The Debate over Military (or Civilian-Military?) Dictatorship in Brazil in Historiographical Context

Transcription

1 Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp , 2018 The Debate over Military (or Civilian-Military?) Dictatorship in Brazil in Historiographical Context MARCELO RIDENTI Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp), Brazil This article highlights the renewed interest in the history of the coup of 1964 and the dictatorship that followed in Brazil, as well as some debates involved in the production of memoirs, investigative journalism and academic research on the topic. It analyses at more length one of the polemics: the increasing use of the term civilian-military to qualify the coup, the rule, and the dictatorship. It argues that independent of the use of the term the most important aspect is to understand the complex relationship between the military and civilians as part of a broader process of conservative modernisation during this period. Keywords: 1964 coup, Brazil, dictatorship, historiography, military, modernisation. According to a famous proverb, Brazilians have no memory. If so, it is not for lack of published information, at least as far as the years of military rule are concerned. The production of memoirs and biographies, investigative journalism and scholarly research on the subject has been widespread. Such publications are becoming increasingly significant, inside and outside the university, mainly in Brazil but also abroad, and carried out by researchers of all ages. Many see the dictatorship not as an episode from the past, but rather as a moment in a larger, complex process of modernisation in Brazil that inherited traditions of patriarchal, colonised and slaveholding societies. Memoirs reflecting upon the time of the dictatorship, in particular, have continued to come to light. Karepovs (2012), for example, studied the memoirs and biographies of militants who opposed the dictatorship, counting a total of 189 books by 173 authors. If he had included texts in the form of interviews and other formats, the number would have reached nearly 400. In 2014, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the 1964 coup, this tally expanded with the launch of eyewitness accounts by key participants such as José Serra, former president of the National Union of Students, and Almino Affonso (2014), who was Minister of Labour under the Goulart government. Memoirs by supporters of the coup and of military rule are also numerous and relevant. The earliest of these were penned by General Mourão Filho (1978), who initiated the coup, and Colonel Passarinho (1996), one of the leading cadres of military rule. Over the years, the number of pro-regime memoirists grew, with books by the economist Campos (1994) and the jurist Falcão (1989), not to mention civilian leaders. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 33

2 Marcelo Ridenti like Lacerda (1978), Viana Filho (1975) and Krieger (1977), and military leaders such as Abreu (1979) and Portella de Mello (1979). The testimonies that military members gave to the Centro de Pesquisa e Documentação de História Contemporânea do Brasil da Fundação Getúlio Vargas (Center for Research and Documentation of Contemporary History of Brazil, Getulio Vargas Foundation) are likewise particularly relevant (D Araújo and Soares, ). In his study comparing the retrospective accounts of dictatorship sympathisers with those written by leftist militants, Martins Filho (2009) finds that a major point of contention between the two sides pertains to the practice of torture, which the military continues to deny in spite of overwhelming evidence. On the whole, memoirs by dictatorship supporters provide useful insight into the specificity of military rule and its complex relationship with the civilians who supported it or were part of the government. The wave of memoirs written by opponents of the dictatorship began in the end of the 1970s with the books by the ex-guerrilla fighters Gabeira (1979), and Sirkis (1980), which became best sellers and are still read today. These, along with classic works by Garcia (1979), Gorender (1987) and Reis (1990), are part of an extensive bibliography that can be found in the new revised edition of O fantasma da revolução brasileira (The Phantom of Brazilian Revolution) (Ridenti, 1993, 2010). Much of this memorial literature might be considered in the light of what Sarlo (2007) called a subjective turn in the interpretations of the struggle against the dictatorship in Argentina. Sarlo argues that while the truth of subjective experience is very important (especially to punish those responsible for torture and murder), testimony