What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The only real difference between fascists and Communists is that the former have a better wardrobe.
I’ve spent a fair amount of time berating the regimes in Cuba and Venezuela, rampaging about human rights abuses, economic shenanigans and ridiculous rhetoric. It’s now time for the far-right to bend over and receive its licks.
In 1976, the military forces of Argentina staged a coup against President Isabel Martinez de Peron, widow of controversial Argentine leader Juan Peron, citing ineffectual leadership in a grinding guerrilla war between left and right-wing paramilitary groups. The subsequent military junta, ruling from 1976 to 1983, was among the most repressive in the history of the continent.
Innocuously dubbed the National Reorganization Process, the junta promptly made Argentina a police state, suppressing all civil rights and suspending any semblance of due process. The military government continued the “Dirty War” against leftist Montonero guerrillas, a process that began under the previous administration. Yet despite the often-brutal tactics of the leftist rebels, it paled in comparison to the state-sponsored terror that would follow.
Torture, rape, kidnapping, murder, summary executions–you name it, it was all done in the seven years of the dictatorship. The most common estimate we now have is close to 30,000 people who “disappeared.” Not only guerrillas, but journalists, professors, trade unionists, even clergymen succumbed to the brutal tactics of government interrogators. One of the favorite forms of execution involved throwing victims out of planes into the ocean or the Rio de la Plata to drown; hence the term “death flights.”
One of the most heinous abuses of the regime was the abduction and relocation of the newborn children of imprisoned mothers. Under the flimsy excuse that “subversive parents will raise subversive children”, as many as 500 newborns were literally ripped from their mothers’ arms and forcily “adopted” by the families of high-ranking military officials. To this day, groups such as the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo are fighting to identify the whereabouts of these children.
It took a ridiculous war to finally stop the madness. Unrest and dissatisfaction was growing in 1981, as corruption and economic crisis weakened the regime. A new junta took over and used national fervor to attack the Falklands islands in the south Atlantic, a British possession with more sheep than people. The resulting Falklands War, the 1982 debacle that ended in a decisive British victory, accelerated the demise of the military government, and a new democratic constitution was ratified in 1985.
The Argentine juntas, along with the Brazilian military government, the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet and Paraguay’s Alfredo Stroessner, form a ring of right-wing dictatorships that terrorized their populations in the 1970s and 1980s. They worked together in a covert anti-Communist operation called Operation Condor, which received tacit approval from the US government. The Argentine atrocities spread across the Southern Cone of South America.
These governments still generate controversy. Many conservatives, including myself at a certain point, argued that these governments, and their actions, were necessary to prevent the spread of Communist governments on the continent. Many contend that the economic status of these countries, especially Chile’s apparent success, are due in part to policies enacted during military rule.
Sorry, but I don’t buy it anymore.
A dictator is a dictator, no matter how good he/she makes you feel. No economic success, no ideological victory, no battlefield sacrifice can justify the wanton abuse of constitutional powers, the abridgement of human rights, and the outright slaughter of a country’s people. It doesn’ t matter that they’re Communist, socialist, conservative, liberal, fascist, Nazi, whatever.
These guys were murderers, plain and simple.
Below is a BBC documentary about the Argentine “Dirty War” of 1976-1983. It’s a rough subject, but a necessary one for students so they can appreciate the enormity–and fragility–of our freedom.
Mr. D's Neighborhood 
Review of Part 3 of PBS’ “Black in Latin America” – Brazil
Montage of tourist images of Rio de Janeiro, Courtesy of Wikipedia.
Growing up, I had two images of Brazil: one with godlike athletic ability, the other with a fruit salad on her head.
As different as they were, both soccer legend Pele and entertainer Carmen Miranda projected an image of Brazil that, on the surface, was what everyone wanted—a harmonious mingling of European, African and Native American cultures into a purely American form. It was known as “racial democracy” and became the official established cultural ethos of South America’s largest country.
That combination of athleticism, musical prowess, and outright joy seemed so normal back then. Too bad that they mask severe economic, political and social problems that still weigh heavy with racial overtones.
This, of course, is taking place in a country that, like Cuba, has no “official” racism.
Black in Latin America recently explored Brazil, a country that imported more slaves than any other colony in the New World. It has the second largest African population on the planet, after Nigeria. Slavery was even more brutal here than in North America and the Caribbean, and ended even later.
Like in other places, Brazil’s acceptance of its African heritage was, at least officially, a top-down affair. Being a hotbed of intellectual thought, Brazil also became a center for an academic blossoming of Afro-centric and Afro-Brazilian cultural study and self-identity. From the universities of Bahia, Sao Paolo and Rio de Janeiro came a new amalgamated understanding of what it means to be Brazilian. This intellectual ferment gets some much-needed light through this series.
