Credit, Getty Images
The book Independence of Brazil caused so much confusion among politicians and historians that it should never be released.
The work, a collection of articles produced by around 50 respected academics, would be released in mid-2025 by Edições Câmara, the publisher of the federal legislative house. The contract with the authors had already been signed.
But a commission of 15 parliamentarians, chaired by federal deputy Lafayette de Andrada (PL-MG), edited substantial parts of the originals. The authors disagree with the changes made by the Chamber's Special Committee on 200 years.
The point considered most serious by the teachers was the replacement of the term "dictatorship" with "government" or "regime" in 13 citations. In practice, in the version edited by parliamentarians, the word "dictatorship" ended up completely suppressed.
Deputy Lafayette de Andrada did not respond to the report's interview requests.
Through its press office, Edições Câmara stated that "during the editorial analysis and preparation process, adjustments to the texts presented were discussed without reaching a final version considered suitable for institutional publication".
This episode raises a question that goes beyond the term dictatorship. Is there right or wrong terminology when talking about history?
"Yes, there is right or wrong from a historiographical point of view. But this right is an approximate right, which can always be revised", says historian João Paulo Pimenta, researcher in the history of concepts, professor at the University of São Paulo (USP) and author of the book Formação da Nação Brasileira.
End of Most read
The USP professor explains that a historian learns, from his training, about the importance of language and the care that must be taken with it. Thus, the scholar considers that an event can be described in different ways, that human language is constantly changing and that people in the past also had their own ways of referring to what they were doing.
Francivaldo Alves Nunes, president of the National History Association (ANPUH) and professor at the Federal University of Pará (UFPA), says that historians consider in their work that every word carries an "interpretive choice".
"It does not mean that any word can be used in any way. The historian needs to conceptually justify each use, each choice, comparing it with the documentation and dialoguing with historiography", he points out.
Coup or revolution?
Watch news from Brazil and the world on the BBC World Service
Download here
End of app promotion
In times of fierce ideological disputes, historical episodes such as the one that implemented the military dictatorship that governed Brazil from 1964 to 1985 tend to highlight differences. For historians, however, the definitions of such facts are already consolidated — what happened was a coup, say those interviewed.
"Because it was an abrupt, unconstitutional, forceful movement — although supported by several sectors —, to overthrow a democratically instituted order", explains João Paulo Pimenta.
"No serious analyst questions [this definition]."
Professor at the State University of Maranhão (Uema) and one of the organizers of the book Memórias em Disputa, historian Monica Piccolo states that "even historiography considered more conservative characterizes Goulart's dismissal, through the Armed Forces in alliance with civilians, as a coup".
Calling the episode a coup, in fact, is not even a late term: ten years after the episode, there were already books, such as 1964: Golpe ou Contragolpe?, by journalist and historian Hélio Silva (1904-1995), which discussed the terminology of this event.
Nunes explains why "revolution" is seen in history as an incorrect word.
"Revolution presupposes profound transformation of political, social and economic structures, often involving social mobilization and resulting in a new social order. This is not the case [of what occurred in 1964]", says the UFPA professor.
"That movement did not promote an emancipatory social transformation. On the contrary, it ended up establishing an authoritarian order."
Credit, National Archive Collection
Pimenta assesses that the word revolution has been "rehabilitated" recently by people who do not believe that there really was a revolution, but want a "counterpoint" to the current understanding, that what happened was a coup.
"People who want to defend what happened use an alternative word to the one that is analytically consensual but has an obviously negative connotation, because a coup is always violent against the established order", points out the USP professor.
In Piccolo's view, talking about "revolution" is a choice only for those who follow "the concept of the Armed Forces".
She also criticizes the use of another term that she considers a euphemism, "1964 movement". According to the Uema professor, this type of vocabulary seeks to "minimize the coup perspective".
Nunes agrees: although he understands that calling the episode a "movement" is possible, he considers that it is a generic choice, which does not emphasize the violence with which a coup d'état is carried out.
End of content
Dictatorship, military government, exceptional regime…
Pimenta highlights other terms that end up softening the violent charge of words related to the military dictatorship, such as "government" and "regime".
"In the same way that 'revolution' means a 'non-coup', 'government' and 'regime' become 'non-dictatorship'", he points out, adding that "military dictatorship is an expression that is absolutely consensual among serious analysts".
Nunes also criticizes these terms.
"Military government is a merely descriptive and insufficient expression. It informs who held power but does not adequately characterize the nature of that power", says the historian.
"Military regime is possible and widely used in historiography, but in many moments it is also used in a descriptive way without explaining the authoritarian characteristics inherent to the system."
However, there are terms that do not find much consensus among historians.
Piccolo states that there is an "intense division" on how to qualify the dictatorship — whether military, civil-military or even business-military.
"The latter are closer because they both try to reinforce civilian participation", he highlights.
Historian Carlos Fico, author of the book The 1964 Coup: Decisive Moments and professor at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), consolidated the idea that the coup was civic-military — because it had the support of sectors of civil society, including businesspeople and opinion makers.
But the government that succeeded it, due to the concentration of decision-making, was an essentially military dictatorship, points out Nunes.
"I would use the term military dictatorship or simply dictatorship, depending on the context. Because, in fact, although it had support from sectors of society, the deliberations and decisions were taken by the military", argues the historian.
'Discovery' of Brazil
Credit, Public domain
In the not too distant past, it seemed like a fact beyond discussion: people learned at school that on April 22, 1500, the Portuguese navigator Pedro Álvares Cabral (1467-1520) arrived on the current coast of Bahia and "discovered Brazil".
The episode was called "discovery" and that was it.
But today, the expression is seen as problematic.
"Discovery, finding, conquest... I think they are all problematic terms because they presuppose that Brazil was an unknown unit that came into existence or became known only after the arrival of the Portuguese", explains Nunes.
In his view, the crux of the matter is the Eurocentric narrative that ignores the native peoples of the territory, with their cultures and relationships. He argues that the term "finding", although maintaining the Eurocentric perspective, would be more balanced. But personally, he prefers the word "conquest".
It is a point that still does not find consensus.
"It was a 'discovery' from a Portuguese point of view, from a European point of view. In this sense, it is still something absolutely sustainable today", says Pimenta.
"Invasion" carries more of an indigenous point of view, he says.
"And, from all [European and native] points of view, some parts of today's Brazil were conquered", says the USP professor. "But Brazil wasn't entirely conquered. It was being colonized. That's the best word."
Brazil before Brazil
Speaking of colonization, how can we talk about Brazil when the country had not yet established itself as a nation?
"Before Independence [in 1822], there was no Brazilian territory. There was nothing 'Brazilian' in colonial times", summarizes Pimenta.
"Analytically, it is inaccurate to speak of 'Brazilian' [before 1822] and, therefore, historically it is incorrect. 'Brazilian' is the term to indicate territory, institutions, nationality, forms of belonging that began to be created only with the end of colonization."
To resolve the issue, "Portuguese colony" and "Portuguese America" end up being the best alternatives — although the American territory dominated by Lisbon at that time was not exactly the same as the perimeter of Brazil today.
From there, the debate continues. Independence, for example, would be correct? Nunes explains that saying this “highlights the construction of political sovereignty”.
The term "separation" seeks to signal that there would have been "continuity of social, economic and political structures".
One theme leads to the other. Which just shows that in the conceptual debate, the semantic field seems to be infinite — and full of potential controversies.
Discover more
Watch
End of Watch