should not be confused with objective historical analysis. Her point is not to deny the subjectivity of those affected or to call the subject of his or her truth into question, but to warn against confusing the right to remember with the truth of remembering. Problems arise when a culture of memory moves away from objectivity, treating testimony as if it were an icon of the truth or the most important resource for the reconstitution of the past. Yet that is not the case in Brazil: the dictatorship and the opposition to it have been analysed in many academic and journalistic investigations that seek objective knowledge. To-date, few memoirs from the period have been translated into English. One of these is A Mother s Cry (Sattamini, 2010), who describes the arrest, imprisonment and torture of her son, Marcos Arruda. Another is the book by the musician Veloso (2003) about the tropicalist movement and experiences in the 1960s and early 1970s that led him to jail and then exile. Dassin (1992), offers a useful overview of the first wave of testimonial literature about the armed struggle against the dictatorship in Brazil. Dassin (1986) was also responsible for the English-language publication of the report on torture and political repression made by the Archdiocese of São Paulo (Arns, 1985), the backstory of which received a dramatic retelling by Weschler (1990). Among Portuguese-languages works published in Brazil, some written by journalists, have become famous beginning with the pioneering O ato e o fato ( The act and the fact ) by Cony (1964), based on his chronicles published by the newspaper Correio da Manhã. More recent works include, among dozens of others, the series of four books by Gaspari (2002a, 2002b, 2003a, 2003b), and the biography of the communist leader Carlos Marighella by Magalhães (2012). Besides investigative journalism and memoirs, academic studies by historians, sociologists, political scientists and other experts have flourished. Scholars outside the formal academy have likewise made valuable contributions, such as the book by the historian Teles et al. (2009), which formed the basis for the list of 434 dead and missing persons disclosed by the National Truth Commission in its final report of December Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 37, No. 1

3 Brazilian Military Dictatorship in Historiographical Context In 2004, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the 1964 coup, Fico and his Group for the Study of Military Dictatorship at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro conducted a survey and identified hundreds of studies produced over the years about different aspects of the dictatorship (Fico, 2004b). This production has increased greatly since their study and encompasses memoirs, journalistic investigations and particularly scholarly research in all areas of the social sciences. According to Fico (2004a: 31) and Napolitano (2011: 210), historians lagged behind their colleagues in other disciplines in analysing the coup and dictatorship. Sociologists, economists, political scientists and journalists were the first to tackle the subject, often writing about events almost as they unfolded. This assessment may be accurate as far as Brazilian historians are concerned, since the first works by Starling (1986), Reis (1990), Fico (1997), Couto (1998) and others were produced only after the end of the dictatorship. It does not apply, however, to foreign historians (the so-called Brazilianists), who were among the first to address this issue. These include Skidmore (1967), Dulles (1970) and Black (1977). The books of those pioneers abroad were drawn from several different theoretical currents, yet were little influenced by historical materialism despite its considerable influence in Latin America, particularly in the Brazilian production in the 1960s and 1970s. Nowadays historians are actively revisiting the dictatorship period, as is evident in the number of studies published in connection with the 50th anniversary of the coup, including works by Reis (2014), Napolitano (2014), and Villa (2014), as well as by Motta (2014) and Ferreira and Gomes (2014). A few earlier works also merit mention, including those by Fico (2001, 2014) and Rollemberg (2008, 2010). Historians have debated various points, among them President Goulart s role before the coup. Ferreira (2011) and Ferreira and Gomes (2014) re-evaluated Goulart s performance and his status as a labour leader of social democratic inspiration faced with strong opposition from the right and the left. Other researchers present Goulart as incompetent and the potential leader of a coup. Works in this vein include the political