Unfortunately, the façade of “racial democracy” was just that. Once you scratch the surface of carnival floats and samba music, the racial divide becomes much clearer. The elites, as in so many countries, tend towards the lighter shades. Those at the bottom rung have little, if any, opportunity to rise above their desperate condition.
It’s an old saw, but one that’s sharpened to a razor’s edge when seen against the stark realities of Brazilian life.
Gates does a pretty fair job covering the racial history of Brazil and the intellectual development of “racial democracy.” Yet as in the other episodes, one hour is simply insufficient to adequately cover the realities, and possible solutions, of Brazil’s very real racial divide.
Two areas in particular fall noticeably short: one a simplification, the other an outright omission.
Brazil’s experiment with affirmative action was not explored sufficiently. Towards the end of the episode, Gates sat in on a college discussion about the recent move by universities in Rio to establish affirmative action policies in college enrollment and faculty placement. The debate took a familiar tone: proponents pointed out the large disparity in income and enrollment between black and white, while opponents lamented decreased standards for the sake of racial equality.
Yet there was no indication that Gates would explore if Brazil would work with such quotas any further than the college classroom. Even without official racism, would Brazil’s government, social services, and especially its mushrooming industries tinker with affirmative action as well? Have similar programs been attempted before? What is the official government response to the university’s quota policy?
More importantly, how willing would the Brazilian economy—now a white-hot engine of progress—react to policies that may threaten their levels of production and profitability? Gates’ lack of exploration into how race played a role in Brazil’s economic boom is a gross omission.
Furthermore, Gates omits the growing racial divide in an area that once saw promise for Brazilians of color—sports.
Brazil’s greatest ambassador in history, by far, is its national soccer team, arguably the most successful national team on the planet. 5 World Cups, numerous awards and trophies, players that populate the top leagues in Europe and South America: Brazilian soccer has stood as a model to all the world.
Even more importantly, soccer was a way for Brazilians of color to really shine. Brazil’s national team first integrated in the early 1950s. Ever since, the style, culture and success of Brazilian soccer had the distinct flavor of the favelas, the slum areas around every Brazilian city populated largely by blacks. Pele, Tostao, Jarzinho and others rose from the slum streets to create the uber-successful and exciting Brazilian game.
From 1958 to 1970, the face of Brazilian soccer was black. Edson Arantes do Nascimento, or Pele, was the smiling ebony face of Brazil and its powerhouse squad.
Today, Brazil’s face is markedly different.
Looking at recent Brazilian squads, one notices a distinctly whiter group than those generations ago. The faces of the team, players like Kaka and Pato, are as white as the driven snow. Black players like Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Adriano, Rivaldo and Emerson are either retiring or on their way out.
Much of this change has to do, clearly, with money. European soccer is big business, and scouting has largely moved away from the tumble-down alleys of the favelas to state-of-the-art football academies. These academies are large, expensive, and difficult for poor applicants to enter. Thus, the talent pool reflects those who can afford to send prospective candidates to these schools.
European soccer, furthermore, has taken many Brazilian players and adapted them to more “European” methods. The flash and dash of the favelas is largely frowned upon, even though most Brazilian players rely on them for their occasional flashes of brilliance. In fact, the street style is today largely confined to the national Brazilian league itself, where local players cut, dash and dribble in the hope that a scout from Arsenal or Real Madrid picks them up.
There’s nothing particularly wrong with this development. Nor is there any shortage of black players to grace Brazil’s squads in the future. Yet it seems odd that the pride and joy of Brazil looks less and less like the country itself, even as the country struggles for more cohesion and equality.
Once again, Gates missed a huge opportunity. To research Brazil’s racial history and not mention the influence of soccer deserves a huge red card.
Three episodes into the series, “Black in Latin America” is getting into a familiar pattern. While it highlights information that may seem illuminating to the average viewer, it doesn’t have the time or concentration to really look at race problems in depth.
With a theme—and a country—as vast as Brazil, this approach offers very little and discovers even less.
1 Comment
Filed under Uncategorized
Tagged as Black in Latin America, Brazil, Carmen Miranda, Civil Rights, Commentary, Communications, Cultural Literacy, current events, Education, Educational leadership, Henry Louis Gates, History, Latin American history, Mario Testino, Media, Opinion, PBS, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Social studies, South America, Teachers, Teaching, television, Travel and Tourism, United States, World History