of elevated goodwill toward all nations of the world, resonating even today. However, this policy stemming from that disconnected elite also meant it was disconnected from society at large.
Buarque makes the observation that fascism flows from liberalism, similar to how, more recently, it’s understood that neoliberalism is capitalism that feels secure, while fascism is capitalism that feels threatened.
Buarque identifies victory of the revolutionary change centred on the abolishing of slavery and monarchy through the dissolution of the archaic systems that float on top of society. But, related, Buarque sees Brazil’s struggle as yet being unable to do away with politics centered around individuals, as opposed to ideas.