biography by Villa (2004) and his recent book on military rule (2014), as well as the aforementioned volumes by Gaspari (2002a, 2002b, 2003a, 2003b). Another key debate relates to the role of US intervention. Those who emphasise the weight of US intervention for the coup include the journalist Tavares (2014) and the academic Bandeira (1997, 2001). Tavares wrote the script for the documentary film, The Day that Lasted 21 Years, directed by his son Camilo Tavares in 2013; it focuses on the role of US support for the coup, an issue also analysed by Fico (2008). Some American researchers had previously published books on the subject, including Black (1977) and Leacock (1990). In fact, there has long been a general consensus that the American government supported the coup in Brazil, although disagreements remain on how important that support was. More recently, thousands of US State Department documents about Brazil from 1963 to 1973 were made available online in the Opening the Archives Project at Brown University, directed by James Green. Green (2009) is also the author of a book about the many US citizens who opposed the Brazilian dictatorship and helped the opposition, independent of the position of the US government. Other debates deal with other aspects of the military rule, for instance: should the period be considered a military or a civilian-military rule? Could it be characterised properly as a dictatorship or rather as an authoritarian regime? (Linz (1973) wrote about the authoritarian regime while Guillermo O Donnell (1979) created the concept of Bureaucratic-Authoritarian State to describe military rule in Latin America). Another line of inquiry involves how to periodise the era and its various phases as well as to what extent it could be described as a ditabranda (soft dictatorship). The term Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 37, No. 1 35

4 Marcelo Ridenti ditabranda was already in use in the beginning of the 1980s in the work of Velasco e Cruz and Martins (1983). Additional questions probe the degree to which the military was politically autonomous and to what extent the military rule can be explained by the alliances and conflicts between the so-called moderates and hard liners. Others ask whether the regime was the result of a planned rational action, as proposed by Dreifuss (1981), or the result of chance and circumstance, as authors like Gaspari (2002a) argue. Still others analyse why the regime lasted so long, why it maintained the Congress for much of the time, and the consequences of doing so. Finally, some have explored the relationship between the dictatorship and the opposition, including to what extent the opposition was democratic and/or revolutionary, as well as if the military rule presents a break with or continuity of the political and economic process. All these questions remain open. Due to limitations of space, I will limit the remaining discussion to a question that gained prominence in academic debates generated by the 50th anniversary of the 1964 coup. It concerns the increasing use of the adjective civilian-military to characterise the coup and the dictatorship. Civilian-Military Coup and Dictatorship? Dreifuss (1981) was one of the first authors to conceptualise the events of 1964 as a civilian-military coup. He highlighted the involvement of entrepreneurs linked to organisations such as the Instituto de Pesquisa e Estudos Sociais (IPES, Institute for Research and Social Studies) and the Instituto Brasileiro de Ação Democrática (IBAD, Brazilian Institute of Democratic Action). Rather than a classic Bonapartist coup in which the Armed Forces were called as an external agent to ensure the peaceful continuity of private business (as argued in some of the literature), Dreifuss emphasised the bourgeois class character of the coup and ensuing rule as linked to international capital. Additional works in the 1980s likewise emphasised civilian participation, including by historians such as Heloisa Starling (1986) in her study of the coup in the State of Minas Gerais. A few works (Ridenti, 1993, 2000) followed the path opened by Dreifuss and used the term civilian-military. Martins Filho (2014: 4), who questions the idea of a civilian-military dictatorship, noted practically no controversy regarding this use of the term in my books, which were also influenced by Fernandes (1974), for whom military rule meant a sort of culmination of the long process of bourgeois revolution in Brazil, which was authoritarian and not democratic. Cardoso (1972) pointed in the same direction by analysing the military and technocratic autocracy in power after the coup as inseparable from the full realisation