HIST 471
History of Brazil

Second Writing Assignment
Primary Sources Critique About the Vargas Era


Getúlio Vargas is a puzzle—an anti-oligarchical reformer who often spoke of democratizing Brazilian society, while simultaneously building a strong, centralist, often repressive state; a hyper-nationalist who would readily exclude fellow Brazilians who failed to agree with his vision of Brazilianenss; an international leader who could express a certain fondness for Mussolini as well as Franklin Delano Roosevelt; the so-called "Father of the Poor" who also earned the moniker "Mother of the Rich"; a selfless "martyr" of the Brazilian people who was also a calculating, self-serving demagogue. In life—and especially in his dramatic death-by-suicide—Vargas was (and remains) a contradictory, enigmatic figure.

The contradictions around Vargas make it difficult to understand the Vargas era as a unified whole. Is this a period of social and political integration or one in which older patterns of stratification and exclusion are simply modernized? Do the Brazilian "people" really become the protagonists of national history, or is the nationalist-populist language developed during the Vargas era really ruse to undercurrent the ability to challenge a top-down, authoritarian political culture? Does Brazil, under Vargas, become a racial democracy to be admired throughout the world or is this there really an insidious undercurrent of racialized discrimination that is tacitly supported by Vargas and his allies?

You have been provided with the following four primary documents that comment upon Vargas and his era:

  1. A letter from Bailey W. Diffie, a US political scientist traveling in Brazil in 1941, to US government officials. The letter was written in 1941.
  2. Vargas' suicide note. The note was written in August 1954.
  3. An oral history from Maurílio Thomás Ferreira, a retired male railway worker born in rural Espírito Santo in 1915. The interview was taken in 1994.
  4. An oral history from a Maria das Dôres Gomes Batista, a retired female maid-turned-entrepreneur from Campos de Gotiguazes, Rio de Janeiro. The interview was taken in 1996.


Drawing upon these documents, develop a critical assessment of the Vargas era that tackles the following issues:

  1. What language is shared among these four documents? That is, how and why do these four individuals make similar observations about key aspects of the Vargas era?
  2. What are there fundamental differences among these four documents? That is, how and why do the four individuals describe a Brazil that is contested and lacking in unity?
  3. How do these documents help illuminate the key interpretative problems of the Vargas era that one can so readily find in political and historical reflections on the period?

In structuring the essay, it is suggested that you:

  1. Begin with an INTRODUCTION that provides a general overview the Vargas era that is framed around an argument or hypothesis about the essence of Vargas and the Vargas era.
  2. Develop (i.e. "prove") your hypothesis through a CRITICAL EXPLICATION of supporting themes, historical references, and rhetorical strategies found in the documents.
    3. For example, if your hypothesis argues that that Vargas ultimately was an authoritarian who built an authoritarian society, then demonstrate how and where these documents point to his dictatorial tendencies and policies. Can you account for the notable silences on his dictatorial tendencies in some of the documents? NOTE: You need not concern yourself with explaining historical references to family members, localities, and pubic personalities that have only incidental importance to your hypothesis.
  3. Engage that HISTORICAL AND HISTORIOGRAPHIC CONTEXT of the Vargas era. That is, how and why does your reading of these texts fit into the historical context of modern Brazil, as presented in the ongoing historiographic debate about the Vargas era.
    4.

As always, an essay without an argument makes for a poor read. Mere summary or paraphrase of the primary texts—without explication, context, or historiographic engagement—will result in a low grade.

Each critique should be approximately five-to-six pages (typed, double-spaced, reasonable font and margins). Do not forget page numbering.

The essay is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, May 1, 2003.

HIST 471 Homepage | Email: Professor Williams