The miscegenation that consists of the mixture of races is one of the traits that most clarify the true identity of the Brazilian people. This concept during the imperial period in Brazil was systematically hidden in the first works of historians who wrote about the Tupiniquim country.
In 1830, by determination of the Brazilian empire, the so-called Brazilian Historical and Geographical Institute, IHGB, was built. This institute had the objective of writing the history of Brazil, thus creating a memory of the important facts of the past. Its inauguration was through a contest that would award the writer who wrote the best history of Brazilian society.
It was with this perspective that the German Von Martius won the competition with his thesis “General History of Brazil”. In it, the concept of Miscegenation was little worked out and the figure of the Portuguese gained a leading role. The fear of showing the true identity of Brazilian society influenced the first writings of the History of Brazil and it was only after 1930 that this historiographical reality changed.
At that time, intellectuals of great stature emerged who broke away from traditional writing and gave a new turn to the Brazilian historiographical approach. Among them, stand out Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, author of “Raízes do Brasil,” Gilberto Freyre, who wrote “Casa Grande e Senzala”, and Caio Prado Junior, author of “Formação do Brasil” Contemporary". Both authors did not distort the concept of miscegenation and treated their writings with originality.
In "Roots of Brazil” – published in 1936 – Sérgio Buarque pointed out the negative Iberian cultural heritages left here in the tropics. The concept of a cordial man, for example, was the main attack on the legacy left by the Portuguese, this concept referred to that person who acted more by emotion than by reason. An example of cordiality was that man who, to choose between two people for a job vacancy, chose the candidate who was his friend or acquaintance, instead of opting for meritocracy. This served, therefore, to delay Brazilian social, political and economic progress. Sérgio, then, honestly proposes the overcoming of these cultural values for the development of Brazilian society.
On the other hand, Gilberto Freyre he did not criticize the colonization carried out by the Portuguese in Brazil, on the contrary, he praised the lack of pride of race and the easy adaptation of the Portuguese to the Brazilian territory. However, what differentiates Freyre's work from traditional writing prior to 1930 is the approach to the process of miscegenation of the Brazilian people. In his book “Casa Grande e Senzala”, the author states that it was this lack of pride in the Portuguese race that contributed to cultural syncretism and to the mixture of races in Brazil.
Finally, Caio Prado Junior, who in his book “Formação do Brasil Contemporâneo”, published in 1942, deeply criticizes the Portuguese for their exploitative character in the Brazilian colonization. Caio Prado, an author strongly influenced by Marxist theories, debates that the role of Brazil Colony was solely and exclusively that of exporting agricultural products. Therefore, he claims that colonization had a predatory character and the Portuguese were the protagonists who initiated this economic practice. Thus, these three authors, even with differences in theoretical perspectives, polemicized and innovated the approach to the history of Brazil after the publication of their works in the post-1930s.
By Fabricio Santos
Graduated in History
Source: Brazil School - https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/historiab/escrita-historia-brasil.htm