of capitalist development in Brazil. In this sense, Fernandes and Cardoso s works were precursors to the idea of a civilian-military rule, although they never used the term. Indeed, Fernandes and Cardoso helped construct an interpretation that prevailed in the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s. They stressed the bourgeois class character of the coup and the dictatorship that followed, which were essential to a pattern of accumulation with concentration of wealth, dependent on and associated with international capital. This interpretation clarifies the connections between Brazilian capitalism in its particularity, the coup and military rule. The risk in the interpretation is the minimisation of political factors, which were subject to an economic logic that would necessarily lead to authoritarianism. Aware of the risk, Dreifuss (1981) sought to emphasise the political action of entrepreneurs in mounting the 1964 coup, which he qualified as 36 Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 37, No. 1

5 Brazilian Military Dictatorship in Historiographical Context civilian-military. Since then, the use of the term gained ground, not only to qualify the coup, but also the dictatorship that followed. The concept of a civilian-military dictatorship has taken on a new meaning since at least the late 1990s, mostly through works by authors such as Reis (2000), Rollemberg (2010), Ferreira (2011), and others, many linked to the Universidade Federal Fluminense. They highlight the diversity of civilian support to the military without emphasising its bourgeois character. These authors use the term civilian-military to refer to the complicity of Brazilian society in general with the dictatorship. They criticise the tendency of social memory to assign only to the military all the responsibility for the events of the period and question the idea of a resistant civil society against the dictatorship. Rollemberg (2008, 2010), for example, inspired by Pierre Laborie s studies on Vichy and Nazi occupation of France during World War II, pointed to the existence of grey zones between supporting and opposing the dictatorship in her studies about the Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB, Brazilian Bar Association) and the Associação Brasileira de Imprensa (ABI, Brazilian Press Association). According to her, the terms military coup and military dictatorship would be sínteses que absolvem a sociedade de qualquer responsabilidade [ ] que negam o autoritarismo como produto da sociedade ( syntheses which absolve society from all responsibility [ ] which deny authoritarianism as a product of society ) (Rollemberg, 2010: 100). One strength of this kind of analysis is the understanding of military rule as a moment in a longer authoritarian tradition in Brazilian society, rather than as an unfortunate moment in history that has since been left behind, as if the main institutions were not still marked by authoritarian legacies to this day. The generic attribution of responsibility to the entire society, however, runs the risk of losing sight of the class character of the coup and dictatorship. What is needed are studies of the socially diffuse support that the regime actually had, provided that the different kinds of support are not taken as if they were equivalent in the historical process. Yet regardless of the actual participation of various groups and social classes, the dictatorship represented a turning point in the conservative modernisation process in Brazil, involving a concentration of wealth that objectively benefited mainly the ruling classes. The interpretation of the dictatorship as civilian-military may work against Reis (2000) original efforts to show the social web of authoritarian relations at play in the process (as opposed to restricting responsibility for the coup and dictatorship to the military alone). The civilian-military label risks not only diluting the responsibilities of the military as a social category, but also minimising the responsabilities of the business sectors that were the main beneficiaries of authoritarian modernisation and whose representatives led ministries and other public institutions during the dictatorship. Additionally, there is the danger of assenting to the discourse of the authors of the coup itself, who called it a civilian-military movement from the beginning. In their view, the military simply acted to answer the call of civil society, thus the coup and military rule were legitimate, expressing the will of the majority. So the risk for the scholar would be to assent to the mystifying ideology of the military instead of showing the complex social contradictions of the period. In other words, there is a risk that is not restricted to studies that use the term civilian-military of losing sight of the class character of the coup and dictatorship, as well as the authoritarian underpinnings of Brazilian capitalism. The risk of such an interpretation runs counter to what Dreifuss wanted to highlight: namely, the organising role of businessmen in the coup of 1964, which was also at the origin of the reflections by Reis. Although Reis considered that Dreifuss analysis overestimated the organisational Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 37, No. 1 37

6 Marcelo Ridenti capacity of the ruling classes, he called attention to the hegemony of international capital in the power bloc that was established after 1964 as a result of a broad social and political front of forces that joined to stage the coup (Reis, 1990: 22). None of this means that the military was a puppet, either of the bourgeoisie or of imperialism. Nor does it ignore the relative autonomy of their political actions. Rather, it highlights the class interests that the dictatorship served by consolidating certain type of capitalist development in Brazil. Pointing out the existence of these analytical risks does not in any way mean that we should stop the growing trend of investigating connections between civilian and military during the dictatorship. At the same time, it is also important that we continue to investigate the military specificities that set the political tone of the dictatorship. Indeed, the use of the terms military coup, military regime, military rule and military dictatorship does not necessarily imply ignoring that the military had connections with various sectors of civil society, particularly the business community, as suggested by Martins Filho (2014). Similarly, the use of the qualification civilian-military does not necessarily lead to disregarding the military specificity of the political process in the period. What matters is analysis of the complexity of the relations between civilian and military. In contrast with the trend of civilian-military as the interpretative framework, there is also an interpretive trend that minimises civilian participation both in the coup and the dictatorship. The classic work from this group is by American political scientist, Alfred Stepan (1971), who focused on the issue of internal unity of the armed forces as decisive for the coup and its developments. Stepan (1988) returned to the topic in his book on the military in Brazil and the Southern Cone. He argued that corporate and political interests of low-ranking military pre-1964, such as the possibility of organising trade unions and running for elections, helped to unite most of the officers on the need for a coup in defence of order, hierarchy and discipline. Gaspari (2002a, 2002b, 2003a, 2003b) follows this line in his own way, especially in regard to the importance of the action of some leaders in history. According to Gaspari, the military imposed a dictatorship when the hierarchy of the armed forces was threatened in Many years later, Generals Geisel and Golbery demobilised the dictatorship that they had helped create when they concluded that the hierarchy was in danger again. It had been threatened by the baderna (turmoil) before 1964 and by the tigrada (torturers) in the 1970s. This kind of analytic framework makes clear in many respects the political action of the military and its vision of politics. The risk here, however, is in losing sight of the insertion of the military in broader political struggles, involving various social actors and their complex relationship with the economic system. In order to respond to this kind of interpretation, it may be useful to talk about a civilian-military dictatorship. And that very conversation has taken on increasing importance. In his Google survey, the scholar, Martins Filho (2014) noted that the term civilian-military to qualify the dictatorship was used only eighteen times before 2000, but rose to 291 between 2001 and 2008, and reached 1059 between 2009 and The vast majority of authors, however, still use the term military to describe the coup and the rule that followed. (In Martins Filho s survey, the term military was used 15,100 between 2009 and 2012). This is the case in the work of Motta (2014), who is relatively close to the perspective of Reis and his group. Both emphasise the importance of political culture in the analysis of the Brazilian dictatorship, particularly the culture of political conciliation. His extensive research, based on many interviews and documents, shows the ambiguities of military rule and its opponents in the universities, where 38 Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 37, No. 1

7 Brazilian Military Dictatorship in Historiographical Context repression was tempered by negotiation and attempts at accommodation including mutual concessions, as is typical of the prevailing conciliatory political culture in Brazil. Independent of using the terms military or civilian-military, Reis, Motta, Rollemberg and others influenced by French historians such as Jean-François Sirinelli, Serge Bernstein and Pierre Laborie show, each in their own way, the intricate relationship of collaboration and resistance between some sectors of civil society and the dictatorship, in contrast to the memory built later, which focused on resistance to the coup and to the dictatorship that followed. There are also hybrid uses of the terms. Both Fico (2004a) and Napolitano (2014) characterise the coup as civilian-military due to its clear civilian connections, but they consider the dictatorship that followed as military, recognising that the political dynamics were controlled by the barracks. Napolitano argues that the political processes that led to the coup and then to the dictatorship were linked but had relative autonomy. As such, it matters less if an author uses the term military or civilian-military to characterise the coup, the rule, the regime or the dictatorship. What matters more is the way he or she analyses the subject, and the attention paid to the intricate relationship between the military and civilians that needs to be unveiled. The studies produced abroad generally use the traditional denomination of military rule. Some of the latest contribution of foreign authors such as Serbin (2000), Dunn (2001), Telles (2004), Pereira (2005), Lesser (2007), Green (2009), Langland (2013), Atencio (2014) and Schneider (2014) help clarify that the military dictatorship was not an isolated event but part of a longer authoritarian tradition, involving racism, patriarchalism, police abuse of power, and sexism, among other aspects. They contribute to a general trend in the study of the period, which places the dictatorship within the history of the establishment of modernity in Brazil, in a contradictory set of continuity and change. A book that clearly points in that direction is that of Hagopian (1996). By analysing the state of Minas Gerais, she demonstrates the existence of significant continuity in the Brazilian political system, with the persistence of personalist bases, patronage and regional relations between state and society that began before the dictatorship and continued after its end. Indeed, the dictatorship was a decisive chapter in the longer process of industrialisation and urbanisation of Brazil. The process can be characterised as a conservative modernisation, using the concept by Barrington Moore (1966). (Others might prefer to speak of passive revolution or the Prussian way, depending on their theoretical orientation, but all refer to the process of capitalist development under authoritarian control.) The complexity and tensions of the regime which had ambiguities and distinct phases can and should be seen as part of the Brazilian political tradition that continues until today. In that tradition, in a country with deep inequalities, the ruling classes incorporate in their own way the social pressure for change, and do so without making structural changes. The alleged modern is thus combined with the supposed archaic, and progress is then inseparable from delay. The various analyses of the coup and the dictatorship, in their reach and limitations, are, as Fico (2004b) and Napolitano (2011) suggest, perhaps more complementary than mutually exclusive. What matters is the articulation of the strictly political aspects in all their complexity (the specificity of the social struggles at every juncture) with the particularity of the military, the institutional construction, the many cultural aspects and the economic determinations. Doing so does not suppose that all analyses have the same depth, nor does it assume a conciliatory heterodox point of view. Rather, it signals an openness to understanding the complexity of the theme as a whole, including the Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 37, No. 1 39

8 Marcelo Ridenti contradictions of a dynamic society that had to change in order to remain the same, a reality which marks Brazilian history and makes it so difficult to interpret and to transform. References Abreu, H. (1979) O outro lado do poder. Nova Fronteira: Rio de Janeiro. Affonso, A. (2014) 1964 na visão do ministro d trabalho de João Goulart. Fundap; Impresa Oficial do Estado de São Paulo: São Paulo. Arns, P. E. (ed.) (1985) Brasil: nunca mais. Vozes: Petrópolis. Atencio, R. J. (2014) Memory s Turn: Reckoning with Dictatorship in Brazil. University of Wisconsin Press: Madison. Bandeira, M. (1977, 2001) O governo João Goulart, 7th edn. Civilização Brasileira: Rio de Janeiro. Black, J. K. (1977) United States Penetration of Brazil. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. Campos, R. (1994) A Lanterna na Popa. Topbooks: Rio de Janeiro. Cardoso, F. H. (1972) O modelo político brasileiro e outros ensaios. São Paulo: Difel. Cony, C. H. (1964) O ato e o fato. Civilização Brasileira: Rio de Janeiro. Couto, R. C. (1998) História indiscreta da ditadura e da abertura. Brasil: Record: Rio de Janeiro. D Araújo, M. C. and Soares, G. D. (eds.) ( ) A memória militar sobre o golpe, a memória militar sobre a repressão, a memória militar sobre a abertura. Relume Dumará: Rio de Janeiro. Dassin, J. (ed.) (1986) Torture in Brazil: A Report by the Archdiocese of São Paulo. Vintage Books: New York. Dassin, J. (1992) Testimonial Literature and the Armed Struggle in Brazil in J. Corradi, P. Weiss Fagen, and M. A. garretón (eds.) Fear at the Edge: State Terror and Resistance in Latin America. University of California Press: Berkeley and Los Angeles, Dreifuss, R. A. (1981) 1964: a conquista do Estado. Vozes: Petropolis. Dulles, J. W. F. (1970) Unrest in Brazil; Political-Military Crises University of Texas Press: Austin. Dunn, C. (2001) Brutality Garden: Tropicalia and the Emergence of a Brazilian Counterculture. University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill. Falcão, A. (1989) Tudo a Declarar. Nova Fronteira: Rio de Janeiro. Fernandes, F. (1974) A revolução burguesa no Brasil. Zahar: Rio de Janeiro. Ferreira, J. (2011) João Goulart uma biografia. Civilização Brasileira: Rio de Janeiro. Ferreira, J. and Gomes, A. de C. (2014) 1964, o golpe que derrubou um presidente. Civilização Brasileira: Rio de Janeiro. Fico, C. (1997) Reinventando o otimismo: ditadura, propaganda e imaginário social no Brasil. Fundação Getúlio Vargas: Rio de Janeiro. Fico, C. (2001) Como eles agiam: os subterrâneos da Ditadura Militar: espionagem e polícia política. Record: Rio de Janeiro. Fico, C. (2004a) Versões e controvérsias sobre 1964 e a ditadura militar. Revista Brasileira de História (São Paulo) 24(47): Fico, C. (2004b) Além do golpe: versões e controvérsias sobre 1964 e a ditadura militar. Record: Rio de Janeiro. Fico, C. (2008) O grande irmão: da Operação Brother Sam aos anos de chumbo. Civilização Brasileira: Rio de Janeiro. Fico, C. (2014) O golpe de 1964 momentos decisivos. Editora da FGV: Rio de Janeiro. Gabeira, F. (1979) O que é isso, companheiro? CODECRI: Rio de Janeiro. Garcia, M. A. (1979) Contribuição à história da esquerda Brasileira. Em Tempo: São Paulo. 40 Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 37, No. 1

9 Brazilian Military Dictatorship in Historiographical Context Gaspari, E. (2002a) As ilusões armadas A ditadura envergonhada, Vol. 1. Companhia das Letras: São Paulo. Gaspari, E. (2002b) As ilusões armadas A ditadura escancarada, Vol. 2. Companhia das Letras: São Paulo. Gaspari, E. (2003a) O sacerdote e o feiticeiro A ditadura derrotada, Vol. 3. Companhia das Letras: São Paulo. Gaspari, E. (2003b) O sacerdote e o feiticeiro A ditadura encurralada, Vol. 4. Companhia das Letras: São Paulo. Gorender, J. (1987) Combate nas trevas. A esquerda brasileira: das ilusões perdidas à luta armada. Ática: São Paulo. Green, J. (2009) We Cannot Remain Silent: Opposition to the Brazilian Dictatorship in the United States. Duke University Press: Durham. Hagopian, F. (1996) Traditional Politics and Regime Change in Brazil. Cambridge University Press: New York and Cambridge. Karepovs, D. (2012) Biografias de esquerda memórias sobre a ditadura. Perseu História, Memória e Política 8(6): Krieger, D. (1977) Desde as missões: saudades, lutas, esperanças. JoséOlympio: Riode Janeiro. Lacerda, C. (1978) Depoimento. Nova Fronteira: Rio de Janeiro. Langland, V. (2013) Speaking of Flowers: Student Movements and the Making and Remembering of 1968 in Military Brazil. Duke University Press: Durham. Leacock, R. (1990) Requiem for Revolution. The United States and Brazil, Kent State University Press: Kent. Lesser, J. (2007) A Discontent Diaspora: Japanese Brazilians and the Meaning of Ethnic Militancy, Duke University Press: Durham. Linz, J. (1973) The Future of an Authoritarian Situation in the Institutionalization of an Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Brazil in A. Stepan (ed.) Authoritarian Brazil. Yale University Press: New Haven, Magalhães, M. (2012) Marighella: o guerrilheiro que incendiou o mundo. Companhia das Letras: São Paulo. Martins Filho, J. R. (2009) The War of Memory: The Brazilian Military Dictatorship according to Militants and Military Men. Latin American Perspectives 36: Martins Filho, J. R. (2014) Adieu à la dictature militaire? Dossier: le coup d État militaire 50 ans après. Brésil(s) Sciences Humaines et Sociales. Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l Homme 5: Moore, B. Jr. (1966) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Beacon Press: Boston. Motta, R. P. S. (2014) As universidades e o regime militar. Zahar: Rio de Janeiro. Mourão Filho, O. (1978) Memórias: a verdade de um revolucionário. L&PM Ed: Porto Alegre. Napolitano, M. (2011) O golpe de 1964 e o regime military brasileiro apontamentos para uma revisão historiográfica in Contemporanea, Vol. 2, Año 2. Udelar: Montevideo, Napolitano, M. (2014) 1964 História do regime militar brasileiro. Contexto: São Paulo. O Donnell, G. (1979) Tensions in the Bureaucratic-Authoritarian State and the Question of Democracy in D. Collier (ed.) The New Authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton University Press: Princeton, Passarinho, J. (1996) Um híbrido fértil memórias. Expressão e Cultura: Rio de Janeiro. Pereira, A. (2005) Political (in) Justice: Authoritarianism and the Rule of Law in Brazil, Chile, and Argentina. University of Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh. Portella de Mello, J. (1979) A revolução e o governo Costa e Silva. Guavira Editores: Rio de Janeiro. Reis, D. A. (1990) A revolução faltou ao encontro. Brasiliense: São Paulo. Reis, D. A. (2000) Ditadura militar, esquerdas e sociedade. Zahar: Rio de Janeiro. Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 37, No. 1 41

10 Marcelo Ridenti Reis, D. A. (2014) Ditadura e democracia no Brasil. Zahar: Rio de Janeiro. Ridenti, M. (1993, 2010) O fantasma da revolução brasileira, 2nd edn. Ed. UNESP: São Paulo. Ridenti, M. (2000, 2014) Em busca do povo brasileiro artistas da revolução, do CPC à era da TV, 2nd edn. Record: Rio de Janeiro. Rollemberg, D. (2008) Memória, opinião e cultura política: a Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil sob a ditadura ( ) in D. A. Reis and D. Rolland (eds.) Modernidades Alternativas, Vol. 1: Fundação Getulio. Vargas: Rio de Janeiro, Rollemberg, D. (2010) As trincheiras da memória: a Associação Brasileira de Imprensa e a ditadura ( ) in D. Rollemberg and S. V. Quadrat (eds.) A construção social dos regimes autoritários, Vol. 2: Brasil e América Latina. Civilização Brasileira: Rio de Janeiro, Sarlo, B. (2007) Tempo passado cultura da memória e guinada subjetiva. Companhia das Letras and UFMG: São Paulo and Belo Horizonte. Sattamini, L. P. (2010) A Mother s Cry: A Memoir of Politics, Prison and Torture during the Brazilian Military Dictatorship. Duke University Press: Durham. Schneider, N. (2014) Brazilian Propaganda: Legitimizing an Authoritarian Regime. University Press of Florida: Gainesville. Serbin, K. (2000) Secret Dialogues: Church-State Relations, Torture, and Social Justice in Authoritarian Brazil. University of Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh. Serra, J. (2014) Cinquenta Anos Esta Noite o golpe, a ditadura e o exílio nas memórias de José Serra. Record: Rio de Janeiro. Sirkis, A. (1980) Os carbonários. Global: São Paulo. Skidmore, T. (1967) Politics in Brazil : An Experiment in Democracy. Oxford University Press: New York. Starling, H. (1986) Os senhores das Gerais: os novos inconfidentes e o golpe de Vozes: Petrópolis. Stepan, A. (1971) The Military in Politics; Changing Patterns in Brazil. Princeton University Press: Princeton. Stepan, A. (1988) Rethinking Military Politics: Brazil and the Southern Cone. Princeton University Press: Princeton. Tavares, F. (2014) 1964 o golpe. L&PM: Porto Alegre. Teles, J., Araújo, M. A. A., Almelda, C.AS., and Coimbra, C. M. (2009) Dossiê Ditadura: mortos e desaparecidos políticos no Brasil ( ), 2nd edn. Imprensa Oficial: São Paulo. Telles, E. (2004) Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil. Princeton University Press: Princeton. Velasco e Cruz, S. and Martins, C. E. (1983) De Castello a Figueiredo: uma incursão na pré-história da Abertura in B. Sorj and M. H. T. Almeida (eds.) Sociedade e política no Brasil pós-64. Brasiliense: São Paulo, Veloso, C. (2003) Tropical Truth: A Story of Music and Revolution in Brazil. Da Capo Press: New York. Viana Filho, L. (1975) O governo Castelo Branco. José Olympio: Rio de Janeiro. Villa, M. A. (2004) Jango, um perfil ( ). Globo: São Paulo. Villa, M. A. (2014) Ditadura à brasileira. Leva: São Paulo. Weschler, L. (1990) A Miracle, a Universe: Settling Accounts with Torturers. Penguin Books: New York. 42 Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 37, No. 1